|
I am in the "sign the paperwork" phase of a 6 month contract with a
technical staffing firm as a At Will W2 employee , no benefits.
note: I will be showing the whole thing to my lawyer, but I was
wondering if anyone ever seen such a vague one sided non-competition
clause ? And if it holds any water (in other words should I be
getting so worked up about it if it means nothing?
I am in VT, the office I'm dealing with is in VA, their corp office is
in FL
When I got to the Employment Agreement it all was reasonable except I
do not like the broad brush of the Agreement not to compete.
It essentially says since they are providing me with access to its
Confidential Information and Trade Secrets, training in the business
of the company, and the company agreement to employ or continue the
employment. (employment is the only thing I get from them)
I agree for one year following termination for any reason (remember
it's a 6 mth gig) I will not (without prior written consent) within
the AREA affiliate myself with or for any COMPETEING
BUSINESSperforming services substantially similar to those I performed
for the Company.
their Definitions:
AREA is the geographical area in which I will perform duties for the
company
COMPETEING BUSINESS any person or entity the same or essentially the
same as the business of the company
BUSINESS of the COMPANY shall mean and include but not be limited to
.... essentially staffing of any skill and also the providing of the
skills themselves.
Since the job will have me traveling throughout the US I read it as
meaning for 1 year, if they don't employ me I can't work in the US
doing what they hired me to do for virtually anyone
I brought it up to the recruiter and he said it means I can't work for
the firm that is contracting the service, and even then it really
doesn't apply to me since I will not have any contact with the client
when I perform my work. (but that is not what is says, which is what
I'll be signing)
I requested that competing business be defined to be the "specific
client" and he basically said he has never seen an agreement modified
and the infamous "no one else had a problem." That coupled with the
fact that he did not know the word "boilerplate" makes me figure he
isn't a good choice offer me legal counsel :-)
But he did say he'd bring it to the proper folks. (I suspect they
won't want to be bothered)
Besides the addendum I also offered an alternative = something in
writing by someone who can legally sign such things the "prior written
agreement", basically saying that I can work for anyone but "name the
business" for a year. I have no problem with that, never heard of the
firm before and as such they are introducing me to them.
I WILL have my lawyer check the results if my request to modify
happens, if not I'll see what he thinks about the merit of just
signing it based on the "area" issue being 50 States. I think it's a
worthless piece of ink. but I'm not a lawyer and I really don't like
firms who try to get you to sign such one-sided contracts.
another red flag is they use SS# to id their consultants, including on
the time sheets you fax in weekly. Why do businesses still take this
"easy way out" when identity theft is so easy ? Guess cross indexing
employee id # to SS# when needed and by authorized individuals is too
much bother.
oops, sorry ... the SS# thing irritates me to no end
ps: I have searched the archives and read all the threads on
non-compete
which brought me to "assume" I can sign the thing and ignore it :)
- DDan
|
| |
| |
Ed wrote:
No comment on the non-compete. However, ....
another red flag is they use SS# to id their consultants, including on
the time sheets you fax in weekly. Why do businesses still take this
"easy way out" when identity theft is so easy ? Guess cross indexing
employee id # to SS# when needed and by authorized individuals is too
much bother.
It's your option not to do business with them. But they DO need to
know your SSN, and DON'T need to issue you an "employee" number.
There's
a law in some states which would mean they couldn't use your SSN in
mailings to you, but I see nothing in any law allowing you NOT
to use your SSN in contacting them.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Ed wrote:
It's your option not to do business with them. But they DO
need to know your SSN, and DON'T need to issue you an
"employee" number. There's a law in some states which would
mean they couldn't use your SSN in mailings to you, but I see
nothing in any law allowing you NOT to use your SSN in
contacting them.
If you know this might be a problem, I don't see why you can't get a
separate, business tax id number to use in cases like this.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:20:36 -0400, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Ed wrote:
No comment on the non-compete. However, ....
It's your option not to do business with them. But they DO need to
know your SSN, and DON'T need to issue you an "employee" number.
There's
a law in some states which would mean they couldn't use your SSN in
mailings to you, but I see nothing in any law allowing you NOT
to use your SSN in contacting them.
my point wasn't that it was a legal issue .. but what I feel is poor
business practice.
I didn't say they didn't "need" my SS#
what I maintain is that they do not need to use it as an employee ID#
to put atop weekly sheets which will be available to an unknown # of
eyes who do not require that information to do their jobs. It's the
lazy answer.
when I employ people, I need their SS# for medical insurance and for
IRS reporting, withholding.
other than that I prefer to protect what almost everyone understands
is a key piece of information which should have restricted
distribution to protect the credit of the SS# holder.
That paperwork is locked up and is not available to anyone except
those who have a need to have the information and who also have an
understanding as to what identity theft and privacy means both to a
business and to an individual.
back to core issue : the non-compete
I got a signed addendum which defines "competing business" as the one
company they are staffing for and no longer restricts me from working
in the same field for any other businesses throughtout the US unlike
how the raw contract read.
|
| |
| |
Ed wrote:
I didn't say they didn't "need" my SS#
what I maintain is that they do not need to use it as an employee ID#
to put atop weekly sheets which will be available to an unknown # of
eyes who do not require that information to do their jobs. It's the
lazy answer.
Well -- when I was working as a temp for my present employer,
I was technically an employee of Manpower. I faxed them
(Manpower) my timesheets with my SS#.
Mr. Bronstein's suggestion that you get an EIN and use that
number on your W-9, and hence on your timesheets, may be
a good one.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Ed wrote:
Mr. Bronstein's suggestion that you get an EIN and use that
number on your W-9, and hence on your timesheets, may be
a good one.
I forgot to mention this - go here to get a new EIN:
https://sa.www4.irs.gov/sa_vign/newFormSS4.do
Stu
|
| |
| |
|
