How to get a job (or not)

[Lexicus]

My post was on about 9 layers of irony and was not meant as an endorsement of anything contained inside it. Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited

 

[Ajidica]

Question about negotiations:
The company I've worked for for several years was bought by another company a few years ago, and they have just finished transitioning all of us to their employment contracts. As part of that, we all have to sign a new employment contract. Any potential salary changes will be discussed in a month or two. In addition to the completely normal stuff like anything I make on company time is company property, there is also a 12 month non-compete clause. Everyone in my department has the exact same employment contract, right down to the guy who started a few months ago. I spoke with a relative who is a lawyer and he agrees with me it is very broad, potentially broad enough that if the company wanted to screw me it could keep me out of any job in my field. Even if the non-compete clause could be voided as excessively broad/punitive, I am not at a level where another company would want to get into a legal fight over that so I'd be fighting it on my own.

After talking with the lawyer relative, he said that basically my two options are:
1) Get some sort of clarification to the non-compete language. Get them to clarify exactly what they are concerned about and if there is a specific type of company they don't want me going to work for. This could be important as the employer is looking to expand into some fields that I could have also sought employment.
2) If they won't narrow the scope of the non-compete clause, try and get some sort of severance if I am terminated without cause.

I am not looking to leave my job at all, and despite some upcoming changes I don't think I'll like, it is still a good work environment. I also don't want to wreck relations with the big parent company. However, they do have serious incentive to keep me, as my manager is looking to retire in a few years and is absolutely hopeless when it comes to technology or modern market surveillance. The next person below me is I swear in a competition to see how little he can actually do and still remain employed. Beyond that everyone has less than a year of employment. I am also at an skill level where it would be hard to find a replacement at my skill level. They would have to either get extremely lucky, or poach someone from a competitor.

To that end, what are your thoughts on if it is worth approaching management to say I would like to discuss the terms of the contract? And your thoughts on how I might want to frame it to them?
Feel free to PM me if more details would help.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Question about negotiations:
The company I've worked for for several years was bought by another company a few years ago, and they have just finished transitioning all of us to their employment contracts. As part of that, we all have to sign a new employment contract. Any potential salary changes will be discussed in a month or two. In addition to the completely normal stuff like anything I make on company time is company property, there is also a 12 month non-compete clause. Everyone in my department has the exact same employment contract, right down to the guy who started a few months ago. I spoke with a relative who is a lawyer and he agrees with me it is very broad, potentially broad enough that if the company wanted to screw me it could keep me out of any job in my field. Even if the non-compete clause could be voided as excessively broad/punitive, I am not at a level where another company would want to get into a legal fight over that so I'd be fighting it on my own.

After talking with the lawyer relative, he said that basically my two options are:
1) Get some sort of clarification to the non-compete language. Get them to clarify exactly what they are concerned about and if there is a specific type of company they don't want me going to work for. This could be important as the employer is looking to expand into some fields that I could have also sought employment.
2) If they won't narrow the scope of the non-compete clause, try and get some sort of severance if I am terminated without cause.

I am not looking to leave my job at all, and despite some upcoming changes I don't think I'll like, it is still a good work environment. I also don't want to wreck relations with the big parent company. However, they do have serious incentive to keep me, as my manager is looking to retire in a few years and is absolutely hopeless when it comes to technology or modern market surveillance. The next person below me is I swear in a competition to see how little he can actually do and still remain employed. Beyond that everyone has less than a year of employment. I am also at an skill level where it would be hard to find a replacement at my skill level. They would have to either get extremely lucky, or poach someone from a competitor.

To that end, what are your thoughts on if it is worth approaching management to say I would like to discuss the terms of the contract? And your thoughts on how I might want to frame it to them?
Feel free to PM me if more details would help.

Non competes only affect you if you are looking to change jobs. In the US they are being phased out because courts are finding them illegal. I suggest that you have a conversation with the appropriate person to get a clear picture of what it means, and then just sign it then and there. I would frame the conversation around just the new items in the contract (or those with big changes). Seek clarity and not changes. Keep it casual and not a big deal. Then just sign it. Questioning a non compete will send a message that you are thinking about leaving.

Important parts of a non compete are the geographic scope and any industry or company limitations. But again, you want your contact to give you information and you do not want to act like this is a big deal for you.

 

[Joij21]

Or, at least until Gen Z tells you all to f'off and throws your ideas into the trash.

Ah yes I certainly cannot wait for that day to come! The day I shall be sat upon the Iron Throne!!!!

 

[aelf]

Well, if you had an hourly employee who hung out here while they were on the clock, what would you do? I have always been salaried since I joined CFC, but nonetheless I never logged into the site while working. But keep in mind that I used company supplied desktop computers and never worked off laptops or smart phones. My work day world in business was not like the world of millennials so my perspective is quite different. I was on the management side of things for over 30 years.

I know generational difference is the standard answer (which I actually agree with, because somehow the boomer generation internalised false consciousness so well), but this doesn't even make sense from a business perspective. You'd still want to measure it by results. If you had estimated that it takes x hours to produce a certain result, and you pay someone for x hours to produce that result, then that's what you get. It doesn't matter if the person actually spends less than x hours to produce it. If your estimation was way off, then it's up to you to fine tune it, but it will still be an average at best. Some people are faster and others slower.

Unless your only concern is to cut costs at any opportunity, which often results in exploitation and suboptimal practices (but, again, I admit the boomer generation loves to do this).

 

[Joij21]

I know generational difference is the standard answer (which I actually agree with, because somehow the boomer generation internalised false consciousness so well), but this doesn't even make sense from a business perspective. You'd still want to measure it by results. If you had estimated that it takes x hours to produce a certain result, and you pay someone for x hours to produce that result, then that's what you get. It doesn't matter if the person actually spends less than x hours to produce it. If your estimation was way off, then it's up to you to fine tune it, but it will still be an average at best. Some people are faster and others slower.

Unless your only concern is to cut costs at any opportunity, which often results in exploitation and suboptimal practices (but, again, I admit the boomer generation loves to do this).

@Birdjaguar just has low confidence.

He sees the white hairs on the wall!!!

 

[Traitorfish]

Questioning a non compete will send a message that you are thinking about leaving.

It'll send the message that you're thinking about leaving at some point, but that's really kind of a given in the modern economy, it's vanishingly rare for people to spend their whole career with a single organisation. I don't think that asking for clarification would signal that you're actively considering leaving.

 

[really]

I knew a man who had intimate knowledge of the various big, competitive contracts the company was pitching for.
He gave notice that he was moving to a similar role in a direct competitor and was hoping because of his knowledge he would be put on gardening leave for his three month notice period.
He was annoyed when he was made work the full notice period as any normal employee.

 

[Gorbles]

If questioning a non-compete sends a message that I'm considering leaving, I'd argue the company has its priorities vis-à-vis building whatever it is they're meant to be building (as a product or service) completely backwards. You want to incentivise me to stay, you don't want to try and enforce some kind of deal that only benefits you, and not me, in the event I want to look for other work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It'll send the message that you're thinking about leaving at some point, but that's really kind of a given in the modern economy, it's vanishingly rare for people to spend their whole career with a single organisation. I don't think that asking for clarification would signal that you're actively considering leaving.

If questioning a non-compete sends a message that I'm considering leaving, I'd argue the company has its priorities vis-à-vis building whatever it is they're meant to be building (as a product or service) completely backwards. You want to incentivise me to stay, you don't want to try and enforce some kind of deal that only benefits you, and not me, in the event I want to look for other work.

Asking for clarification about a non compete and questioning it are not necessarily the same thing. Much depends upon the circumstances. If the non compete is a brand new policy, getting clarification is smart in any case. If an existing non complete has been revised, then asking about how it has changed is smart. From what I have seen, most non competes are brought out at first hire and never seen again unless one exits and the company has worries.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Wage increases by various categories.

 

[Gorbles]

Asking for clarification about a non compete and questioning it are not necessarily the same thing.

Again, I'd argue that that perception rests solely on the company. If it's perceived as "questioning", that's their failure. Can't expect people to be savvy, and simultaneously be upset that they're savvy.

 

[Samson]

Wage increases by various categories.

That is an odd document. Is it supposed to look like this?

Spoiler :

 

[Gorbles]

That is an odd document. Is it supposed to look like this?

Spoiler :

Doesn't appear to have the article behind it you're seeing for me. I've tested on Chrome and Edge (though they're basically the same browser) and more importantly Firefox. The PDF seems to render properly in all three cases.

 

[Samson]

If I was critiquing it, I would say they are also missing the point that inflation is stratified as well as wages. If most of your outgoings are food and energy you will experience a much higher rate of inflation than others.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, I pulled the graph out of a WSJ article that is paywalled for most.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A pdf of the whole article, but it doesn't want to load for me.

 

[Ajidica]

Asking for clarification about a non compete and questioning it are not necessarily the same thing. Much depends upon the circumstances. If the non compete is a brand new policy, getting clarification is smart in any case. If an existing non complete has been revised, then asking about how it has changed is smart. From what I have seen, most non competes are brought out at first hire and never seen again unless one exits and the company has worries.

It's a weird thing because our companies merged, so now I am formally an employee of the other company.
Plus, considering half of my job requires me to be a suspicious grump (Financial Investigator), wanting clarification on unclear language is firmly within my job description!

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Ajidica Since you could be investigating things that could be related to such a document, yes, you need to fully understand all its nuances!

 

[Hygro]

It's a weird thing because our companies merged, so now I am formally an employee of the other company.
Plus, considering half of my job requires me to be a suspicious grump (Financial Investigator), wanting clarification on unclear language is firmly within my job description!

That sounds fun