<p>I believe DH has a non-compete clause. If he leaves this company, he cannot work with any of his current company clients for a specified number of years. </p>
<p>I don’t think this is uncommon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Use of proprietary business practices comes under non-disclosure agreements. Restricting someone from the use of generalized skills (e.g. how to groom pets) at alternative employers is just mean-spirited and treats employees like indentured servants even after the employment relationship ends. Basically, it is saying that whenever you change jobs, you have to start at entry level, since whatever skills from experience that you gained are useless because most jobs where they may be applied are “competing” with a former employer holding you to a non-compete agreement.</p>
<p>As post #19 indicates, people may have to go extreme measures just to change jobs (relocate, or put up with long commutes), and employers may be hesitant to hire people who are under non-compete agreements.</p>
<p>While non-compete agreements may be common, they go against the idea of people having the right to work to earn a living. They also create macroeconomic inefficiency in that employees and employers are often prevented from optimal job matching.</p>
<p>My understanding (at least for my state) is that non-competes that try to limit you from using general skills are unenforceable. You can’t be prevented from earning a living. The dog-groomer one would not stand up because dog-grooming skills are not unique to a particular company - there are no trade secrets there. If the dog-groomer was actively recruiting clients from the first company that would be a different issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That could be covered under an agreement to not disclose or use company proprietary information (in this example, the list of clients) outside of work for the company, without needing a non-compete agreement.</p>
<p>There are trade secrets. Some people must know what goes into Coke. I doubt these people that know are free to go to Pepsi. </p>
<p>We have computer code and no, the employees don’t get to quit, go to a competitor and take the code with them. It costs millions of dollars to develop that code and the code brings in millions of revenues. If the code gets into competitor hands, the code is worthless.
In a year the former employees can go work for whichever firm they want. They can start their own firm. The code will be upgraded by then.</p>
<p>UCB, Do you have a problem with that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silicon Valley is in California, where non-competes are largely unenforceable. As you know, there are lots of computer companies in that area (including three of the GAFAM companies that people seem to think of whenever they think of where computer science majors can go work – note that most of them compete with each other in some markets).</p>
<p>But non-disclosure agreements are the norm, so ex-employees who go to competitors must not disclose actual trade secrets or bring proprietary code to the competitor. Nor do ex-employees who do not go to competitors get to tell the world the actual trade secrets or display the proprietary code for all to see.</p>
<p>In other words, non-disclosure and non-use of trade secrets and other proprietary information outside the company is a different issue from non-competition. Non-competition is neither necessary nor sufficient to get the result of non-disclosure and non-use of trade secrets and other proprietary information outside the company.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does your company continue to give pay and benefits to ex-employees during that year?</p>
<p>dstark - Off topic but there are only a couple people that know the Coke formula.I don’t know who they are, but those people have jobs for life.</p>
<p>"dstark - Off topic but there are only a couple people that know the Coke formula.I don’t know who they are, but those people have jobs for life.
Nice gig. :)</p>
<p>I understand, MichiganGeorgia.</p>
<p>Yes UCB. The few computer guys that have stuff we want secret are paid during the off year.</p>