I would be curious to get your feedback regarding the non-compete agreements that companies often have employees or contractors sign. Many of us doing work in Drupal run across these all the time. Although some protection for the company seems fair, some agreements I have seen seem to go way too far and seem to prevent someone from making a living.
I may be turning down a great-sounding opportunity tomorrow because the employee agreement seems way too hostile, especially the non-compete part. The definition of the company's "Client" seems way too broad, and could apply to almost all companies and government agencies in the DC area.
There are plenty of opportunities without hostile agreements, and everyone in the past agreed to change their agreement to a specific client when I objected to it. I believe it is possible to do plenty of great Drupal stuff without signing such agreements.
I know much of what is in these clauses is not enforceable, but who wants to deal with possible legal stuff in the future?
Is there any list of companies with "fair" employee agreements?
What do you think about this? If you want to contact me directly, send your email to email3@pbzproductions.com.
Comments
Most (reasonable) companies
should be willing to tweek their NDA if you have a specific, valid, and fair objection. I'm not a lawyer but I manage my companies client and vendor NDAs. They get "adjusted" all of the time.
I know it's a different situation for a individual contractor, but I don't think that you should hesitate to make a reasonable request to modify the NDA. If they refuse, it's a good sign that this is probably not a good place to work.
Carl Bice
operations director
........................................
LMD
Brand Architects | Innovative Creative
grow
........................................
301.498.6656 ext 234
516.318.9245 (cell)
301.953.0321 fax
[[
Non-Compete
I think the poster is talking about non-compete agreements, not NDAs. I too have experienced seemingly draconian restrictions supposedly on who and where i could work if i left the company. I totally agree that they probably aren't enforceable, but like you said, who wants it to get that far.
My last job involved a
My last job involved a non-compete agreement that most of the employees I talked to described as hostile. For an open source company you would expect that they would steer clear of this sort of tactic but it was by far the worst I've ever seen. My favorite part is that they said you couldn't compete in any markets they participated in but refused to define which markets they participate in.
Worse still, once you read the details of these things they typically go beyond non-compete and into the realm of ownership rights and non-disclosure as well. The more troubling parts of these documents is ownership over code developed "on and off the clock" essentially saying they own all your side projects!
The whole thing is a bit out of control. On one hand good employers claim they are all about employee development and happiness and then you read the contract and it's the exact opposite.
I'd love to see a list of employers that don't force their employees to sign these things or if they do, at least with minimal impact on the employee.
Walk away
If they're not willing to change it, I would bail. There are plenty of companies looking for people to work with Drupal in various capacities, and there's no reason to leave a trap waiting for the time you decide to leave the job.
Update on discussion on noncompete agreements
I appreciate the comments. It helped me do what I needed to do. Yes, Brock, I did bail. I did not take on the project. Within a day or so I had another project lined up with a normal sort of contract that they agreed to adapt some, and I signed it. I start work on this other project on Monday.
I wouldn't sign either
I agree. It's common to agree to not poach client's or employees. It's not fair to attempt to prevent a worker from working elsewhere latter on.
It's very telling if they're attempting to get away with as much as possible. You'd be better off with a company that treats it's people fairly, as part of the team not just a "human resource."
A talented and skilled developer should have plenty of good options for work in D.C. you'd hate to limit them needlessly.
Thoughts on terms...
I'm more on the visual design side of things, where terms could even be more restrictive.
Some outfits would go as far as to claim their rights extended to all materials, so far that a team member couldn't even show samples of completed work in their portfolio, even if correctly attributed. This could even apply to national/international campaigns where literally millions of people had seen the work.
Reasonable restrictions as to poaching and/or intellectual property are one thing, but all-encompassing arrangements are another...
Some firms may just pop in boilerplate into noncompetes without much review, but I think this says a lot about an organization's core philosophy. Enough outfits I have been exposed to don't know how to negotiate in good faith, and look to tilt the balance greatly in their favor to begin with.
It usually isn't in your best interest to deal with outfits making unreasonable demands--they probably aren't interested in any form of real collaboration.
yup
if the project starts off with mistrust and discord, imagine how it will be 6 months later.