Non-Compete
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2024, 17:46 last edited by
Non-competes are generally worthless if a former employee chooses to challenge them anyway. The only time that I’ve heard of them actually standing up to a court challenge was in the case of an employee taking his client list directly to a competitor.
-
@George-K said in Non-Compete:
ban employers from requiring workers to sign non-competes and require recission of existing non-competes.
Doesn't that take a bargaining chip away from the employees?
wrote on 20 Apr 2024, 17:46 last edited by@Copper said in Non-Compete:
@George-K said in Non-Compete:
ban employers from requiring workers to sign non-competes and require recission of existing non-competes.
Doesn't that take a bargaining chip away from the employees?
Quite the opposite.
-
Non-competes are generally worthless if a former employee chooses to challenge them anyway. The only time that I’ve heard of them actually standing up to a court challenge was in the case of an employee taking his client list directly to a competitor.
wrote on 20 Apr 2024, 18:11 last edited by RenaudaHere they only work or have teeth if the non compete is accompanied by a substantial financial payout to the employee.
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2024, 18:29 last edited by
Has to be some form f compensation here as well.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2024, 02:00 last edited by
There must be some way to take into account not transferring company "secrets" and strategies. NDA's or non-competes do serve a purpose.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2024, 02:02 last edited by
Trade secrets can be protected, but non-competes are very hard to craft such that they will stand up. They have to be very narrow.
-
Trade secrets can be protected, but non-competes are very hard to craft such that they will stand up. They have to be very narrow.
wrote on 21 Apr 2024, 02:19 last edited by@Mik Maybe trade secrets is not the right term, but I think that a person can gain a lot of company knowledge that would be very valuable to another company, even if it is not direct "quantitative" information, but more "qualitative" information.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2024, 03:06 last edited by
Yes, that will happen in the course of employment. But it should not keep you from seeking employment in your field. A non-compete is what finally led me to go out on my own in consulting. They demanded I sign one and I declined.
-
@Mik Maybe trade secrets is not the right term, but I think that a person can gain a lot of company knowledge that would be very valuable to another company, even if it is not direct "quantitative" information, but more "qualitative" information.
wrote on 21 Apr 2024, 11:56 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Non-Compete:
Maybe trade secrets is not the right term, but I think that a person can gain a lot of company knowledge that would be very valuable to another company
The situation in the medical field is quite different. The only "asset" you could probably take with you is your patient base. If you're someone without an office (radiology, pathology, anesthesiology) I don't understand why a non-compete would be justifiable, and yet, they exist.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Non-Compete:
Maybe trade secrets is not the right term, but I think that a person can gain a lot of company knowledge that would be very valuable to another company
The situation in the medical field is quite different. The only "asset" you could probably take with you is your patient base. If you're someone without an office (radiology, pathology, anesthesiology) I don't understand why a non-compete would be justifiable, and yet, they exist.
wrote on 22 Apr 2024, 00:59 last edited by@George-K In your case, who would you be signing one with?
-
@George-K In your case, who would you be signing one with?
wrote on 22 Apr 2024, 01:06 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Non-Compete:
@George-K In your case, who would you be signing one with?
If your employer (group) had a non-compete, you'd have to find a job which is anywhere from 10-20 miles farther than your original place. Probably at least a 45 minute drive more.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2024, 02:45 last edited by
A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday partially blocked a U.S. Federal Trade Commission rule from taking effect that would ban agreements commonly signed by workers not to join their employers' rivals or launch competing businesses.
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas said in a written decision the FTC, which enforces federal antitrust laws, lacked the power to adopt broad rules prohibiting practices that it deems unfair methods of competition. -
wrote on 16 Aug 2024, 01:22 last edited by
A federal judge in Florida has temporarily blocked a U.S. Federal Trade Commission rule that would ban agreements commonly signed by workers not to join their employers' rivals or launch competing businesses, becoming the second judge to rule that the ban is likely invalid.
-
wrote on 16 Aug 2024, 01:26 last edited by LuFins Dad
Get your popcorn… my guess is that it ultimately gets overturned and the ban goes into effect.
-
T taiwan_girl referenced this topic on 24 Aug 2024, 01:59
-
wrote on 4 Sept 2024, 22:52 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Apr 2024, 22:53
Had drinks with my old Credit Suisse buddies last night. It got me thinking about this topic, because I like the way the banking industry handles it. The typical non-competes stops you from working for a competitor for 6 months.
It seems to strike a good balance - it inhibits you from bringing leads from one employer to another, gives the ex-employer time to have new employees build relationships with your old clients, while not banning you from working in your own industry.
The phrase they use is ‘gardening leave’. You get an offer from a new bank and quit your job, and have six months to tend to your garden.
