TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: job shop--non-compete clause? From:Stuart Burnfield <slb -at- FS -dot- COM -dot- AU> Date:Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:29:04 +0800
Randy Burgess <ghost -at- DAVINCI -dot- NETAXIS -dot- COM> said:
> She wants me to sign what she says is a standard "non-compete" clause
> before she even thinks of introducing me to a client. Effectively it would
> bar me from working for a company she "introduced" me to "directly or
> indirectly" for up to a year after I leave her employ. It seems very broad
> to me. . .
Randy, I don't understand what "indirectly" refers to here. Does it mean
you can't work 'indirectly' (i.e. through another placement service) for
one of her clients? Or does it bar you from working for clients she
introduced you to 'indirectly', whatever that means?
Here are some possibilities:
1. she places you with BT for 3 months. You can't work for BT for a year
after you leave her. Sounds fair.
2. she places you with BT for 3 months, then you leave her. You can't
work for *any* of her clients for a year. Doesn't sound fair.
3. she sends your resume to BT along with some others. BT don't pick
you. You can't work for BT for a year after you leave her. This is
a borderline case.
4. she and you don't get on and agree to part company. You sign up with
another placement firm but are barred from being placed with any
firms on your first employer's books for a year. This is much the
same as 2.
You need to find out which of these possibilities apply, and how you
would feel if they occurred.
> Her whole pitch is that she's not a big
> anonymous recruitment firm, she's more selective in whom she hires and
> where she places--really tries to make a good match, etc.
I agree with Tim Altom that it sounds like she's just taking reasonable
steps to protect herself from being undercut by unscrupulous employees.
It would be interesting to chat to a couple of her other employees. It's
important to have a good working relationship with the boss, especially
in this case where your opportunities will be restricted somewhat for
a year after you go. If she has a good name for ethical dealings with
her people, I would be comfortable working under these arrangements.
If you find she is likely to spray your resume all over Manhattan, I'd
be reluctant to sign.
Stuart Burnfield (slb -at- fs -dot- com -dot- au) Voice: +61 9 328 8288
Senior Stunt Borg
Functional Software Pty Ltd Fax: +61 9 328 8616