Possible new job and a non-compete clause?

Iggy wrote: never trust a recruiter.

My Recruiter Told Me a Lie...
Said Gonna be AirBorne, Jump and Fly...
Signed my Name on the Dotted Line...
All I do is Double Time.

So, pres, from how I read that, they want to hire you and if you leave for any reason at all, your choice, their choice, nobody's choice, you can't work in your industry for an entire year. Whether it's enforceable or not, I wouldn't want to agree to that.

Datsun1500 wrote: They can say it's no big deal, and it's not enforceable all they want. Even if it's not valid, it can become a hassle, and can cost you a job down the road. Look at it from an employers view. If I was going to hire you and I found out you had a no compete, it's easier to just pass instead of dealing with it. I'll find someone else.

Obviously, you are correct.

But I've also never heard a potential employer ask if I was under a non-compete before hiring.

I am not saying it is not a big deal. It is- I fretted mine for a long time.

I'm just saying that very few companies would want to pursue it, unless you cause them significant harm.

...but if you DO cause them harm, expect the worst.

Professional job recruiters rate under the "slimy people of the world" banner. Taking advice from someone who's income depends on you doing what they tell you to do is a questionable move.

What makes me take note is that most legal documents state a jurisdiction.

Kinda like patents; the broader the statement, the less enforceable it is.

The threats work not because they go after you, they will try to sue/intimidate your new employer.

Canada is not big on any contract that denies you a right to work in your profession. Maybe instead of refusing to sign, you can pencil in Canada as the jurisdiction? At least that way you have an idea of the rules?

Here is a good read:

http://www.osler.com/uploadedFiles/Our_People/Profiles/H/Restrictive%20covenants%20in%20employment%20contracts.pdf

The section that I see as relevant to your cause is the "Over-Reaching" bit:

The penalty for over-reaching was illustrated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in IT/NET Inc v Cameron (207 O A C 26, [2006] O J No. 156 (QL) (CA)) ( Cameron ): a subcontractor had breached a non- solicitation/non-competition provision when he left IT/NET to help its competitor successfully bid for work from the very same government department for which the subcontractor had done work on behalf of IT/NET. The clause provided, in part, that for a period of 12 months after termination, Cameron would “not attempt to solicit business from any IT/NET clients or prospects” ( Cameron, para 6 ). In Cameron , the court found the provision to be unenforceable because it prevented a contractor from soliciting business from any IT/NET client or prospect, not just from the client with whom the contractor had worked

I want to make it clear that I know to trust a recruiter about as far as I can throw them. This isn't my first rodeo with recruiters saying anything they think will finish a deal no matter what state it leaves me in. I'm simply trying to tell the whole story.

I followed advice from here, struck through everything related to the non-compete as well as added in some things that were wrong (like the country I currently live in) or missing (signing bonus, one month's hotel stay to aid the transition) with initials next to every line or paragraph that changed and asked for the company HR rep to review and get back to me.

pres589 wrote: I want to make it clear that I know to trust a recruiter about as far as I can throw them. This isn't my first rodeo with recruiters saying anything they think will finish a deal no matter what state it leaves me in. I'm simply trying to tell the whole story. I followed advice from here, struck through everything related to the non-compete as well as added in some things that were wrong (like the country I currently live in) or missing (signing bonus, one month's hotel stay to aid the transition) with initials next to every line or paragraph that changed and asked for the company HR rep to review and get back to me.

If you are on the top floor of a tall building, it's OK to trust them as far as you can toss them!

SVreX wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: They can say it's no big deal, and it's not enforceable all they want. Even if it's not valid, it can become a hassle, and can cost you a job down the road. Look at it from an employers view. If I was going to hire you and I found out you had a no compete, it's easier to just pass instead of dealing with it. I'll find someone else.

Obviously, you are correct. But I've also never heard a potential employer ask if I was under a non-compete before hiring. I am not saying it is not a big deal. It is- I fretted mine for a long time. I'm just saying that very few companies would want to pursue it, unless you cause them significant harm.

except the part about working for other companies to sell to or buy from your company. Especially in small companies, its easy to say - fire that person you just hired because they have a non-compete with us, or we'll simply find someone else to buy this product from.

On the other hand, negotiating against a non-compete can be read as "I don't plan to work for your company very long, I'm just using this title as a stepping stone."

In reply to Datsun1500:

Good points.

Maybe I'm overthinking it but it just seemed so risky to accept this non-compete, move myself to another continent, and if something goes wrong it seemed like the consequences were ramped up beyond what it'd be like to deal with here. I didn't want to deal with mega-corp making things hellish for me if I tried to find work again fast. It's been about 24 hours since I sent the modified copy of the letter and so far I've heard nothing. I'll share the exciting information on anything that changes.

One thing to keep in mind about the modified offer letter is that if this non-compete agreement is universal at the company, they'll likely require you to re-accept the conditions every year, and probably in some kind of electronic form that you can't just scribble on and initial. So if it goes through, make sure you read EVERYTHING they want you to sign for the entire time you're working there.

I'd tell 'em to stuff it, but then non-compete agreements really offend me. One of the good things about working in California is that there are essentially zero cases in which those kinds of agreements are enforceable here.

Does mega corp have a glass door review? Maybe you could look it over and see if any existing or former employees mention the company electing the clause.

You could also leave the non-compete clause in and add:

"In the event of a termination of employment for any reason, Mega-corp agrees to provide Peon Employee full wages and benefits including but not limited to: Salary, bonus, medical insurance, and any and all other perks employees receive for the duration of the period of the non-compete clause."

I mean, it's only fair. Everyone likes "fair," right?

In reply to itsarebuild:

Somehow I'm not seeing anything on a non-compete clause on the Glassdoor.com review of the mega-corp. Nothing on the subsidiary I'd be working for, either, but there's only two reviews for the company itself.

In reply to Dr. Hess: Yeah, I've thought of that; either my pay needs to go way up (if I'm a specialized lynch pin to the operation, like it states, then I should be paid like one) OR I need full compensation for that year where I can't easily find work (though the original agreement expressly stated that wouldn't happen, so we'd need a change there) OR the non-compete needs to go away. I like the second option where I get paid for a year the most.