Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Shamil, Oct 5, 2012.
I feel like I'm signing my life away.
Is the job worth agreeing to those stipulations and can you live with it if it ends up not being? If you could reasonably say no to either of those, I wouldn't sign it...personally.
It is a standard part of most, if not all employment agreements these days.
I have been in the workforce for 35 years and have never been required to sign one...and have worked in a wide variety of industries. Granted, I have been on my current job for over 8 years so things may have changed since the last time I was job hunting. Regardless, it would have to be a really good job before I would sign one.
Most non-compete clauses are not held up by courts.
Minor addendum. Most non-compete clauses are not held up by courts after employment. There are aspects of it that are enforceable during or after employment. It always depends on the language.
In my contract I was able to sign off on software I've developed that would not fall under the no-compete clause. It was also a bit more flexible in that they still allow me to do freelance work as long as it does not conflict with my daytime job (ie. no competing products).
You might want to ask them if they can revise this.
FYI, the non-compete clauses you're signing Shamil are unusually restrictive.
I'm pretty sure it's actually illegal. It basically says he's not allowed to work in the same industry for at least a year after quitting that company, which they can't possibly hold up in court (which you already implied).
Some of that contract is illegal.
This one stands out...
It is illegal to prevent an indivudal to seek employement... So you're free to get a 2nd, 3rd, or if you can manage well, even a 4th job.
This is true in America, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, and the list goes on and on.....
Of course there are some countries where that could hold up... China for example.
There is big difference on what companies and corporations would like you to believe they can force upon you and what rights you actually have, that can not be denied even under a "contract". I wish more people were aware of the difference.
Where you find employement is not something they can control. So tomorrow morning you could end up working for the guy next door and they can go f*ck themselves if they do not like it.
God there are so many things wrong with this ^^^^
I'd suggest you have both a lawyer and a civil rights lawer review that document. You'd at the very least get a laugh on what they both would tell you.
Requiring you to seek consent before being employed by someone is a fairly common clause in most contracts, but in most companies it is more a formality, so you don't end up working for a competitor during your employment.
I would never accept a non compete clause, though, but luckily over here they are usually not included in contracts, and not legal either, I think. If I ever signed such a contract I would basically not being able to get a job after I quit my job.
In Canada they seem fairly standard. I have yet to work at a company where they don't require one. They vary greatly though.
Actually, its not. While you are employed with a company, they can say you can't work for one of their competitors; courts will uphold this. But after you leave a company, most courts will not uphold a contract saying you can't then work for a competitor; thus forcing you to leave a business. Most people have a specific set of skills, suddenly telling them they can't use those skills for 2-3 years makes it so that they are forced to leave their business for good.
Also, in America, police officers are not legally allowed to "moonlight".
The document above says, anyone
It does not say, competitor.
That is illegal.
And yes, police officers are allowed to get other jobs outside of law enforcement.
Would working for yourself on the side (web hosting) be considered against the above? I think you mentioned this is a software or IT job so any sort of code consultation would be considered (to them) to be in violation.
I would never accept such a clause, cause I would have to commit to either that company, or just have to find a new set of skills. As I spent quite some time on my education (university degree) that really isn't a option for me. Especially since the industry I work for it is more about knowing people and knowing the right people, being out of the loop for just a year can leave you stranded, cause people in the loop will still be well known and connected. The only thing I would be able to accept would be a loyalty clause, in some cases (stay for a few years or so) and the standard STFU about our stuff clause.
Not every no compete clause is so restrictive. Mine basically only protects the company from having it's resources or employees poached, but I am still free to pursue my own projects, commercial or otherwise.
At one time, I was a tech rep for Xerox Corp. Their non-compete clause was terrible. They pretty much owned anything I produced or invented, even on my own time for a couple of years after I was in their employee.
Another company in Houston had one pretty much the same. I refused to sign and looked for another position.
If you sign something like that, you can end up a slave to the company. It is not right.
Separate names with a comma.