I have signed non-compete's for my company when working with other companies on a joint customer. And in a few cases I have walked away from customers because of a noncompete. I have never forced employees to sign them but that will change. We can be in competition for a customer from much larger companies and for our new personnel it could take two years to bring someone up to speed in consulting and our product. A lot of expense and training.
A few years ago, I heard from a customer that one of our sales personnel was leaving and was accumulating customer lists and contacts. That person went to a competitor, and it severally impacted our business. It is next to impossible to prove that proprietary information was taken.
This country no longer employs kids in coal mines or in sweatshops. The young woke babies coming out of college need to grow a pair and understand the value of both sides entering into employment agreements. And you can always say, "take this job and shove it." But I suspect this new generation from our educational system hellbent on cuddling and safe spaces never learned and can't comprehend basic negotiation skills.
What other contracts will the government then ban if these proposed ban is successful? IMHO to eliminate them would simply be another sample of unnecessary involvement in private contractual relations. They are under attack because of the perceived imbalance of power that businesses on occasion appear to have over their employees, but their elimination would only reverse that balance of power - an employee could in effect gain the upper hand in negotiations by threatening to join a competitor. I would suggest certain guardrails be legislated ( not adopted by agency rule making ) instead. First, if a non compete is requested of a current employee at any point subsequent to their hiring, if they choose to not sign and are fired that they are required to be paid one year severance pay at the rate of their current compensation, which should allow sufficient time to conduct a new job search without the pressure of having no income stream. Second, if an employee with an existing non compete is fired or furloughed ( which clearly involves an imbalance of power) , that they are entitled to compensation at the ( admittedly arbitrary) rate of 70% of their compensation at the time of the firing for the length of their non compete agreement. That should provide enough of a financial disincentive to the employer to keep the contractual non compete period as short as possible, rather than asking for one of unnecessary length. Third, when possible the employee should request that the specific competitors in whose case the agreement would be invoked are identified by name at the time of execution, and any amendments to that list requested by either party ( since markets evolve over time) that cannot be mutually agreed upon are settled by a defined arbitration process. In my 60 years of employment and business ownership subsequent to college graduation I have never been requested to sign or have required an employee to sign a non compete, but these requirements would seem to me to provide a reasonable balance of the drawbacks and benefits to each side of the agreements. These ideas are suggested with the recognition that a trained lawyer might find tweaks that need to be made to agree with existing legal doctrine.
Non-compete agreements. The push to remove the Intellectual Property provision is part of an overarching plan to dismantle business and allow government control of proprietary content. Break private business - right out of the Democrat-communist playbook. This plan along with foreign nationals in our research universities will be two methods to pull IP out of the US. As for businesses with less consequential IP, the intent is stop job mobility - another method to control people.
I have signed non-compete's for my company when working with other companies on a joint customer. And in a few cases I have walked away from customers because of a noncompete. I have never forced employees to sign them but that will change. We can be in competition for a customer from much larger companies and for our new personnel it could take two years to bring someone up to speed in consulting and our product. A lot of expense and training.
A few years ago, I heard from a customer that one of our sales personnel was leaving and was accumulating customer lists and contacts. That person went to a competitor, and it severally impacted our business. It is next to impossible to prove that proprietary information was taken.
This country no longer employs kids in coal mines or in sweatshops. The young woke babies coming out of college need to grow a pair and understand the value of both sides entering into employment agreements. And you can always say, "take this job and shove it." But I suspect this new generation from our educational system hellbent on cuddling and safe spaces never learned and can't comprehend basic negotiation skills.
What other contracts will the government then ban if these proposed ban is successful? IMHO to eliminate them would simply be another sample of unnecessary involvement in private contractual relations. They are under attack because of the perceived imbalance of power that businesses on occasion appear to have over their employees, but their elimination would only reverse that balance of power - an employee could in effect gain the upper hand in negotiations by threatening to join a competitor. I would suggest certain guardrails be legislated ( not adopted by agency rule making ) instead. First, if a non compete is requested of a current employee at any point subsequent to their hiring, if they choose to not sign and are fired that they are required to be paid one year severance pay at the rate of their current compensation, which should allow sufficient time to conduct a new job search without the pressure of having no income stream. Second, if an employee with an existing non compete is fired or furloughed ( which clearly involves an imbalance of power) , that they are entitled to compensation at the ( admittedly arbitrary) rate of 70% of their compensation at the time of the firing for the length of their non compete agreement. That should provide enough of a financial disincentive to the employer to keep the contractual non compete period as short as possible, rather than asking for one of unnecessary length. Third, when possible the employee should request that the specific competitors in whose case the agreement would be invoked are identified by name at the time of execution, and any amendments to that list requested by either party ( since markets evolve over time) that cannot be mutually agreed upon are settled by a defined arbitration process. In my 60 years of employment and business ownership subsequent to college graduation I have never been requested to sign or have required an employee to sign a non compete, but these requirements would seem to me to provide a reasonable balance of the drawbacks and benefits to each side of the agreements. These ideas are suggested with the recognition that a trained lawyer might find tweaks that need to be made to agree with existing legal doctrine.
"sexy topic?" Good one, Mr Daly! Harry's book? Absolutely not, could not care less. Rock band Queen, one of the all time greats, in my opinion.
"Gordon is alive"
Non-compete agreements. The push to remove the Intellectual Property provision is part of an overarching plan to dismantle business and allow government control of proprietary content. Break private business - right out of the Democrat-communist playbook. This plan along with foreign nationals in our research universities will be two methods to pull IP out of the US. As for businesses with less consequential IP, the intent is stop job mobility - another method to control people.