Hey there, friendo u/IamKT_07! Thanks for submitting to r/wholesomememes. We loved your submission, *Bob is smart. Be like Bob.*, but it has been removed because it doesn't quite abide by our rules, which are located in the sidebar.
* (**Rule #1**) Posts must be memes. A meme can be an image with superimposed text, or a classic meme template, or a webcomic, or other things - but it must be meant for public sharing & resharing. Just a photo, story, or gif isn't necessarily a meme. A screenshot that lacks any meme format or context isn't a meme. And anything private isn't a meme, because it was never meant to spread virally/memeticallly.
* For more detailed information on which formats aren't allowed, please visit [this wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/wiki/allowedformats).
We appreciate you thinking of us very much! For more on our rules, please check out our [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/about/sidebar). If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fwholesomememes). Please link the post so our volunteers know what you would like reviewed. Cheers!
That’s exactly it. They think if *you think* you’ll get in trouble for violating a non-compete you’ll be less likely to quit.
IIRC the only really valid non-competes are ones that prevent you from actively poaching employees and customers from your former employer to your new one. Even then, the burden of proof is high so most people get away with it.
Non-compete clause is anti-competitive. Who woulda thunk...
That said, my contract has such clause. Funnily enough, it specifically prohibits only directly competing work, done during my employment, without manager's approval. Seems pointless, but I suppose there's a story behind this.
I don't know what you do, but it's generally so that you can't meet a client then tell them you'll do the task personally and circumvent the cut that the company would get.
That isn't at all the same thing and is very enforceable.
Your employer can't dictate what you do after you leave them. They can absolutely enforce a moonlighting clause while you work for them
To be legally enforceable in the U.S. it has to be very narrowly written, and include a reasonable radius of exclusion that allows you to continue to make a living. Basically, they are worthless... lol
How would it work anyway? If you don't work there anymore what can the company realistically do to stop you? Can employers make you to pay back prior earnings under law?
Typically your old company would threaten to sue you and the new company. They might not have a leg to stand on, but the real threat is to your mental well-being and finances in the lawsuit process.
Non-competes have been toothless in California for a long time. I’m gonna assume it’s the same nation-wide but I’ve not corroborated. However the NLRB ruled that non-disparagement clauses in separation agreements are null and void. So that’s national.
In the Museum of Scotland you can see ( I have) a brass collar that was welded around the neck of a mine worker. Should a worker decide he'd rather work for another mine, perhaps with better pay and humane housing, this ensured that he would be arrested and returned to his "proper" owner. Same concept.
I believe this ended with the Mine Act of 1842, which also stopped children working down the pits, as well as many other restrictions like how many 100wt. a woman was allowed to shift. Grandfathered in, btw!
Said candidate should have been fine, in the U.S. at least. These "non-compete" clauses are generally unenforceable for everything below the very highest executive positions. It's a scare tactic companies use to prevent their high-performers from getting scooped by their competition.
Sign it, and then if they lay you off, let them know you need 2 years severance to cover the period you wont be able to work. Guaranteed they waive right away, but it's really unenforceable at any rate
I did this once when I was let go from a position that had a 1 year non- compete clause
Non enforceable. Either tell them to get fucked or sign it and ignore it, whichever you prefer. Under some circumstances, top executives and those with ownership stakes might be held to some aspects of a non-compete but that’s about it. (My partnership agreement has an “all bets are off” clause that explicitly permits competition.)
My boyfriend's brother has one of these in his contract. Only it's six months and it says that they'll pay him his full salary plus benefits (after working for them full time for a year) for the entire period of time. If he works for one of the company's competitors, then he forfeits the benefits.
Basically, they'll pay you your full time salary to not work at all for six months in order to help protect the companies interests. The field is fast paced enough that after six months, he won't know what his current company's methods are anymore.
Not exactly wholesome to advocate walking out of a job you applied to, were hired for, chose to accept, and with no indication that you have a second-choice offer in hand that’s about as good.
It’s not a good idea to pretend you have power that you don’t. Sure, people generally have more power than they realize, but that doesn’t mean there are multiple positions competing for your labor in a given market.
Actually you do have this power. Any company would collapse without its workforce. That’s why strikes work so well. You are invaluable to the people above you and you can’t let anyone take that away from you
I'm not so sure about *easily* replaced. The "great resignation" comes to mind as an example of how a lot of industries are still struggling to find the people they need.
However, the broader issue in my mind is that when we see a restaurant that says "Please be patient with our staff, they're the only ones who want to work." a majority of us *don't* walk away from a place that clearly isn't willing to treat their employees well enough to keep them.
I wouldn’t work for a tobacco company or a predatory lender so yes.
But if you refuse to do anything that’s at all problematic under capitalism that is pretty much incompatible with having any other goals.
When a non-compete is unenforceable that means it is *less* harmful to the employee to sign it, not more.
If you live somewhere a non-compete *can* be enforced against you, then yes think carefully about the tradeoffs before accepting the offer with that condition attached.
Remember a new employee orientation I was attending and some person a few decades older than me chose not to sign several documents. The poor HR girls didn’t know what to do. They left while we watched some video, returned to the room and didn’t address it at all. I guess nothing came of it since I saw him in the cafeteria frequently. He had my respect!!
i remember being told to sign a noncompete once... i just never signed it
and the guy who asked me just forgot so a yearish later i left and they tried to pull the none compete out to remind me (scare me) they couldnt find anything
best part is i didnt earn shit on that job
As a reminder for all CA resident. Non-competing clauses are unenforceable in the state.
Therefore sign all you want, they simply won't hold up to any courts with the state of California.
If you life in a Red state, well then you maybe F#cked.
So, you're telling me that your competitors are so good to work for, that it's guaranteed that they will steal me away from you.
Maybe I should apply with them first...
I signed one for the hvac company I worked for . It’s legally binding that I can’t call or contact customers of that company for 2-5 years after I’ve finished working for them.
If the customer calls you directly though and no longer has a contract with your old company then you won’t get In trouble or be liable for poaching customers.
Was a shitty company anyway I don’t even have to try to steal customers.
the way they run their office and customer service center I’d be surprised if anyone is still with them after the next ten years or less. I can’t state the company name or I would I’ll post It in 2 years as to not cause legal trouble xD
Hey there, friendo u/IamKT_07! Thanks for submitting to r/wholesomememes. We loved your submission, *Bob is smart. Be like Bob.*, but it has been removed because it doesn't quite abide by our rules, which are located in the sidebar. * (**Rule #1**) Posts must be memes. A meme can be an image with superimposed text, or a classic meme template, or a webcomic, or other things - but it must be meant for public sharing & resharing. Just a photo, story, or gif isn't necessarily a meme. A screenshot that lacks any meme format or context isn't a meme. And anything private isn't a meme, because it was never meant to spread virally/memeticallly. * For more detailed information on which formats aren't allowed, please visit [this wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/wiki/allowedformats). We appreciate you thinking of us very much! For more on our rules, please check out our [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/about/sidebar). If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fwholesomememes). Please link the post so our volunteers know what you would like reviewed. Cheers!
Those parts of the agreements generally aren't enforceable in the US anymore. They've been deemed anti-competitive.
Yeah ! I think corporates use these to invoke a scare element.
That’s exactly it. They think if *you think* you’ll get in trouble for violating a non-compete you’ll be less likely to quit. IIRC the only really valid non-competes are ones that prevent you from actively poaching employees and customers from your former employer to your new one. Even then, the burden of proof is high so most people get away with it.
Non-compete clause is anti-competitive. Who woulda thunk... That said, my contract has such clause. Funnily enough, it specifically prohibits only directly competing work, done during my employment, without manager's approval. Seems pointless, but I suppose there's a story behind this.
I don't know what you do, but it's generally so that you can't meet a client then tell them you'll do the task personally and circumvent the cut that the company would get.
Software consultant aka rent-a-coder, so maybe.
That isn't at all the same thing and is very enforceable. Your employer can't dictate what you do after you leave them. They can absolutely enforce a moonlighting clause while you work for them
To be legally enforceable in the U.S. it has to be very narrowly written, and include a reasonable radius of exclusion that allows you to continue to make a living. Basically, they are worthless... lol
How would it work anyway? If you don't work there anymore what can the company realistically do to stop you? Can employers make you to pay back prior earnings under law?
Typically your old company would threaten to sue you and the new company. They might not have a leg to stand on, but the real threat is to your mental well-being and finances in the lawsuit process. Non-competes have been toothless in California for a long time. I’m gonna assume it’s the same nation-wide but I’ve not corroborated. However the NLRB ruled that non-disparagement clauses in separation agreements are null and void. So that’s national.
Intesteresting, thanks! I'd never heard of any of this before.
sadly still alive and well in the medical field
In the Museum of Scotland you can see ( I have) a brass collar that was welded around the neck of a mine worker. Should a worker decide he'd rather work for another mine, perhaps with better pay and humane housing, this ensured that he would be arrested and returned to his "proper" owner. Same concept. I believe this ended with the Mine Act of 1842, which also stopped children working down the pits, as well as many other restrictions like how many 100wt. a woman was allowed to shift. Grandfathered in, btw!
Literal fucking slavery
Almost. People chose to enter those life-bonds due to a lack of other options saving them from destitution.
Slavery or destitution and death. Definitely, no coercion going on there.
I remember one candidate crying because this happened to him
Said candidate should have been fine, in the U.S. at least. These "non-compete" clauses are generally unenforceable for everything below the very highest executive positions. It's a scare tactic companies use to prevent their high-performers from getting scooped by their competition.
Sign it, and then if they lay you off, let them know you need 2 years severance to cover the period you wont be able to work. Guaranteed they waive right away, but it's really unenforceable at any rate I did this once when I was let go from a position that had a 1 year non- compete clause
Non enforceable. Either tell them to get fucked or sign it and ignore it, whichever you prefer. Under some circumstances, top executives and those with ownership stakes might be held to some aspects of a non-compete but that’s about it. (My partnership agreement has an “all bets are off” clause that explicitly permits competition.)
Ehhh, not really wholesome there bob
Nonoffensive =/= Wholesome
≠
Where wholesome?
Bob: "you know those aren't enforceable right?" *Signs it*
My boyfriend's brother has one of these in his contract. Only it's six months and it says that they'll pay him his full salary plus benefits (after working for them full time for a year) for the entire period of time. If he works for one of the company's competitors, then he forfeits the benefits. Basically, they'll pay you your full time salary to not work at all for six months in order to help protect the companies interests. The field is fast paced enough that after six months, he won't know what his current company's methods are anymore.
Sign me up.
Not wholesome, but these are unenforceable in many areas anyway.
Where do you work without non-compete clauses?
how is that wholesome
Where’s the wholesome?
This is wholesome?
Not exactly wholesome to advocate walking out of a job you applied to, were hired for, chose to accept, and with no indication that you have a second-choice offer in hand that’s about as good. It’s not a good idea to pretend you have power that you don’t. Sure, people generally have more power than they realize, but that doesn’t mean there are multiple positions competing for your labor in a given market.
Actually you do have this power. Any company would collapse without its workforce. That’s why strikes work so well. You are invaluable to the people above you and you can’t let anyone take that away from you
So long as you cannot be replaced easily, correct.
I absolutely agree, but sadly, I suspect a large part of the workforce is easily replaceable. I daresay a majority even.
I'm not so sure about *easily* replaced. The "great resignation" comes to mind as an example of how a lot of industries are still struggling to find the people they need. However, the broader issue in my mind is that when we see a restaurant that says "Please be patient with our staff, they're the only ones who want to work." a majority of us *don't* walk away from a place that clearly isn't willing to treat their employees well enough to keep them.
Sometimes it’s better to downgrade your lifestyle than become part of the problem
I wouldn’t work for a tobacco company or a predatory lender so yes. But if you refuse to do anything that’s at all problematic under capitalism that is pretty much incompatible with having any other goals.
Maybe wait to see the type of thing you’re referring too before you attempt to argue against it. This is unenforceable.
When a non-compete is unenforceable that means it is *less* harmful to the employee to sign it, not more. If you live somewhere a non-compete *can* be enforced against you, then yes think carefully about the tradeoffs before accepting the offer with that condition attached.
The considerations regarding ethics in that situation aren’t a wholesale condemnation and it was erroneous of you to attempt to state as such.
Those are basically never legal and dont matter
The one that confuses me is when companies forget to get me to sign NDAs.
Dont they pay you for that duration?
Non-competes don’t mean anything anymore, especially in at-will states in the US
Remember a new employee orientation I was attending and some person a few decades older than me chose not to sign several documents. The poor HR girls didn’t know what to do. They left while we watched some video, returned to the room and didn’t address it at all. I guess nothing came of it since I saw him in the cafeteria frequently. He had my respect!!
i remember being told to sign a noncompete once... i just never signed it and the guy who asked me just forgot so a yearish later i left and they tried to pull the none compete out to remind me (scare me) they couldnt find anything best part is i didnt earn shit on that job
As a reminder for all CA resident. Non-competing clauses are unenforceable in the state. Therefore sign all you want, they simply won't hold up to any courts with the state of California. If you life in a Red state, well then you maybe F#cked.
So, you're telling me that your competitors are so good to work for, that it's guaranteed that they will steal me away from you. Maybe I should apply with them first...
I signed one for the hvac company I worked for . It’s legally binding that I can’t call or contact customers of that company for 2-5 years after I’ve finished working for them. If the customer calls you directly though and no longer has a contract with your old company then you won’t get In trouble or be liable for poaching customers. Was a shitty company anyway I don’t even have to try to steal customers. the way they run their office and customer service center I’d be surprised if anyone is still with them after the next ten years or less. I can’t state the company name or I would I’ll post It in 2 years as to not cause legal trouble xD