Thinking About Changing Jobs? You May Get Sued!
This is a reader submission from “Nosaj” (Jason K):
—————————————————————————–
Just finished reading this article. It really got me stirred up… If you’ve got any reactions or feel it Blog worthy, feel free to use any part you would like.
The basics are: If you’re a professional, you’d better watch out if you ever decide to change jobs. A new legal issue for US IT workers has come. The theory of ‘Inevitable Disclosure’ as applied to the IT worker basically states that if you work for Employer A and decide to jump ship to Employer B, whether you’ve signed a Non-Compete agreement or NOT, Employer A can file a LAWSUIT against YOU to keep you from taking the position at Employer B. - And now you’re out of a job…
What a complete piece of BS!!! Now, more than ever, we are treated by US IT companies as little more than contractors. The days of keeping a job for more than 5 years with a company are essentially over for the vast majority of us. Companies hire and fire regular associates now based solely on their projected earnings statements. IT Workers have mostly adapted to this model by accepting the ‘hire and fire’ cycle, by accepting the ‘outsourcing fad’, and by giving up one of the most precious benefits of a professional career: Stability. Now - it appears we have to deal with LAW SUITS when we attempt to take control of the situation by the only means we have available: The right to work where we please - as expressed by ‘jumping ship’ to hopefully better employment situations.
Where do we go from here? Ever heard of anyone who has been through a mandatory salary reduction? I have. Now, if we were to try to leave such an abusive and/or failing company, they would have the LEGAL option to invoke a lawsuit against us using the ‘Inevitable Disclosure’ argument. How about if we get laid off? Fired? Evil corporations can still invoke this to protect themselves - or - to act punitively against us!
At the very least, if our increasingly communist judicial system is going to allow this, then companies willing to invoke this type of lawsuit against us to protect themselves should be required to pay us our salary + benefits + bonuses + raise schedule for the term they feel necessary to protect their intellectual assets.
-J
Yuna said,
August 29, 2005 @ 11:36 am
This is no news to me. The company I work for has clear regulations on who we can work for if we are thinking about switching jobs. For example, we can’t work for our competitors nor our past clients (within 6 months after we complete the projects). But legalizing it raises whole different issues…I wonder who will write a law to ban the IT firms from offshoring our jobs to India or China. I’d call that as a fare trade
It also disturbs me that this will affect a broader range of workers than just the IT folks.
Nosaj said,
August 29, 2005 @ 12:30 pm
Yeah, it’s old stuff when considering Non-Compete agreements; it’s the far-reaching aspects of applying it to those who *did not* have to sign their life away that’s new. It just feels so punitive to me - especially when there is no *aid* package offered to help us in those cases where we get laid off / fired, or forced to take a salary cut and this legal option is exercised. Thanks Yuna for giving public space to my venting.
Cyco Miko said,
August 29, 2005 @ 10:18 pm
I agree this really sucks a$$. What’s more, I really have to say I don’t agree with the whole Non-Compete clause thing at all. I understand the corporate thinking behind it, but it leaves too much to interpretation. For the employees, it’s kind of like saying, legally, you have to change your career if you want to change job, because if you change jobs and still do the samething, just for somebody else, then you are competing. Maybe this is only true for the IT service industry, and it’s not always enforced, but it still bites to have that over your head. Plus, what is wrong with if I don’t like working for you, or you are not paying me what I deserve, then I’ll go work for somebody else. Come on, afraid of little competition?
Travelling Aussie said,
August 30, 2005 @ 9:34 am
I remember hearing something like this happening back in Australia a few years ago, where by a company tried to stop a ex-employ from working for a competitor, and basically what happened was the employer lost the case. The courts told the employer they didn’t have the right to stop the person from working for who ever they liked.
The only people who actually get anything out of this are the lawyers, they are the ones that put these clauses in and then make the big bucks enforcing them.
I can understand if you are a big senior exec for the company, so high up that you shouldn’t work for a competitor, but for people like us who are down the food chain big deal.
If we couldn’t take a job because of that clause then there will be a lot of IT people out of work collecting social secuirty. Because end of the day there really isn’t that many places one can go to without going to a competitor.
Yuna said,
August 30, 2005 @ 9:52 am
Yep.. I am with you on that one… we still walk if we want to rigth now.. but legalizing this whole thing puts us in a much worse position.. little guys like us could get sued.. just the thought of it could stop people from leaving the jobs… and that’s the scary power the empolyers would have…
Nio said,
July 5, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
a what
balabo1_vu said,
August 2, 2008 @ 1:16 am
[@map/map_4g5_mordy.txt||5||p-1||1|| @]
balabo1_vu said,
August 2, 2008 @ 1:16 am
[@map/map_4g5_mordy.txt||5||p-1||1|| @]