[_m96l]

I have the opposite experience. I refused to sign non-competes for all past offers that included them, and in all cases the potential employer then walked away. That happened after lengthy interview processes that lasted multiple days and cost the employer many thousands of dollars.

Gives you an idea how important these non-competes are to them.

I should mention these were big, powerful employers. You might be able to negotiate them with small employers who suffer from lack of candidates.

[cc439]

The larger the employer, the more bureacracy is involved in the hiring process. Any non-conformance to the standardized process comes with a risk of complete process failure once a corporation reaches a certain size and begins to silo off certain functional groups. I've found myself in many situations where a customer or employee requested something perfectly reasonable to settle a dispute, only for me to find there is literally no way to resolve the issue as there is no mechanism with which to do so or the individual who can move the levers is seperated by so many layers of management/org chart spaghetti that no one has a clue who to reach out to. There's always the hope that someone close to the process is willing to put their neck on the line and break procedure in a way that risks reprimand or their career but that's a fleeting chance more often than not.

[_m96l]

While this may all be true, the upshot is that as individual employees, we have zero leverage or bargaining power against these large employers.

Even now, with the great shortage of tech talent - while is repeatedly used as a justification to import an unlimited number of foreign workers - these very same large employers who complain about this shortage, do not hesitate to reject a qualified candidate who will not sign away their right to work with a "non compete".

[ChrisLomont]

> we have zero leverage or bargaining power against these large employers.

You have the leverage not to work there. They have the leverage not to hire you. If enough people choose to work there despite things they don’t like, your leverage is not lost because of the company being large, it’s lost because people choose to work there despite things you don’t like.

Companies compete for employees.

[_m96l]

Have you read the article?

In many areas where non-competes are legal, all employers slap them on their contracts.

So your choice is to sign one, or remain unemployed.

Also, most employees aren't fully aware of what these non-competes mean anyway.

[ChrisLomont]

>Have you read the article?

Yes.

> In many areas where non-competes are legal, all employers slap them on their contracts.

As others have pointed out, it's not uncommon to get them (and other clauses) struck out of employment agreements during hiring. I've struck that one from all places I've worked, I've struck all patent and IP claims out that were broad enough to cover things I do outside of work, I've gotten copyrights assigned to me instead of the employer, and so on, even very early in my career.

>So your choice is to sign one, or remain unemployed.

If it's that onerous, sign one to get a job, and while getting paid, immediately look for a new job that doesn't violate it without one. Not a single state has one so broad as to prevent you from any reasonable work. Problem solved.

Employment is always a negotiation. If you enter thinking you have zero leverage and are unable or unwilling to find other work, then you do have zero leverage.

[_m96l]

> As others have pointed out, it's not uncommon to get them (and other clauses) struck out of employment agreements during hiring. I've struck that one from all places I've worked, I've struck all patent and IP claims out that were broad enough to cover things I do outside of work, I've gotten copyrights assigned to me instead of the employer, and so on, even very early in my career.

I'll be polite and not accuse you of fabricating. Your experience is extremely, curiously atypical. I know from experience that these clauses are mandatory for several large employers. They are not waived for anyone. If you google, you'll find examples of senior vice presidents being sued for them.

The only way you can have them waived is if you negotiate with small employers who are starved for talent, and even then it won't be easy to do as a junior.

In fact I'm skeptical you even knew what a non-compete was as a recent grad.

> If it's that onerous, sign one to get a job, and while getting paid, immediately look for a new job that doesn't violate it without one.

So your solution is to act unethically, accept a permanent position just to get a paycheck while looking for a new job?

My impression of this comment is sinking by the sentence.

Reality check: if everyone in your area requires a non-compete, and you couldn't get a NC-free offer months, why would you get one now, when you're looking to leave a job you literally just accepted?

To potential employers, you now look worse than before.

> Employment is always a negotiation. If you enter thinking you have zero leverage and are unable or unwilling to find other work, then you do have zero leverage.

Translation:

"I like to make boastful absolutist claims because I have very little actual experience in the job market."

[ownagefool]

I walked away from a non-compete in Edinburgh, Scotland (startup). I'm not familiar with the law, but I suspect both parties rights had statutory protections anyway, and the clause wasn't legal, but the company was insistant that I sign the contract, even to the point of having lawyers call and explain them to me.

As a contractor it's not that uncommon to be presented contracts with clauses that fail disguised employment regulations. Usually with some negotiation I can get these changed, but on one occasion I recieved a lucrative offer from an intermediary that refused to change the offer. I ended up working for the same client (bank) via another intermediary.

Personally, I refuse to sign bullshit clauses, but many of these companies do refuse to budge, and I imagine it's much harder for junior people to leave the money on the table.