Support NeoGAF

[JettDash]

Non competes are bullshit and especially so in the context of employees that are made redundant etc.

Happened to a family member of mine recently and I couldn't believe it, their job no longer exists (apparently) but also simultaneously they are barred from doing that job for X months for anyone else including themselves.

While it's a bit 50/50 if this would hold up in court that would involve taking people to court and that costs a shitton of money/time, and what if you lost...

I would just pretend it doesn't exist.

And let them sue me if they somehow find out and want to enforce it.

 

[Crema]

Sure, they are worth 10% more AFTER they've been trained, but what about the 3 months it takes for them to get trained? For those 3 months, the employees are technically "worth" negative value since you're still paying them but they are not doing anything/very little to help you.

So instead, you deduct their wage to pay for their training?

Hard to believe staff are leaving a great boss like you after three months.

You are arguing in support of non-compete contacts for the sole purpose of ensuring the you don't have to pay people what they are worth.

 

[Oblivion]

Even if these people need training, shouldn't you still be paying them what they'll be worth after the training?

I mean, the argument makes even less sense when you realize after the training, it's not like they'll be getting a raise at the place they're currently getting the training from.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

This is insidious. Got an offer from a company with a Non-Compete in the contract.

Tried to negotiate, but they wouldn't have any, so I walked away.

Sure, they are worth 10% more AFTER they've been trained, but what about the 3 months it takes for them to get trained? For those 3 months, the employees are technically "worth" negative value since you're still paying them but they are not doing anything/very little to help you.

Instead of using a stick like a Non-Compete, use a carrot. Give them a bonus for staying longer.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

We don't want you to take the knowledge gained at our company to a local competitor. But were A-OK sending that job to another country where we know they will treat our trade secrets with the utmost respect. I mean China wouldn't dare take everything we taught them about the entire production process and use it to make their own version of our product.

 

[Arttemis]

So instead, you deduct their wage to pay for their training?

Hard to believe staff are leaving a great boss like you after three months.

You are arguing in support of non-compete contacts for the sole purpose of ensuring the you don't have to pay people what they are worth.

Seriously. What a disgusting defense.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Conventional wisdom: Increase your chances of salary increases by getting a better degree, changing jobs when you can, or participation in collective bargaining

Employers: lol no

 

[TheApatheticOne]

Thanks for the responses and advice. We'll see if anything comes of it this week. I mean, I made less than 40k a year at that job and was a general analyst in literally the lowest tier department. If someone came up and said "Ill give you a million dollars for a trade secret, regardless of how important, or if you show me one skill you didnt have prior to working for the company thats pushing this noncompete", I honestly wouldnt be able to cash in.

As I said, my manager at my new spot isnt worried. HR seemed not concerned, but wants a copy of it for my file. A current former coworker said that Ill probably be fined, but doesnt think its much.

Sorry for the venting, its just been a very up and down last 2-3 months which has seen me fired and hired, had a lady blow through and red light and hit my car, they tried to repair it and now Im taking it back today for a third time, and had my daughter over 2 weeks ago, in which I discovered my car had a flat tire 40 minutes before she was born. We also had to back out of house due to the craziness. So this is incredibly irritating, frustrating, anger inducing, etc.

Ready for life just to be normal for awhile! Ha

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Sure, they are worth 10% more AFTER they've been trained, but what about the 3 months it takes for them to get trained? For those 3 months, the employees are technically "worth" negative value since you're still paying them but they are not doing anything/very little to help you.

I don't think any company would say that's what they use a non-compete clause for! Partly because it's on morally shaky ground by itself, but mostly because it introduces arithmetic that would mean that it should expire very quickly as the employee finishes paying his/her 'debt' to the company (and if it was truly reciprocal, the company should be paying the employee for leaving!).

 

[CornBurrito]

When a company hires somebody, it usually takes a certain amount of time to train them, and even longer for them to become competent workers.. The reason noncompetes exist is because they don't want another company swooping in and offering them 10% higher wages for an already trained associate.

Oh no those poor corporations.

 

[tokkun]

Even if these people need training, shouldn't you still be paying them what they'll be worth after the training?

I mean, the argument makes even less sense when you realize after the training, it's not like they'll be getting a raise at the place they're currently getting the training from.

It helps to think about the situation via game theory. Imagine this scenario, where you have two otherwise identical companies competing to get the same worker:

Company A trains worker for several months, costing them tens of thousands of dollars in lost productivity. They pay the worker $X, which is fair market value for the skills she will have once trained. Once she is trained, Company B comes along and says "we will also pay you $X, but we'll give you a $5000 signing bonus".

Since Company A and Company B are identical, then there is no offer that Company A can make that Company B can't beat, simply by offering an additional starting bonus that is worth less than the cost of the training. Company A's training of the worker has become a sunk cost that puts them at an inherent disadvantage in their ability to compensate the worker. Even if they offer her an amount that is exactly equal to the amortized added value she brings them, Company B can always offer more, because they do not have to amortize that sunk cost.

 

[Ragingbegal]

It helps to think about the situation via game theory. Imagine this scenario, where you have two otherwise identical companies competing to get the same worker:

Company A trains worker for several months, costing them tens of thousands of dollars in lost productivity. They pay the worker $X, which is fair market value for the skills she will have once trained. Once she is trained, Company B comes along and says "we will also pay you $X, but we'll give you a $5000 signing bonus".

Since Company A and Company B are identical, then there is no offer that Company A can make that Company B can't beat, simply by offering an additional starting bonus that is worth less than the cost of the training. Company A's training of the worker has become a sunk cost that puts them at an inherent disadvantage in their ability to compensate the worker. Even if they offer her an amount that is exactly equal to the amortized added value she brings them, Company B can always offer more, because they do not have to amortize that sunk cost.

Then Company A needs to be more competitive on wages, benefits or job security. That's how capitalism works.

 

[tokkun]

Then Company A needs to be more competitive on wages, benefits or job security. That's how capitalism works.

The whole point of the example is that if Company A and Company B are otherwise equal, it is impossible for Company A to make a more competitive offer than Company B can, because it has to absorb the training cost. Company B can always match Company A's offer and add a bonus that is less than the training cost and they will come out ahead.

 

[Somnid]

The whole point of the example is that if Company A and Company B are otherwise equal, it is impossible for Company A to make a more competitive offer than Company B can, because it has to absorb the training cost. Company B can always match Company A's offer and add a bonus that is less than the training cost and they will come out ahead.

Nobody is poaching low wage jobs. That's why they are low wage and why this is obnoxious.

 

[The Albatross]

Wtf that's ridiculous of Jimmy John's.
I can't imagine this would hold up in court for low wage jobs. The legal fees to even take random employee #109911 of Jimmy John's to court, or the Subway across the street, would cost many more times what that employee would earn for the company.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Non-competes outside of areas that actually work with patents are solely for intimidation.. The burden they place on highly-trained individuals (for example, physicians) are minimal because they are often nullified with as little as a single phone call to a lawyer in most states. However, this is obviously a luxury that people working paycheck to paycheck cannot afford.

Sure, they are worth 10% more AFTER they've been trained, but what about the 3 months it takes for them to get trained? For those 3 months, the employees are technically "worth" negative value since you're still paying them but they are not doing anything/very little to help you.

Yeah, let me tell you. After you've mastered the highly coveted talent of making $10/hr working on the Jimmy Johns sandwich assembly line there's this massive swarm of job offers from people who really need your sandwich skills for $11 - it was totally out of control and had to be squashed. Someone really needs to think about the well-being of the ridiculously wealthy family that hunts endangered animals for fun.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

why are employers requiring non-compete agreements for low-wage workers???

because this gives people even more reason to fear losing their jobs, increasing the employer's leverage over the employees even more

 

[Plasmid]

Read title, instantly knew it was JJ's.

JJ's sent my friend who went from Driver -> Shift leader -> Manager to the JJ academy in IL and after they stagnated his pay for 2 years with no raises and promises of working to GM only to be shafted by an employee who had been there less time he left.

After he left, he got calls from corporate reminding him that he would not be able to manage at Subways, Quiznos, Lennys, Any associated sandwich store for up to 2 years, and that they would be actively checking his employment to make sure he didn't break their agreement.

Fast forward 2 years where he's a manager of a manufacturing plant section and JJ's contacts him to let him know because he "learned at the JJ academy about managing" he was in violation of their agreement.

The plant had to contact JJ's to let them know if they wanted to sue, they could do so through the company.

FUCK. JIMMY. JOHNS.

 

[Hilbert]

I was threatened with being sued over violating a non-compete when I left a temp agency for a different one.

Eventually I wrote them a letter telling them to go ahead and take me to court, but the best they could get from me was me losing my job, as they would never see a dollar from me again.

Never heard from them after that.

 

[Sulik2]

Its always about wage suppression. Corporations are absolutely hellbent on reducing wages as much as possible to continue showing quarterly growth even in fully saturated markets.

 

[smisk]

Yeah that shit is dumb. One of the jobs I interviewed for out of college had one of these, where you couldn't work at a company in a similar field for 6 months or something like that. Apparently they are often not really enforceable, probably just a stupid scare tactic.

 

[CornBurrito]

The whole point of the example is that if Company A and Company B are otherwise equal, it is impossible for Company A to make a more competitive offer than Company B can, because it has to absorb the training cost. Company B can always match Company A's offer and add a bonus that is less than the training cost and they will come out ahead.

Who knew the cost of training a submarine sandwich maker was so high.

 

[Omegasquash]

Yeah that shit is dumb. One of the jobs I interviewed for out of college had one of these, where you couldn't work at a company in a similar field for 6 months or something like that. Apparently they are often not really enforceable, probably just a stupid scare tactic.

They're enforceable, however it really depends on what level/industry you're in with regards to whether or not it will get enforced.

That and if your employer is a dick about it or not.

 

[tokkun]

Who knew the cost of training a submarine sandwich maker was so high.

It's all relative. If it takes 2 weeks to train someone and they leave after 2 months, your labor cost is going to be > 25% higher (you also need to factor in the cost of the person training them) than it would be if you hired an employee who didn't need to be trained.

Having said that, I doubt there is training arbitrage going on in the sub sandwich industry. It was just an explanation of the principle of why companies are hesitant to train people without eliciting some leverage over how easily they can leave afterward. In some European countries with established apprenticeship programs, you are actually legally bound to continue working for the company for some period of time after your training is over.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Non compete clauses, drug tests (for jobs that aren't high risk), credit checks, disclosure of salary to other employees, antiunionism, etc should all be illegal to put into any agreement for a job.

Those conservative fucks are all MUH FREE SPEECH AND RIGHTS THO until it comes to the people they hire.... fucking scum.

 

[sazabirules]

How do companies even find out if an ex-employee goes to a competitor?

 

[pantsmith]

Read title, instantly knew it was JJ's.

JJ's sent my friend who went from Driver -> Shift leader -> Manager to the JJ academy in IL and after they stagnated his pay for 2 years with no raises and promises of working to GM only to be shafted by an employee who had been there less time he left.

After he left, he got calls from corporate reminding him that he would not be able to manage at Subways, Quiznos, Lennys, Any associated sandwich store for up to 2 years, and that they would be actively checking his employment to make sure he didn't break their agreement.

Fast forward 2 years where he's a manager of a manufacturing plant section and JJ's contacts him to let him know because he "learned at the JJ academy about managing" he was in violation of their agreement.

The plant had to contact JJ's to let them know if they wanted to sue, they could do so through the company.

FUCK. JIMMY. JOHNS.

Ugh. This is unbelievable.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

How do companies even find out if an ex-employee goes to a competitor?

Some jobs have clauses stating that you must inform them of any new employer.

 

[therealist]

Yeah, let me tell you. After you've mastered the highly coveted talent of making $10/hr working on the Jimmy Johns sandwich assembly line there's this massive swarm of job offers from people who really need your sandwich skills for $11 - it was totally out of control and had to be squashed. Someone really needs to think about the well-being of the ridiculously wealthy family that hunts endangered animals for fun.

You discount how hard low-skilled jobs are. Go to Jimmy Johns and try to work as fast as an experienced worker for a full 8 hours shift. I bet you'd only be able to make 75% as many subs as an experienced JJ worker could make in 8 hours. So yes, even in a job as remedial as making sandwiches, having experience and being trained matters.

Oh no those poor corporations.

Congratulations, you just brought up something totally unrelated to my point.

 

[RionaaM]

The whole point of the example is that if Company A and Company B are otherwise equal, it is impossible for Company A to make a more competitive offer than Company B can, because it has to absorb the training cost. Company B can always match Company A's offer and add a bonus that is less than the training cost and they will come out ahead.

What's preventing Company A from replacing the lost employee with an already trained one? That is, doing exactly what Company B did?

 

[Oblivion]

What's preventing Company A from replacing the lost employee with an already trained one? That is, doing exactly what Company B did?

Yeah, this was my next question. Why not cut out the middleman entirely and not have to waste money for training to begin with?

 

[TheApatheticOne]

Well, the VP of the company that fired me checked my LinkedIn profile today... so I cant imagine thats a good sign.

These pieces of shit. Nothing has happened yet, and not sure how to do it, but going to start seeing if I can find a pro bono employee rights attorney in Cincinnati, and get an early preview of this. I just dont understand, as Ive stated, low level, no trade secrets, made less than 40k, there less than 2 years and you let me go... you REALLY going to drop dime to come fuck me? REALLY?

 

[Just_myles]

Yeah Uber had this same problem when the ex-Gogole engineer left and stole trade secrets. Then stealth started his own company that conveniently was bought out by Uber.

Same with Carmack and Oculus. These are there for a reason.

 

[CornBurrito]

It's all relative. If it takes 2 weeks to train someone and they leave after 2 months, your labor cost is going to be > 25% higher (you also need to factor in the cost of the person training them) than it would be if you hired an employee who didn't need to be trained.

Having said that, I doubt there is training arbitrage going on in the sub sandwich industry. It was just an explanation of the principle of why companies are hesitant to train people without eliciting some leverage over how easily they can leave afterward. In some European countries with established apprenticeship programs, you are actually legally bound to continue working for the company for some period of time after your training is over.

European countries also have significantly more worker protections than the US.

But I suppose we shouldn't be concerned with neo-Serfdom?

And did you bother reading the OP, or do you not know what a Jimmy Johns is?

Yeah Uber had this same problem when the ex-Gogole engineer left and stole trade secrets. Then stealth started his own company that conveniently was bought out by Uber.

Same with Carmack and Oculus. These are there for a reason.

Yeah nuance is too difficult. So better require these for low wage workers like Jimmy Johns employees.

You discount how hard low-skilled jobs are. Go to Jimmy Johns and try to work as fast as an experienced worker for a full 8 hours shift. I bet you'd only be able to make 75% as many subs as an experienced JJ worker could make in 8 hours. So yes, even in a job as remedial as making sandwiches, having experience and being trained matters.


Congratulations, you just brought up something totally unrelated to my point.

No, it is relevant because you're a business supremacist. You're fucking defending non-competes for sandwich makers.

 

[Greigor The Fellhand]

My job has one, but I redacted it from the contract before signing and the boss approved and signed it.

I agree in some sense with them but overall they are WAY overused.

 

[TheApatheticOne]

So suggestions since no where is open now.

Soooo... just got my cease and desist letter today. Says they know where I work, that if I continue to work will be cause for my former employer to pursue an injunction against me, and to be advised that they can seek all costs and expenses included in that action including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. They expect me to terminate my employment effective immediately.

I mean, this is a typical cease and desist with that wording right? I definitely cant afford to quit. Planning on going into work Monday, talking to my manager, and fighting this through a pro bono, and hoping my new employer doesnt can me.

 

[UserNotFound]

the employees are only worth more because you've already trained them. If you know what owning a business is like, you'd understand how frustrated you'd be if you hired someone, trained them how to do the job, and put up with all of their mistakes only for that employee to leave right away to another place that's offering them 10% more, solely because they've already been trained by you.

Sure, they are worth 10% more AFTER they've been trained, but what about the 3 months it takes for them to get trained? For those 3 months, the employees are technically "worth" negative value since you're still paying them but they are not doing anything/very little to help you.

You're a terrible manager.

You pay market or higher wages and allow the hires to win the job, not the other way around.

If you don't have formal training programs in place, then your program sucks and wasting your time to train someone isn't cost-effective. Managers delegate to give employees a sense of autonomy. They don't micro-manage and hold their hand.

 

[Ryuuroden]

They have this shit for hair stylists too where they have to agree to not start their own business if they leave working for one. My Moms stylist got sued for starting her own shop after quiting working for one of the higher end ones.

 

[ShdwDrake]

Jimmy John's franchise in Colorado springs under the old owner used to make you sign a 2 year contract to be a manager. Any manager. And then they would find reasons to just fire people. Every once in a while I take deliveries in some of the better areas to make a couple extra hundred bucks because they won't take me out of the system even tho I walked out over 2 years ago and only worked there for a year lol.

 

[JettDash]

So suggestions since no where is open now.

Soooo... just got my cease and desist letter today. Says they know where I work, that if I continue to work will be cause for my former employer to pursue an injunction against me, and to be advised that they can seek all costs and expenses included in that action including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. They expect me to terminate my employment effective immediately.

I mean, this is a typical cease and desist with that wording right? I definitely cant afford to quit. Planning on going into work Monday, talking to my manager, and fighting this through a pro bono, and hoping my new employer doesnt can me.

It is probably just a bluff. I doubt they would bother suing you especially if you don't have any money.

 

[FyreWulff]

So suggestions since no where is open now.

Soooo... just got my cease and desist letter today. Says they know where I work, that if I continue to work will be cause for my former employer to pursue an injunction against me, and to be advised that they can seek all costs and expenses included in that action including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. They expect me to terminate my employment effective immediately.

I mean, this is a typical cease and desist with that wording right? I definitely cant afford to quit. Planning on going into work Monday, talking to my manager, and fighting this through a pro bono, and hoping my new employer doesnt can me.

Yeah, start talking to lawyers immediately. Don't respond to them until you do.