Bye bye non compete - Page 2

cgh1999

10:58a, 4/27/24

Drawkcab said:
cgh1999 said:
I'm used to seeing/signing non-solicit documents. I can't call on clients or employees for a period of 1 year following my termination (with or without cause). I am compensated for this. It's annoying...but it doesn't prevent me from doing my job. It just makes me work a bit harder for a year.

How often is this a problem for you? Is your main business model just going around getting yourself fired and then after a year poaching clients and employees from your former employer?

I left a job that had a non solicit 10 years ago. I still have not taken a client or employee.

I've never actually had it be an issue with any of my colleagues or employees. I have seen situations where a manager will leave and take his whole team. That was more damaging than trying to take clients.

YouBet

11:44a, 4/27/24

In reply to Bonfire.1996

Bonfire.1996 said:
cgh1999 said:
Bonfire.1996 said:
Banks exempt from FTC oversight? What?

On my phone - what section are you referencing?
it was halfway through the article. SIFMA says banks aren't subject to FTC regulation. How could they be exempt?

I'm guessing because they are powerful. It's typical picking winners and losers. Look at California where the min wage law applied to fast food but not fast casual. So the cost gap between the two is closing significantly.

That rule was effectively a punitive ruling and a sin tax against fast food.

ChoppinDs40

10:54p, 4/27/24

In reply to 94chem

Live in Texas?

That noncompete is noneforcable.

She has received nothing (I assume) in return for signing her right to work away. And being employed currently is not compensation for such.

Does she get equity, a stay bonus, etc?

We live in a right to work state.

BDJ_AG

11:46p, 4/27/24

In reply to ChoppinDs40

ChoppinDs40 said:

That noncompete is noneforcable.

We live in a right to work state.

This is not correct. Right to Work is related to Union/Non-Union labor. Non-Competes are absolutely enforceable in Texas if they meet all the requirements under Texas law.

ChoppinDs40

11:46p, 4/27/24

In reply to BDJ_AG

With no provided compensation, it's not enforceable.

mavsfan4ever

12:15a, 4/28/24

In reply to ChoppinDs40

Consideration, not compensation. And consideration under Texas law can be as simple as providing confidential information to the employee. Do judges love to enforce them? Most don't. But they can.

Diggity

12:42a, 4/28/24

In reply to ChoppinDs40

Talking out of your ass

ChoppinDs40

1:47a, 4/28/24

In reply to Diggity

As someone who has signed and has also had other people sign these, without real consideration, they are virtually unenforceable.

I've seen similar judgments from labor attorneys provided on both sides of this.

Anyways, not to derail overall but 94chem's daughter has about a .001% chance of anything happening to her if she goes across the street to Walgreens.

Ol Jock 99

10:46a, 4/28/24

In reply to ChoppinDs40

Quote:
As someone who has signed and has also had other people sign these, without real consideration, they are virtually unenforceable

While true, Company saying "Joe Bob, we are going to enforce this via a lawsuit. Do you have a lawyer? They are expensive." can been pretty dang intimidating to Joe Bob.

94chem

5:42p, 4/30/24

In reply to ChoppinDs40

ChoppinDs40 said:
As someone who has signed and has also had other people sign these, without real consideration, they are virtually unenforceable.

I've seen similar judgments from labor attorneys provided on both sides of this.

Anyways, not to derail overall but 94chem's daughter has about a .001% chance of anything happening to her if she goes across the street to Walgreens.

Going across the street isn't the problem. The problem is when you only work part-time, and they tell you that you can't pick up a shift at a competitor. It's like Wendy's telling you that you can't get a second job at Burger King, even though Wendy's only gives you 10 hours/week.

94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough

bigtruckguy3500

6:25p, 4/30/24

In reply to BDJ_AG

BDJ_AG said:
ChoppinDs40 said:

That noncompete is noneforcable.

We live in a right to work state.

This is not correct. Right to Work is related to Union/Non-Union labor. Non-Competes are absolutely enforceable in Texas if they meet all the requirements under Texas law.

I'm not an expert in the law, but this is what I think too.

To that end, it makes zero sense for a state that is right to work/anti-union to allow non-competes. Just like I don't think people should be able to go on strike and the company have no ability to fire them, I don't think a company can treat you poorly and force you to quit, but give you no ability to find another job (thereby forcing you to stay).

We often say that if you don't like your work/hours/pay/etc., you're free to find a better job. But this prevents you from finding that better job, at least without jumping through ridiculous hoops like driving across town or something.

ThenamesAg

9:01a, 5/2/24

In reply to Ol Jock 99

Add on your new company may not want the headache of hiring you if its possible that you are not allowed to work for them due to the noncompete.

ChoppinDs is right that noncompetes in Texas are often more bark than bite, but its wrong to say they are not enforceable or will not have an impact on your freedom of movement.

cajunaggie08

9:10a, 5/2/24

In reply to ThenamesAg

I had a coworker get an offer from a competitor that would have been a significant raise and promotion. He told them about the non-compete that got slapped on us after a merger and they rescinded the offer just because they didn't want to deal with the possibility of a lawsuit

Furlock Bones

9:43a, 5/2/24

non-competes are over 90% BS in this country. at least in other country's if a company enforces a non-compete, it's for a specified time period and they have to pay you. no one should be arguing on behalf of non-competes.

bmks270

10:29a, 5/2/24

In reply to cajunaggie08

cajunaggie08 said:
I had a coworker get an offer from a competitor that would have been a significant raise and promotion. He told them about the non-compete that got slapped on us after a merger and they rescinded the offer just because they didn't want to deal with the possibility of a lawsuit

This is how it suppresses wages.

htxag09

10:35a, 5/2/24

In reply to cajunaggie08

cajunaggie08 said:
I had a coworker get an offer from a competitor that would have been a significant raise and promotion. He told them about the non-compete that got slapped on us after a merger and they rescinded the offer just because they didn't want to deal with the possibility of a lawsuit

I was in a similar situation, but going to a customer (different role). The company I was switching to just said if there is any hint of a lawsuit they were going to terminate me and I would be on my own for legal costs.

cajunaggie08

10:41a, 5/2/24

In reply to htxag09

htxag09 said:
cajunaggie08 said:
I had a coworker get an offer from a competitor that would have been a significant raise and promotion. He told them about the non-compete that got slapped on us after a merger and they rescinded the offer just because they didn't want to deal with the possibility of a lawsuit
I was in a similar situation, but going to a customer (different role). The company I was switching to just said if there is any hint of a lawsuit they were going to terminate me and I would be on my own for legal costs.

That sounds crazy that going to a customer could trigger a non-compete. When the non-complete was dropped on me after the merger we had 7 days to sign it or we would be terminated. I went to HR to complain to no avail. They said I still had plenty of outside job opportunities like going to a customer for example. I was just young enough to think talking to HR could actually help me.

htxag09

10:43a, 5/2/24

In reply to cajunaggie08

cajunaggie08 said:
htxag09 said:
cajunaggie08 said:
I had a coworker get an offer from a competitor that would have been a significant raise and promotion. He told them about the non-compete that got slapped on us after a merger and they rescinded the offer just because they didn't want to deal with the possibility of a lawsuit
I was in a similar situation, but going to a customer (different role). The company I was switching to just said if there is any hint of a lawsuit they were going to terminate me and I would be on my own for legal costs.
That sounds crazy that going to a customer could trigger a non-compete. When the non-complete was dropped on me after the merger we had 7 days to sign it or we would be terminated. I went to HR to complain to no avail. They said I still had plenty of outside job opportunities like going to a customer for example. I was just young enough to think talking to HR could actually help me.

It was one of those overarching, bull**** noncompetes that are the reason this legislation happened. Couldn't go to competitors, suppliers, customers, etc.

I was really cordial with them, but was still calling their bluff.

bmks270

1:14p, 5/2/24

Kind of stupid logic.

Option A)
Sign no-compete

Option B)
We fire you, causing you to compete (forcing the very thing we didn't want).

htxag09

1:17p, 5/2/24

In reply to bmks270

bmks270 said:
Kind of stupid logic.

Option A)
Sign no-compete

Option B)
We fire you, causing you to compete (forcing the very thing we didn't want).

I'd say more often than not its:

Option A)
Sign no-compete

Option B)
We don't hire you, therefore don't give you any of the "secrets" we have for you to take with you when you "compete"

bmks270

1:23p, 5/2/24

In reply to htxag09

htxag09 said:
bmks270 said:
Kind of stupid logic.

Option A)
Sign no-compete

Option B)
We fire you, causing you to compete (forcing the very thing we didn't want).
I'd say more often than not its:

Option A)
Sign no-compete

Option B)
We don't hire you, therefore don't give you any of the "secrets" we have for you to take with you when you "compete"

Yes, but in the case of the above poster, he or she already worked there, and the company was already invested in him or her.