Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been working as a programmer at a company in Raleigh. The other day I got an email from HR with a contract attached saying we need you to sign this thing.
It's probably fine and it's just a standard contract. This is not a shady company. They're respected in the industry and everything.
But some clauses sound to me as a non-lawyer kind of alarming. For example they're saying if I leave the company, I can't work in the industry for a year. If I do they can sue me. I've heard of non-compete clauses, the way it's worded it sound like they can come after me just for getting another job as a programmer.
Other parts are so legalistic I'm not sure what they saying.
Anyway, I think I better have a attorney look at this before I sign it.
Can anyone recommend a good lawyer who deals with issues like this?
Ideally in Raleigh, but anywhere in the Triangle would be ok.
... it sound like they can come after me just for getting another job as a programmer. ...
The meaning is clear.
This happened to me once, and I negotiated the no-compete duration down to one month. Perhaps you can do the same.
If you are brave and/or financially secure you could flat-out refuse to sign.
My feeling was: "As long as you are paying me, you can tell me what to do. As soon as you are not paying me, you have no influence on where I go and what I do. It's a free country!"
This happened to me once, and I negotiated the no-compete duration down to one month. Perhaps you can do the same.
If you are brave and/or financially secure you could flat-out refuse to sign.
My feeling was: "As long as you are paying me, you can tell me what to do. As soon as you are not paying me, you have no influence on where I go and what I do. It's a free country!"
.
I've always seen these as a direct compete situation. As in, if you work in the manufacturing sector, you cannot go out and get a job with a competitor, but you could go get a job in the tech sector, non-manufacturing, and it would be no problem.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
They have these in the printing industry for sales people as well. Usually the non-compete is within a mileage radius, like you cannot work for another printing company within 100 miles for a year.
I remember reading somewhere that non-compete's don't hold up in court. I have no idea the truth of that.
Have heard the same. The courts have generally held that people have a right to make a living in their field. However, i agree that it should probably be negotiated. Also unless you're directly affecting this company's business not sure how they ever enforce these. Seems they are most likely to be enforced against company bigwigs with trade secrets and niche products.
1) "I've been working as a programmer at a company in Raleigh" So, you're already employed with them????
As mentioned above, you can always say 'no'. And since you're already working for them, the burden of letting you go if you don't sign isn't just your's.
Yes, you'd have to get a new job, but they would have to find a replacement.
2) If they are asking to change the terms of your current employment, they they should be willing to change the compensation to reflect the changes in terms. IE: If they say that if they let you go, you will have to either: relocate to a different area, or not work for a year, then your financial compensation should reflect this burden added since you negotiated your current situation. This is patently fair. (Maybe add a clause that they commit to a long severance?)
3) If you are inclined to stay, and don't care about the non-compete parts and are more concerned about just knowing what you sign, then either insist that they re-write the extra clauses in wording that non-lawyers can understand (it CAN be done), or have the compensate you for your cost to hire a lawyer to explain it to you. (Don't use 'their lawyer' due to conflicts of interest).
One huge lesson I learned regarding legal papers is that they are changeable / negotiable. The earlier suggestion of adding a max distance clause sounds reasonable for a firm trying to keep from being damaged by your specific knowledge and experience being used against them. But that restriction would cost you, and they should pay a part of such.
<standard gibberish about: I'm not a lawyer and don't rely on my opinions and recommendations for your career choices>
I remember reading somewhere that non-compete's don't hold up in court. I have no idea the truth of that.
I HAVE seen them hold up in court - at a CPA firm where I used to work. A senior manager with a speciality in auditing Indian Reservations and Indian casinos left for another firm. She did NOT solicit the clients, but they followed her (yes, she was an American Indian). My firm sued. Last I heard, she was offered her old job back or a cash payment to the firm, as settled by an arbitrator. Admittedly, this was an isolated and special case. EVERY employee signed a non compete in that place, including clerical, but no one else was ever held to it.
I'm with Zitsky - best to consult with an attorney, if only to understand exactly what your signing.
Sounds way overblown to me. A company isnt going to chase you for a non compete unless they feel you really are doing something dishonest. Just not worth the resources to do it. Wouldnt sweat this at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.