Cisco to HP: 'Stop suing former staffers' Cisco’s chief legal officer Mark Chandler has publicly admonished HP for using legal action to stop former staff from working for the competition. Chandler said that in the last two years HP had threatened legal action against three former staff members who sought to work at Cisco, citing non-compete clauses in their contracts …
I have to agree that this is stupid, and to be honest the you can't work for our compition clause in contracts is a joke and should not be allowed, the same goes for outside of work IP ownership what you do on your time is yours and as long as it use's no resource or IP of your employer it should remain yours.
You're thinking MANAGER and the article concerns EMPLOYEES.
Wrong caste my good sir.
Managers are the caste that get the good stuff whatever moronic decisions they make.
Employees are the caste that should gratefully PAY for the privilege of not being curb-stomped every Monday morning, and if they have the impudence to actually want to leave the WONDERFUL opportunity that is their employer they should rightfully fear for their lives like the scum they are.
At least, that's how it appears to be at HP.
I'm afraid that the top talent at HP left years ago. Back then we had a lot of respect in the marketplace, but once Bill and Dave handed over the reins the culture changed and subsequently the best people made their way to the exit (not necessarily guided by their own determination).
It's now a box shifter competing with other box shifters. It was way better back in the days where equipment was sold on the back of perceived quality. Unfortunately there is no Bill and Dave running things today, it's all become a numbers game.
Just been through this recently where my prior employer threatened me with legal action after joining their main competitor. I wrote back referring them to the proposed response in the Arkell v Pressdram case (something I've wanted to use for years) and have heard not a peep from them since. I also made a point of winning some of their bigger customers away from them, something which I had originally no intent of doing (for fair play reasons, not legal ones).
If an employee leaves for a rival company (one assumes the employee is specialised in a certain area, thus will seek a place with a similar company) for better pay and/or conditions... Isn't that like a customer buying a rival's product or service because it is better and/or cheaper?
Well HP, is it or isnt it? Clearly it is.
Or to put it another way: That's capitalism, bitch!
Non-competition clauses are not fair to the employee unless there is reasonable compensation. If you sign a contract with one, you are consciously agreeing to that nasty restriction ... so be sure that it's worth it!
Don't be afraid to mark up the contract and negotiate. If the non-competition period is too long, then shorten it, or try to include a severance package that covers the length of time you can't work.
The noncompetition clause should also be reasonable in terms of the length of time you were employed. If you quit HP after 3 months, you shouldn't have to be unemployable in your field for 2 years.
Always think through the consequences of the wording of an employment contract before signing it.
Don't let corporations hold all the cards. If enough people get picky about these clauses together, then the corporations will HAVE to take a more human approach to these contracts in order to get the talent they need.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
