Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA From: Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Noncompetition Clauses Message-ID: <12252@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 12:36:19 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12252 Posted: Thu Apr 12 12:36:19 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 02:19:30 EDT Lines: 30 From: Mabry Tyson Ken, I think you missed one problem with the noncompetition agreement. I guess you looked at it like I did that your salary would be in the same range if you could change jobs so it doesn't hurt too much if you just continued on at the old salary but took the time off. Suppose you started to work for company A at salary X. The next year (or so) you get a much better offer (say as a manager) from company B at salary 2*X. Now you are prevented from taking that job (assuming B is in competition with A). Another way of looking at that is to suppose that you do something good in your first few years after school but that your company doesn't want to give you the raise in salary that is commensurate with your proven abilities. Now you can't just say that company B will pay you twice your current salary. They'd just laugh at you and say you couldn't go. It might be worth 3 years of your old salary to keep you from company B even if you don't do any work for them. I see the clause as cutting down on wage wars between companies. It also cuts down on the mobility available to employees of that company. Finally it probably prevents an employee from starting his own company in that field. I also feel that the restriction may have a negative effect on the company requiring it. Would you go to a black hole from which no one ever could get away? I suppose companies requiring that clause are just going to have to settle for employees that can't find a better offer. Would you want to work with second class people?