Signing a noncompete ... please advise.

The legal advice certainly wouldn't hurt. In the commentary surrounding the Par Ridder episode, many lawyers made the point that most noncompetes signed later than right after the immediate start of employment wouldn't hold up. But that was in Minnesota. Case law is different elsewhere (and may change again here by the time summer ends, thanks to Par.) And even if you can get out of it, you probably don't want to spend the money to get out of it either.

 

Completely agreed.

The fact that they are doing it doesn't mean it's legal; it simply means they think there's a chance they can get away with it.

 

giving them the benefit of the doubt for being smart business people. sorry about that--won't happen again.

The more I think about this I'm guessing this is really aimed at maybe 1, 2 or no more than a handful of people they really want to a) try to keep and or b) make sure don't jump to a competitor, but they're runnign across the board to disguise the true intention.

 

If they want you to sign a non-compete five years into your employment there, then tell them they can pay for it. Non-comps are usually brought in to protect an employer's investment in somebody for more than minimum wage.

 

I was sent an employment contract that included a non-compete clause.
I had a lawyer friend look at it and was told by him not to sign it, then just leave it alone to see if they would press the issue and they didn't.
If they had pressed it, I would have delayed and said that it was udner review or something.
He had some concerns about a couple of the clauses and that it didn't appear tailored to my state laws, but to the laws of the state where the company was headquartered.

 

An employer has no "investment" in an employee other than what he pays him. The instant he stops issuing paychecks, his ability to dictate the conditions of the employee's employment should disappear.

 

I'm not writing this to belittle you, MrWrite. However, if you've put up with numerous years without a raise in these trying economic ties, then it's probably safe of your employers to assume you'll put up with just a little bit more bullshit.

I say fuck 'em. Get another job and whipe your ass with that contract. Like someone else wrote, this probably won't end well and you're likely to be out of work either way. At least they can't make some insane claim that you can't look for other work (unless they have the balls to forge your signature and fuck you anyway).

 

I don't disagree, but someone will agree to a non-comp in exchange for a higher-than-average salary.
Happens all the time in the executive world and I know it happens for higher-profile journalists, those that publishers think sell papers.
The non-comp makes it tougher for that "star" to move, so that's why I say get more money if they want a non-comp. Otherwise, tell them to go to hell (in a nice way, of course)

 

Non-competes serve a legitimate purpose, but they need to be subject to negotiation.

If I'm giving away my right to work in my area of expertise anywhere within 100 miles, I expect a 15% raise. If I's giving away my right to do **any** work for **any** shop within 250 miles, I need 30% before I John Hancock the paperwork.

In short, they needed to do this at the time of hiring if they didn't intend to compensate you for it. I know times are rough in the industry, but you've gone without a raise for too long.

If they fire you under these circumstances, they cannot possibly claim it was "for cause." Collect unemployment for 26 weeks and then take the best available offer.