Non-compete
- Thread starter VilleCat_rivals377292
- Start date
Agree, but regarding stealing customers that's actually referred to as "non solicitation". It's common for companies that have employees that deal with customers to signed both a non compete and a non solicitation agreement or sometimes there are incorporated together.
I work in the insurance industry, but not on the sales side. I've seen a lot of agent that had no compete, but it is rare to see them enforced. Obviously a company doesn't want someone to leave and take all that business with them. But you see agents leave one insurance company for another frequently. Technically, they cannot solicit that business because of no-compete stuff...but what if the CUSTOMER initiates (wink, wink) the decision? If a customer says, "I want to move my business to ABC Insurance Company and have YZ as my agent", then there isn't really much legally to prevent that from happening.
Like many things, I think it would come down to picking your fights. If one agent leaves, and starts to take their $300,000 worth of accounts with them, a company may feel it isn't worth the legal fees. If it is a large agent with $5M worth of accounts, then they may well be more aggressive in trying to enforce.
Like many things, I think it would come down to picking your fights. If one agent leaves, and starts to take their $300,000 worth of accounts with them, a company may feel it isn't worth the legal fees. If it is a large agent with $5M worth of accounts, then they may well be more aggressive in trying to enforce.
Sucks how they kidnap employees and lock them in a room until they sign.
A lot of it depends on whether or not your current employer wants to enforce it. As Kel noted, sometimes they feel it's not worth it. Also, it depends on whether or not the new company wants to cover your butt. Some will. Some won't. I would specifically ask the new company if they've hired anyone from your current company previously who also had a non-compete and how they handled it. Lastly, as many others said, consult with a good labor attorney. They can help you determine what is legally binding and what is not.
Where I worked it was stipulation to sign the non compete clause before being hired.
This is supposed to be capitalism. If your business can't sustain a loss of an employee, you don't have a business.
Cool. You should tell the countless employers that have non-compete clauses that they don't have a business.
After that, try to reconcile how you can complain that employers have too much power in one post, and champion capitalism in the next.
Probably thinks the kid at McDonalds asking if you want fries with that deserves $15/hr too.
Just as the employee wasn't forced to sign the document or take the job. It's part of the contract.
We use them for high level employees. The techs and field staff are only required to sign confidentiality agreements. Pretty unfair to put a non compete on anyone below management. Hard to enforce as well if you can't prove the employee can cause harm to your business.
Granted it would not be a cheap legal battle. My suggestion is do the leg work and if you decide to leave go quietly and don't go after their clients or employees. Just fall off their grid.
What you all are posting makes no sense.
Not a direct response to what you said, but I don't see how someone can be for non competes and for RTW.
And no. I don't think fast food workers should be paid a minimum of $15 an hour.
My opinion is that union are not needed if good management is in place.
I'm not necessarily for non-competes but it is the law and I support the rule of law. As long as they are allowed they should be enforced.
And most employees who would be eligible for unions or fall under RTW laws won't be asked to sign them anyway.
Maybe that's the issue here. Only a small percentage of employees are asked to sign them. Even companies that use them only use for a small percentage of employees.
If you are happy with your employer otherwise, why not just try and leverage the offer? Non competes are terrible for the most part. If you don't work it out with your employer then they get an employee who is there a bit under duress.
Seems these things can usually be worked out thru negotiation with the current employer or a change in job description with the perspective employer. I would definitely seek a legal opinion and make sure to keep some good graces at the current employer though.
Seems these things can usually be worked out thru negotiation with the current employer or a change in job description with the perspective employer. I would definitely seek a legal opinion and make sure to keep some good graces at the current employer though.
What percentage of non-compete violations would you guess are successfully prosecuted?
No idea. Not a whole lot are going to be litigated but I'd say if those that are the employer wins more often than not. Good question I'll see if I can find an answer
Those evil employers.
Putting food on tables since great great grandpa......
No big deal.
Putting food on tables since great great grandpa......
No big deal.
Its very common for my industry and makes sense in it, but the extent and provisions of the non-compete are usually discussed and negotiated before signing. Changing of a job description or title at the new company would go a long way towards making it easier to get out of, I would imagine. Either way they are and have been very successfully enforced in my line of work.
Nope, I wanted to work for them, but they made it plain that I had to sign the non-compete clause to work there.
I had no problem with it.
They aren't litigated often...too often not worth the trouble. When they are litigated, getting a judge to rule is key for the employer. If it goes before a jury, usually the employee wins.