I thought we already had an official free legal advice thread

[Ensign Steve]

Well, we do now!

This US company wants me to sign a pretty restrictive NDA/non-compete for a three-month internship, and it's giving me pause. If I'm reading it correctly, I would not even be able to start applying at any competing companies for 9 months after I get back. Since I plan on graduating and starting working about 9 months after I get back, I had planned on applying right away.

There's free legal counsel on campus that I intend to consult, but my email to their appointment system got bounced back, so I'm going to have to do some more work. So far I have just skimmed the document, I still owe it a real thorough reading, but it's loaded with legalize and totes boring. So I may be over nothing, as is my wont.

If I attach the doc to the cloaca or something, would anybody be willing to take a peek at it?

[Ymir's blood]

I think if you sign the NDA, the Feds can attack your place of business and put you into the Witness Protection Program, so it's got that going for it, at least.

[But]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

I think if you sign the NDA, the Feds can attack your place of business and put you into the Witness Protection Program, so it's got that going for it, at least.

I think if you sign an NDA, it's mostly evil. That has to be weighed against other evils, but it's unethical in its essence.

[LadyShea]

A 9 month non compete for a summer internship is really bullshit, but not at all surprising. Can you ask them to amend that clause to be more not stupid?

[thedoc]

Do you really want to work at a place that thinks like that, On the other hand, my daughter signed one with a 5 mile limit and several people have said that kind of doc. does not hold up in court. You could sign it "Under Duress" and see what happens?

[Qingdai]

Yes, I've also been given standard "no compete" clause contracts to sign and have noted that's it was dumb. It was then quickly removed.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do you really want to work at a place that thinks like that, On the other hand, my daughter signed one with a 5 mile limit and several people have said that kind of doc. does not hold up in court. You could sign it "Under Duress" and see what happens?

[LadyShea]

Do you really want to work at a place that thinks like that

That's like asking "Do you really want to work"? All corporations think like that.

[Ari]

My non-lawyer advice would be to line out the non-compete clause and then sign it.
It's not enforceable in California anyway and legally questionable elsewhere.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's like asking "Do you really want to work"? All corporations think like that.

Really? Only one place I worked had an agreement like that, and that was a year or so after I started there. And when asked, my Lawyer said it wouldn't hold up.

[LadyShea]

Not all positions have such agreements.

[erimir]

I am a big fan of non-compete clauses, as you know.

I'd try to have them change it if I were you. Does it have any geographical scope limitations, or does it basically say no competing anywhere?

BTW don't listen to thedoc.

[LadyShea]

thedoc, non compete clauses are useful to corporations as they have in interest an preventing people using employment to gain advantageous information (trade secrets and new product developments and such) and then use it to unfairly compete against said employer.

Now, there should be geographical and time limitations that are reasonable and do not prevent the employee from working anywhere at all. I think 9 months for a 3 month internship, presumably nationwide, is unreasonable.

[Dingfod]

They don't want to train people to work at their competitors.

[lisarea]

I am p. sure that if you sign your name backwards, that makes it mean exactly the opposite. So in this case, the company would be prohibited from hiring anyone else in your job capacity for nine months after you leave.

[Ensign Steve]

Finally somebody is taking my shit seriously!!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

They don't want to train people to work at their competitors.

Good pay and good working conditions ahould take care of that.

[thedoc]

Non-compete clauses are only useful for shity companies with bad working conditions and no benifits.

[ChuckF]

[chunksmediocrites]

Also, laws are pretty much useless. Criminals sure don't follow them.

My legal advice* is to sign it all Hancock-big "POSSE COMITATUS NON COMPOS MENTOS**, SUCKAS!!!!!!!!!"

*Not actual advice on matters pertaining to law. No advice was harmed in the construction of this post. All simulations of advice void in Lolorado.

**In this case, meaning not competent to eat Mentos.***

***Das Freshmaker.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Also, laws are pretty much useless. Criminals sure don't follow them.

Really? Are you implying that 'Law abiding criminal' might be an Oxymoron?

[chunksmediocrites]

Really no, I was making fun of your conclusion that gun control laws are useless since criminals don't follow the law, and extrapolating and exaggerating; since the same rationale can be used to argue that there need be no laws. Murderers still murder, why have murder laws? People still get sick from contaminated food, why have rules about food safety?

I was implying you say dumb things.

[Dingfod]

We don't need no stinking laws, shunning persons offending common standards of decency and hygiene should be sufficient.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I was implying you say dumb things.

Ah! Hmm. Yes... yes.

No, lost it again. Are you implying that if good people don't have guns, then outlaws will break locks with guns at red lights?

[Ensign Steve]

I clicked "REGISTER", not "Join" ... does this mean I am not bound by the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy?*



register-not-join.png

*not a sincere request for legal advice