[hamandcheese]

> Also what this does not address is non-association clauses which are just as restrictive and non-competitive.

I've never heard of a non-association clause, could you explain it? Is this the same as a non-solicitation clause?

[jonluca]

It's even worse - you aren't allowed to work with anyone that you previously worked with for the duration of the clause.

I worked at an NYC based hedge fund until April 2022, and am not allowed to work with anyone that I've worked with at the fund until April 2024, regardless of when they left. This applies even if we don't work on anything competitive to the fund, or even related to finance.

[anonymouskimmer]

> or even related to finance.

Does this apply to working with them in, say, a lobbyist's office? In certain, narrow circumstances I think this would conflict with various laws governing the right to free association and petition. And if you were both elected/appointed to office in the same legislative or executive body I presume the sovereign political interest would trump this clause.

[delecti]

Non-compete (and non-association) clauses aren't government regulation, it's agreements you make when accepting the job. Your first amendment rights aren't infringed by work dress codes either. You aren't at risk of criminal penalty, just whatever civil penalty is specified in the contract.

Not that that means they're necessarily okay, it's just unrelated.

[anonymouskimmer]

This is why I wasn't citing the first amendment. It is not the only such law that exists. Even if it was I wouldn't have cited it because of the US Constitution's contracts clause. Some contract terms are unenforceable though, at least under certain circumstances. I just wonder how these things balance out in edge cases.

[memefrog]

I don't know about the law of the United States, but here in New Zealand a contract purporting to interfere with the right of a citizen to stand for election to Parliament would be void as contrary to public policy (Peters v Collinge [1993] 2 NZLR 554), and there are various common law precedents on similar matters going all the way back to 1785. I would guess that a contract that purported to bind one of the parties not to vote in an election would be void in the United States, right? And probably one requiring the person not to stand for election too. Whether that extends all the way to a contract preventing someone from working in a politics-adjacent area like lobbying is questionable, of course, but it's worth bearing in mind...

[Spooky23]

It probably makes it worse as you need to disclose that you are a lobbyist and often who you meet with.

[steveBK123]

Yeah, these are crazy. I had a 3 month non compete (paid, it's great if you time it in summer).

BUT also a 5 year non-solicitation clause. The language is strict such that even if I & coworkerX move elsewhere, if I solicit coworkerX in that 5 year loopback they threaten to go after me.

So are these agreements legal in the sense that they'd stand up in court? No not really.. but you don't want to risk it.

All firms in the industry enforce similar clauses and defacto respect each others, such as to keep the facade up.

I had a firm make me a very generous offer and ask if I could get my PAID non-compete waived at old fund.

I asked - well you are asking me to ask to get my 3 months paid time off waived, can you offer me something in return.. like you'll pay me for 1 month and I'll start 2 months earlier? They said absolutely not, they don't want to be seen as soliciting me to violate my contract with old fund.

[ortusdux]

Do you have to quit if your new employer hires someone from your previous workplace?

[detroitcoder]

You cannot work with a former colleague for an explicit duration in an economic capacity for a fixed period of time. This may or may not be dependent on the nature of the work being conscidered competitive (I have seen both). I have only seen these clauses referenced in deferred comp, not contractual non-competes.