Did I fuck up? I stuck to my principles but I still feel like a bitch.
I got offered this summer job that is decently related to my field, but I left after the first day of training because they wanted me to sign stuff that made me uncomfortable. The main thing was a non-compete agreement, which explicitly stated I could not be a "... member or employee" of an organization offering a competing product or service. I felt like this summer job would have had the potential to fuck my near future over.
I just think having something like that (and a couple of other things) is ridiculously harsh for a summer job.
how do you think they will find out if you violated the NCA? what do you think they will do?
>>17152413
what, was it just for when you were employed with them or was it for perpetuity?
because a no moonlighting clause is extremely common
No, but in your near future you will probably be signing a NCE or non disclosure for the company you want to end up working for. Every company will want you to sign one before they start disclosing the information of their company to you.
How long would it have been in effect - if just for the duration of your employment, I'd have thought that to be reasonable.
>>17152413
what was the job field? it was just a summer job so its no big deal.
how strict was teh non compete? mine was simply stating that i would not open up another russian restaurant in a 3 mile radius. which is pretty alright considering i was a bus boy and have no itnerest in opening up a russian restaurant.
what was the job? what was hte business?
>>17152430
I was afraid I couldn't work for another agency after summer ended. I graduate soon, so it won't be too long before I am looking for full-time permanent employment.
>>17152435
>>17152449
>>17152455
It would have lasted 1 year after the end of employment for any reason.
>>17152470
interesting. but what was the job / field?
Principles are for suckers, it's basically just a fancy way of saying "I'm stubborn and guided by emotion rather than rational"
>>17152539
OP is too dumb to realize that principle had nothing to do with it.
if he presumably has a job until the end of summer, and the job is in his field, and the non compete says he cant have a job in his field for 1 year form the termination date, then that means he would not be able to get a job next summer.
This is pretty normal if you're in tech fields.
Don't worry about it. If it's supposed to extend beyond you quitting, often times you can talk to your boss and get permission.
They're worded vaguely on purpose, and most times where you go next they won't mind.
Or you get some company head hunting you that will fight the legal battle to get you released.
>>17152493
Home Health.
>>17152546
Okay, maybe "principle" wasn't the right word, but I didn't want to be controlled to the point of not having a choice of employment anymore.
I know I sound like an entitled bitch right now, but I didn't know until this day they were going to expect this from new hires.
>>17152470
>lasted 1 year after the end of employment for any reason.
This is illegal almost everywhere. A company cannot force someone into poverty or affect their ability to work.
It would have been fine if you signed it. Surprisingly, most employee contracts or lease contracts are not exactly legal and take away basic human rights.
>>17152413
You did the right thing. Never sign anything you're never fully comfortable with especially if it's in the work place or you're working at a damn start-up. Same happened to me last week and the guy was essentially trying to con me out of what was agreed upon.
Sounds like you fucked up
>>17152674
i dont think you sound like an entitled bitch at all OP. yeah you sounded a wee bit dumb with the word principle, but you had a very valid concern. that non compete was a tad too strong for what the job was it seems. i imagine home care can be somewhat competitive and they don't want someone buying you away, taking a patient who insists on you with them.
>>17152413
yeah you fucked up, non competition agreements are common in every field, hell I've even had to sign them as a line cook.
>>17152721
yes but they arent usually so strict from what I've seen. I worked in a restaurant as a bus boy (the floor equivelent of a line cook) and the non competes i signed all said that i could not open up a restaurant in the same style (russian) within a 3 mile radius,.
>>17152721
The fuck do you need a non compete for cooking?
There's nothing to protect with that
>>17152736
namely that you dont open up or help a restaurant open up that directly competes with them after learning their secrets, their recipes, etc.
>>17152413
Virtually no company enforces these non-competition agreements because your supervisors and managers want to stay on amicable terms.
The only time I've heard a company sue is from an accounts manager leaving to other company with all of his clientele.
>>17152677
Very legal almost everywhere. Some states it depends, but regardless if it goes to court you can expect a long legal battle for nothing.
>>17152816
My brother had one of these agreements and it was thrown out immediately. He lives in Indiana.
California also considers them completely illegal.
>>17152686
Funny thing is the next line of the document was about not stealing clientele. I understand and would have signed that but with that, why have the thing I mentioned in my first post?
It also really rubbed me the wrong way that everyone I tried to ask about it (admittedly only 2 people but it's a small place) tried to hand-wave it as a non-issue, then say I had to sign it anyway despite it being "so minor".
>>17152833
CA seems to have pretty good employment laws in general. Shame about their cost of living.
>>17152874
dont trust it. i had a similar issue with my gym.
>nah its okay, we can work around that, doesnt matter, just sign it
sure enough one month later
>IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IT MATTERS WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS
>>17153043
spoken agreements are still legal.
just get a recording next time.
>>17153073
>carefully worded document probably crafted by lawyer(s)
Vs.
>vaguely worded recording by someone who probably doesn't have the authority to negate contacts anyway
Which do you think would win in court?
