[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."

[cannonedhamster]

I hate non-competes, non-disparagement,and IP assignment clauses. I've had two (smaller) companies that had them in their offer letter and in both cases I've had the non-competes and non-disparagements removed. I'm not sure I'd have as much luck with a larger company, however it definitely does happen on occasion.

First time was as a new grad. The non-compete literally prevented me from working within 200 miles of my home in the same industry. I noped out. Even when they removed it I wasn't interested because that's shady.

Second time was at a different company. I just let them know I wasn't comfortable giving up my 1st amendment rights just to work somewhere and they considered it and let me take it out. My HR person was awesome and the company treated it's employees well.

Not disputing your other points, just want people to know they should at the very least make sure to ask. It may end up with a no, but it could end up turning out alright.

[ChrisLomont]

>I'll be polite and not accuse you of fabricating.

Then why mention it? So you can say you mentioned it? You can look up my name - I've written a decent amount of material for pay, some of which is also on my website, precisely because I requested the copyrights. You can look over my employment and side project history to see I have gotten the ability to both work on commercial stuff at work and off work.

Instead of implying someone is lying with passive aggressive nonsense, simply do some legwork.

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

You seem to make a lot of claims about me. Maybe your experience is not what everyone has seen? I learned well before leaving undergrad that you can edit legal documents before signing them, and if they countersign, then they agreed to your document. If they don't like it, then you negotiate.

This I thought was common knowledge.

>Your experience is extremely, curiously atypical.

There's a lot of similar claims on this page.

>for several large employers

I've stayed away from them for the most part, since they're more inflexible, and for good reason: dealing with lots of employees is much easier with uniform rules.

>So your solution is to act unethically This was opposed to simply breaking contracts or go unemployed. And a job is a business agreement - you work there as long as it suits you, they employ you as long as it suits them. If they're doing something you find so onerous, it's not unreasonable to find a new job.

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

You may want to look up my name. It's astounding you make so many claims about me without knowing me. What this shows, more than anything, is that you believe your own views, correct or not, over simply looking to check if something is true.