Quote:
Originally Posted by Burninator
I'm not sure how restrictive it would be. I'll give a silly analogy. Let's say I make sandwiches for a living. My company makes sandwiches, soup and cookies. There are lots of other businesses that make sandwiches. And some businesses that make sandwiches and soup. But most cookie businesses are stand alone. The restriction is for sandwich/soup/cookie businesses only. So chances are that it wouldn't effect me at the present time (which is fine, because I like making sandwiches at my current place). But of course I wouldn't want to restrict myself in the future, and who knows how many sandwich/soup/cookie businesses are going to open up in town. Make sense?
|
So basically only places that are in pretty much the exact same business as your current employer would be excluded, right? That doesn't seem overly restrictive, especially when there are sub-sectors that you could go to, but again it's really a fact dependent area. If that clause would rule out the vast majority of your employment options it could be oppressive, but it's hard to say.
The other areas that would be considered are the length of the clause and the geographic scope. A 6 month clause is obviously less oppressive than a 2 year clause, and one that allows you to work in Airdrie would be more acceptable than one that forced you to Vancouver. However, the old fact dependent caveat remains as some industries and positions require more encompassing non-competes.
I think maybe the best way to look at it when deciding whether to sign it is to ask yourself whether you could live with the conditions if it is enforceable. If not you're going to have to weigh the desirability of the job against the potential issues you'd face if you try to move on at some point.
BTW, why do you subway people call the club a melt?
