Signing a noncompete ... please advise.

I'm no lawyer, but I too was thinking, they've have to have you sign this BEFORE you started there. Strange that they've waited over five years. Talk to a lawyer FAST!

 

National non-compete? Are you Katie Couric?

Seriously, you better be some bigtime writer or talent. If you are in upper management, it is fair as long as you are compensated well. If your just a beat drone, then there is no way you should have to sign this thing.

Why don't you read the non-compete and relay the language. If they just don't want you to go to the competition next week, fine. But, you have to have protections too. If you get a better job, higher pay and bigger responsibilities, you should have an out.

Don't sign anything without at least consulting a lawyer or doing heavy research.

 

I'll echo. Run it by an attorney before you sign anything.

 

damn, quit outing me! ;D

 

Has anyone refused to sign and been fired?

It wasn't originally part of the terms of your employment, you're probably within your rights to refuse. And if it's that broad--as in, some lawyer threw in every possible contingent just because he/she could--it's likely not even enforceable....you can't prohibit someone from pursuing their livelihood.

Are they pressuring you, or can you throw it in a drawer and pretend you forgot?

 

This sounds like an intimidation tactic and if it's a national noncompete, it isn't enforceable under any standard presently out there. All they're doing is trying to play a mind game on you and make you think they have you "locked in" for another four years of no raises.

Don't sign it -- get a labor attorney to review the document first, and advise the company that your attorney is "reviewing." My guess is that once these chickenchokers realize you didn't just fall off the turnip truck they'll back off like the gutless cowards they sound like they are.

 

We had something similar (no national stipulation though) circulated at our shop in January. Nobody in the newsroom staff signed the thing (though other departments did), figuring there's safety in numbers. To date, nothing more has been said.

 

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

i'd been playing the delay-of-game tactic for a few months and had assumed it was all but forgotten until getting this do-or-die deadline today.

but the latest legal advice i've received is that they can pretty much fire you for anything they want, including not signing this, though making me sign it to keep working there makes it largely unenforceable since courts won't usually shit on your right to work for just any old reason.

guess i've got a little thinking to do ... thanks all for the advice (and feel free to dole out more should anyone have anything relevant).

 

Why? If the Post wants to protect itself, pay the writer more than the writer would make at the Times.

Non-competes are crap. People banded together in my state to get them outlawed about 5 years ago.

I would never, ever consider signing one that tried to impose a nationwide non-compete on any level. If your description is accurate, don't sign it.

 

Who's being asked to sign? Just the writing staff? Every employee? (including the janitorial crew). That might be some helpful info. Here's my take on this (although I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on TV)

What they have going for them:

Their legal eagles surely would have looked this over and made some evaluation that this would pass legal muster. They wouldn't be fishing this around for signatures if they didn't at least think they were ok on legal grounds.

With that said,

What you have going for you:

The national clause completely invalidates this thing. You can put in non competes, but you have to specify what/where you can't compete against. Certain geographical region--ok. Specific industry competing companies, sure. But, a blanket non compete that effective says you can't earn a livelihood in your chosen profession anywhere across the country--no way that stands up in front of a judge and jury.

The 5 years after employment and for no apparent reason, while still employed, and for no any compensation on your part seems a bit unusual. Where I have seen non-competes is generally at termination and where there is some form of compensation involved; i.e. severance packages where the non compete is a component of the termination agreement. Would seem like if you're being asked to sign this, they should be offering something in return.

 

Don't be totally sure about that. A lot of publishers are such arrogant dictatorial bastards that they issue edicts like these, either a) without getting legal opinion that their edict will stand up in court, or b) KNOWING FULL WELL what they're doing is illegal and will get thrown out in court -- they just assume they can browbeat/intimidate people out of going to court.

Arrogant, dictatorial, and needless to say, stupid, too.

See a lawyer. Immediately.

Although it may get you fired, from the sounds of it you'd probably be better off anyway:

a) You refuse to sign the non-compete. They fire you tomorrow morning. You can go ahead and look for other jobs in your professional field.

b) You AGREE to sign the non-compete. They fire you tomorrow afternoon. You are legally prohibited from looking for other jobs in your professional field.