Non-Compete Clause.....

[Mackie2k]

So I'm currently working in a job that my friend is also doing.

We both are doing the same work.

I with a small vendor company that gives more of the Rate back to their employee's, with no benefits.

He is with a large company that gives some benefits, and pays $28 an hour.

The Bill Rates are basically the same....so they just give WAY less money. He has asked for a raise to bring up his rate, but they say no, and that he will now need to speak to his Vice President to get out of his Non-Compete, so we're putting together info now.

Obviously he wants more money, and he can buy his benefits with the extra money.

His non-compete is pretty basic....have to wait 6 months after leaving to come back wtih another company, and if you leave you can be liable for 25% of the money the company is losing because you left.

This is in Washington State.

Any lawyers out there that have a good opinion? Anyone with experience in this area?

At some point it's not even the same position because the rates are SO different.

it's nearly $45,000 a year more with OT.

EDIT: Changed some wording

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
I feel that because the jobs are EXACTLY the same, and this other company pays so much more they should be letting him out.....at some point it's not even competeing for the same position because the rates are SO different.

I doubt that makes any legal difference, but no lawyer be me.

You've also already stated it _is_ the same position from an employer's view, just with a diferent split between contract company and its employee.

They would probably argue that the benefits and the ability of the larger contractor to get more jobs justifies them taking a larger cut.

 

[rh71]

big companies - suckier pay for same job in most cases.

 

[chambersc]

wow, uncanny. Kai Fu-Lee from microsoft left them and went to Google. Microsoft said that the non compete clause meant that Kai couldn't go to Google. Google is in the process, right now, of suing Microsoft claiming that the clause is a form of "intimidation designed to thwart a fast-growing rival that has emerged as a formidable threat to the software maker."

I think you have a good case and personally believe that the Non-Compete clause is balony. This clause is under the "correlation implies causation" (you leave company a with a non-compete clause. you go to company b. company a loses money. company a says that you lost them money.) which the clause in itself is a Locial Fallacy. Go where you're happy and where th emoney is and, if necessay, mention lawyers and the google case.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

I feel that because the jobs are EXACTLY the same, and this other company pays so much more they should be letting him out.....at some point it's not even competeing for the same position because the rates are SO different.

that doesn't make any sense

 

[Jzero]

Except the courts have upheld the agreement insomuch as Kai may not work on technologies related to his work at MS nor attempt to recruit MS employees as long as the contract is in force.

 

[ATLien247]

I would say a job paying $28/hour but has really good benefits is equal to a job paying $42/hour but has no benefits.

So it's practically a moot point for your friend IMHO...

 

[Mackie2k]

No benefits are worth $14 an hour.....

that's $30000 a year.

 

[JEDI]

laugh in the face of a non-compete.

the company has spend time and $ to go after you. and they have to prove the $ they are losing. if you're not, say, the chief tech of microsoft leaving to work for google, then that company would probably spend more $ coming after you than they would recover in the courts.

go for the new job.

 

[krmarks]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
No benefits are worth $14 an hour.....

that's $30000 a year.

Not true. 401k, vaction time, sick time, personal time, and health insurance run a company or a person a hell of a lot of money. Health insurance alone can cost a person easily 2-3 grand a month if bought on their own. Employee's usually cost a company 50-100% more than what they are paying them.

Although if your buddy is single, I would advise him to jump ship to the higher paying company and to not worry about the noncompete.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: JEDI
laugh in the face of a non-compete.

the company has spend time and $ to go after you. and they have to prove the $ they are losing. if you're not, say, the chief tech of microsoft leaving to work for google, then that company would probably spend more $ coming after you than they would recover in the courts.

go for the new job.

That's what I'd do, after hiring a lawyer - check with your state's bar to find one with expertise on non-competes. Don't pick one at random, or one that did any other kind of work for someone you know. If the larger company won't spend money on good employees, they probably won't want to spend it on a lawsuit, either. But if they do, your ass will be covered as much as possible.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
His non-compete is pretty basic....have to wait 6 months after leaving to come back wtih another company, and if you leave you can be liable for 25% of the money the company is losing because you left.

What?

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
No benefits are worth $14 an hour.....

that's $30000 a year.

Meh...

Full health, vision, and dental for a family of four, life insurance for the employee ($500K) and working spouse ($250K) and chlidren ($10K/ea), AD&D+Indemnity, 401k contribution matching... I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

I also added in all the payroll taxes and related expenses that an employer would have to cover (e.g. FICA, SS, medicare, unemployment, worker's comp, etc.), so I guess "benefits" might not be a completely accurate term.

[edit]
Oh yeah, krmarks reminded me... also 2 weeks vacation and 2 weeks sick time, but I'm sure I'm still missing some others.
[/edit]