Anonymous wrote:Perfect timing with this question for me.
I'm making a career change from office drone to the beauty industry.
After beauty school I applied to be an employee at high volume salon #1 and was given a non-disclosure/non-compete to sign. The non-compete was really a no solicitation for 2 years agreement. They don't want you to steal their clients. No problem. The deal breaker for me was the money I'd have to pay if I didn't make it through at least one year at this minimum wage + low commission + tips job to reimbursement them for my training. It was literally 2+ months' salary if I left early and there are close to no benefits like flexibility like I was expecting at a salon job.
I moved on to high volume salon #2. I have been in unpaid training for two weeks. Now the owner has told me I need to sign a non-disclosure/non-compete to start getting paid as a 1099 contractor. I've read it and this one says no stealing clients, of course. It also says I can't start my own salon or have an ownership stake in a salon business within 10 miles of her salon. I am a business already and if her business is slow I don't want to limit my ability to make money. I could be ok if she reduced the radius to 5 miles.
A few things about job #2:
1. The owner is currently in a lawsuit with a former contractor who started her own business with the owner's blessing until she heard that contractor was soliciting her clients.
2. The owner let another contractor leave with her blessing to start her own business because that girl had a lot of complaints about poor service and she was trying to figure out how to get rid of her anyway.
One of my friends is warning me that the owner of salon #2 sounds unstable, but the commissions are great and she is very flexible with work hours which is why I'm willing to put up with some of this craziness.
Anyway, I've read that 1099 contractors cannot be held to non-competes like employees. Does that apply in Virginia?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I got screwed on two things in my last noncompete:
1. not being able to work for a customer
2. not being able to recruit any former colleagues
I really wanted to work for a customer but would have been screwed. I also really wanted to hire a few coworkers (months after I left and they were actively looking).
So your prior employee introduced you to a customer and your former coworkers, but it's ok for you to poach both? You are why these exist.
Anonymous wrote:I got screwed on two things in my last noncompete:
1. not being able to work for a customer
2. not being able to recruit any former colleagues
I really wanted to work for a customer but would have been screwed. I also really wanted to hire a few coworkers (months after I left and they were actively looking).
Anonymous wrote:I saw one for a help desk person. Literally the lowest level IT person you could find. And the prior employer went after the employee. Also had terms in her agreement that she had to repay training $, claw back raises if she left, just horrible stuff. This on a 40K/yr IT person.
Anonymous wrote:I love non competes. They are HUGE levers for massive pay. Don't want me to work for a direct competitor for a year? No problem, I want 3x annual salary as a sign on to compensate for the risk. Boom, huge payday.
And then when you leave it's simple: they hire you into a role outside your non compete to lock you in, then once your non compete expires you move into the right role. It's done all the time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in some cases like law, I think they are pretty much garbage. And even in law, I think they should be restricted only to prevent people from stealing clients away from their previous employer.
It's just another way to hold a thumb down on employees who will be cast aside like garbage whenever it's convenient to their employer. Luckily, they are often unenforceable.
I use them for employees, but they are written to restrict competing with existing clients and prospects. So you can't walk out the door, take the sales pipeline with you, and start calling into those accounts. Those are 100% enforceable. Saying you cannot work in the industry is typically only found in buy out agreements - that is, I bought your company from you, and you cannot start another one doing the same thing for a period of time (typically 5 years).
Anonymous wrote:Except in some cases like law, I think they are pretty much garbage. And even in law, I think they should be restricted only to prevent people from stealing clients away from their previous employer.
It's just another way to hold a thumb down on employees who will be cast aside like garbage whenever it's convenient to their employer. Luckily, they are often unenforceable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My company puts them on low-level people with none of the leverage that pp's describe. I think it's pretty crappy to make run-of-the-mill employees sign them. Fine at the VP level and above where people are involved in long-term strategy and decision-making.
Many aren't enforceable. See, for example, Home Paramount case in Virginia.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My employer had me sign one when I started; I can't work in solar anywhere for three years.
I only make about $70k as an engineer and consider it a worthless piece of paper. I am openly looking for the same position at competing companies.
More than likely yours is not enforceable. It is too broad and unreasonable.