Has anyone refuse to sign a non-compete agreement @ work?

[awlchu]

I'm faced with a dilemma today.

Today, my employee is requiring all senior employees to sign a new agreement that beefs up the non-compete verbiage. When I started working for this Company (4+ years ago) I signed an intellectural property agreement. It lacked a non-compete clause. Mgt now wants seasoned employees to sign a second agreement with beefed up property verbiage and a new non-compete clause.

I work in a technical environment (engineering) in the state of Indiana.

Talking to friends outside of work it appears many companies will refuse to hire you if have on file a non-compete ( < 1 yr(. I guess too many Companies have been sued too many times over hiring.

I can see both sides of an agreement. Yet, I also know that I signed one agreement at hiring (terms of employment). Just unsure if I want to 'sign away' a second time inwhich the agreement is clearly in favor of my employer.

Anyone out there been faced with the same dilemma? Can you share any advice?

[SLK001]

This is obvious. Your employer doesn't want you competing with them while you are their employee. However, if they also require a non-compete agreement that extends beyond your employment, then it isn't worth the paper it's written on. You are entitled to make a living in the occupation of your choice (here, it is engineering). If you should quit, or get fired, then you are entitled to continue in the field of engineering. The only exception would be if your company continues your pay and benefits for the year that you are no longer their employee.

This is probably a shit project that some pin head manager cooked up to intimidate the employees. If your company lawyer got a look at the required document, he would probably freak out.

[Capmaster]

We all have to sign a conflict of interest statement saying we won't work a side job if we are in a position to influence our own profits at the side job. For example, say I started my own business making paper clips, and also say that I worked here at my company in the procurement department and was in charge of approving supplier contracts. That's a big no-no. But I could work in a related field on the side. Unfortunately there isn't much demand for nuclear weapons in the private sector

[SLK001]

Unfortunately there isn't much demand for nuclear weapons in the private sector

Not true... Sami bin Laden is looking for a "few good men" to help him develop his arsenal. I know that he has a standing offer for indo whenever indo wants to join Sami's team! However, living conditions at the job site ain't all that great!

[Capmaster]

Unfortunately there isn't much demand for nuclear weapons in the private sector

Not true... Sami bin Laden is looking for a "few good men" to help him develop his arsenal. I know that he has a standing offer for indo whenever indo wants to join Sami's team! However, living conditions at the job site ain't all that great!

You may be right. Nice to know my skills are marketable, even though that career path wouldn't be my first choice

[offline]

awlchu,

I had to leave over this issue. Had I signed I would have
been prevented in working in an allied industry for 4 years. When
I refused and gave two months notice, they upped my salary by
a third without notification and came back with a 2 year clause.

I dicked with them until the time period was up and left.
I can understand a security clause, a intellectual property agreement clause
even a puffed up piece of legalese saying I won't steal from them;
but a blanket exclusion clause is not on. Look for another job
while you delay them.

[The village idiot]

You can try to put in a clause that states they must pay you for the period of time that you can not work in any related field. You should also have words such that a competing company can buy out that contracted time from your present employer. Make sure that the clause is written such that they have to pay you even if they fire you, or if you quit. Otherwise they will just fire you when they are done, and you won't be able to work in your trained profession for an entire year.

Or you can always tell them no, and find a new job imediately, since they may fire you for not signing.

Keep in mind that if you do something like R&D for electronic circuits, they may be able to prevent you from even working at a TV repair shop (just to be bastards). If they won't take the payment clause, then I would do like Offline did, and start looking for anything else.

[adam]

SLK001 I deal with non-compete clauses all the time at work. I don't think I have ever seen one that didn't extend beyond the term of the employment. Most continue for 2 years after termination for any reason. Such clauses are very common now in employment contracts.

awlchu have you actually read the provisions of this agreement yet? Non-compete contracts are required to be reasonable as to scope. Usually they will be forced to place physical limitations on the effect of the agreement (ex: only applies to businesses located within X miles of their office, only applies to businesses in direct competition with them.) A non-compete clause that totally bars you from employment in the entire industry would not be enforceable. It is a shame though that some employers in your field appear to be so gun shy. You should go ahead and consult a lawyer before signing, to ensure that the terms are reasonable.

[indolikaa]

We all have to sign a conflict of interest statement saying we won't work a side job if we are in a position to influence our own profits at the side job. For example, say I started my own business making paper clips, and also say that I worked here at my company in the procurement department and was in charge of approving supplier contracts. That's a big no-no. But I could work in a related field on the side. Unfortunately there isn't much demand for nuclear weapons in the private sector

I beg to differ. Indolikaa Khan is always shopping.

I had to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement when I left Big Brother. It expires when I do. The content of the NDA included a "strongly-worded suggestion" that I avoid marketing my skills to foreign governments. Particularly those who think burning the US Flag is a spectator sport.

I once refused to sign a Non-Compete Clause that was being retroactively enforced. I packed up my shit and was working for their competitor the next day. And they weren't happy, because Indolikaa has a phenomenal memory and a willingness to hold a grudge.

So far as I know, Non-Compete Clauses are legal in all 50 states, but not enforceable in 'Right to Work' states like Arizona unless they are agreed upon before employment begins.

[housepig]

I've signed off on two or three of them, I'm not happy about it but since Minnesota is an "at will" state, I've been told that they are basically unenforceable.

and the fact that I've gone from one company to another to a third that are all direct competitors for the same industry, and I haven't been sued yet, seems to bear this out.

[offline]

Non-compete contracts are required to be reasonable as to scope

AFAIK at least where I am, there are few restrictions.

A non-compete clause that totally bars you from employment in the entire industry would not be enforceable

.

Maybe - but in certain areas things can be made uncomfortable.

For such a contract to be invalid, there must be an unlawful element.
Regardless you would be crazy to sign now and then try and argue it was unlawful later down the track. Also consider the possible reasons
why this is being presented to you at this time. Might your employer
want to play pin the tail on the change management donkey?

Delay; see a private lawyer.;avoid HR and make a decision - discuss
with family etc. Your co. may even accept a revised contract!?
Best of luck to you!

[indolikaa]

Delay; see a private lawyer.;avoid HR and make a decision - discuss with family etc. Best of luck to you!

Good advice.

[adam]

A non-compete clause that totally bars you from employment in the entire industry would not be enforceable

.

For such a contract to be invalid, there must be an unlawful element.

I don't know anything about Australian law but that sounds hard to believe. A contract doesn't have to be unlawful to be unenforceable. There are numerous ways in which a contract can be defective without it violating any law. It can be ambiguous or contradictory, or overbroad. It can be violative of public policy (not any particular law), it can be signed while a party is under duress. A contract can be unenforceable simply because one of the parties forgot to sign it. There's nothing unlawful about any of this, its simply nonenforceable.

[DVD_Ripper]

That non-compete verbiage is such B.S. ... An associate of mine got FIRED from Siemens and because of that non compete clause he could not persue jobs with any of Siemens competitors. Ummm, his specialty was Medical software... not too many jobs to begin with and then not many were open due to clause...

Tough call... i'd sign it if dumped in my lap....

Damn... can't wait till house is paid off ... Home Depot here I come

[offline]

Delay; see a private lawyer.;avoid HR and make a decision - discuss with family etc. Best of luck to you!

Good advice.

You are too kind sir.
Beats the advice I gave you that time:
"Sign in blood, see a witch Dr., point the bone, hire a psychic , consult
the stars, and turn up for work naked and molest the CEO's PA."

[flaninacupboard]

I don't know anything about Australian law but that sounds hard to believe. A contract doesn't have to be unlawful to be unenforceable. There are numerous ways in which a contract can be defective without it violating any law. It can be ambiguous or contradictory, or overbroad. It can be violative of public policy (not any particular law), it can be signed while a party is under duress. A contract can be unenforceable simply because one of the parties forgot to sign it. There's nothing unlawful about any of this, its simply nonenforceable.

That being the case, could you not sign and simply say later you signed under duress for fear of losing your job?

[hech54]

I've only heard of one "occupational environment" in America that REALLY enforces this stupidity...and that is the Broadcasting(TV and Radio personalities) Industry....but that only applies if you leave a Chicago TV station as a news anchor and try to go to another Chicago TV station as a news anchor. They will hire you but give you a desk job, associate producer job or similiar "behind the scenes" job until the clause you signed with your previous employer expires.
If you change cities(markets)....you can be "on air" right away.

[indolikaa]

Delay; see a private lawyer.;avoid HR and make a decision - discuss with family etc. Best of luck to you!

Good advice.

You are too kind sir.
Beats the advice I gave you that time:
"Sign in blood, see a witch Dr., point the bone, hire a psychic , consult
the stars, and turn up for work naked and molest the CEO's PA."

That advice you gave me looked to be doomed from the start, until I showed up to work and the CEO was shooting heroin into a sheep's leg while watching Gay Cowboys Eating Vanilla Pudding on his secretary's 17" LCD display.

Venus was inline with Uranus and the Dog Star was humping Orion's leg, and Cleo was on vacation. Not good. So I just got stoned drunk in the lobby.

I mean, why risk it?

[offline]

A contract doesn't have to be unlawful to be unenforceable.

Yes, a poor choice of words on my part. What I should have said
is that there is no specific statute against blanket exclusion clauses in employment contracts in Australia.

There are elements of common law but they are mostly obiter,
and while you can drag out various IR elements, the statement
I made is still in effect in theory. I say theory because I'm not
as complete a fool as to say otherwise , as this would be a supreme crt.
matter and could go either way based on the law and facts
in the case.

[offline]

Venus was inline with Uranus and the Dog Star was humping Orion's leg

I must learn never to tangle with the master...

besides.. that is Northern Hemisphere stuff,
you're supposed to get the giant crab after seeing
the southen star and weeing in the big dipper.

I will never learn.

[awlchu]

I have read the new agreement. It is certainly one-sided, geared towards the Company (of course).

Is it reasonable, especially the non-compete clause? Compared to other agreements I have signed this is probably more reasonable than others. The agreement makes an effort to differentiate between 'awareness' and 'in-depth technical knowledge' for projects. I mean, the agreement does not come out and say you cannot go work for a competitor. It does imply (if you can read pig-Latin in a dim light) that one cannot go work for a competitor AND work on a project that is KNOWNINGLY in competition with my current employer. It is broad because I'm exposed to alot of projects that I have knowledge of. (Just not 'in-depth' knowledge which I think the agreement pushes.)

One positive thing has occurred: Our HR department has agreed to bring in the lawyer that wrote the agreement for an A and Q with us.

Another positive is I convinced them to release the agreement to ALL employees (I'm in a role that I see thes things before the masses) so that one can read it PRIOR to the meeting. (yes, HR was not going to release the agreement until the day of reckoning, so to speak. I quickly corrected that flawed train of thought.)

What am I going to do? I'm going to sign it. As a family man with kids, a mortgage, and car payment, I cannot risk to be 'singled out'. (If you're reading this and have been employed in a Corporation, you can relate.) Yes, polictics still play in role in Corporate America. It sucks

thanks everyone!