SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 79 of 79
  1. #76
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    DaDevil's original question (if you read the first post) was about how long a non-compete agreement had to stay in place.

    What Brendon did with his newsletter post was to make it out to to be DaDevil saying "I can take my client's client, and I don't see anything wrong with that".
    My read on DaDevil's first post was a little different. I think everyone needs to read DaDevil's first 3 posts over.

    snip post #1:

    Company X's web site had already been launched after Company A (and me) finished all the work. So I felt it was safe to tell Company A that in 1 year after launch of Company X's web app, I will be able to work directly for Company X, as must independent contractor agreements require you wait 1 year after completion of a project (I think?).

    Company A was outraged! They claimed that no matter what, as long as Company A has work to do for Company X, Company X is still Company A's client. Even if its 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years ...(forever), I am still obligated to bill through Company A no matter what. Only when Company X 'disengages' Company A as a client, can I do business directly with Company X.

    Is this correct?? Is this how Freelance contracts are made up? I don't see this at all as being fair - how will it be possible for me to do business if I cant directly serve any of these clients that belong to Company A forever?
    This is the meat of DaDevils first post.
    He was barked that Company A is somehow trying to cheat him. The how long question was simply "how long can they legally cheat me?" or "can they?" Apparently it (at least at this point) has not occurred to him that nabbing Company X from Company A might be considered unethical or stealing. He further seems to be genuinely surprised that Company A was outraged.

    I could not help but wonder how outraged DaDavil would be if he were approached by someone who said "after a year I am going to take your car.

    snip post #2:

    I understand Company A's view, BUT I dont want to be bullied in these situations. I need to know what is the accepted length for a non-compete agreement. I know if you are a full time employee...the employer can make you sign a non-compete agreement, but only for a reasonable amount of time after termination of employment. Otherwise it is illegal to make an employee sign a non-compete, if the length of time it too long (not reasonable).

    In freelancing, I bet it is different. Because a freelancer does work on a project by project basis. So if Company X hires me for a completely different project than what I did for Company X before through Company A, then is it fair for Company A to be involved? Especially if they have no hand in it???
    Employees CAN REFUSE to sign anything. Employees are free to agree with employers terms OR LOOK ELSEWHERE if there is no room to negotiate.

    By now a number of posters have given some pretty good advice. But DaDevil's focus still seems to be how unfair it is he can not simply take over and service Comp. X and cut out Comp. A. I am sorry but I simply do not get the logic of "Especially if they have no hand in it???".
    They have no hand in it?
    How about they scouted up Comp. X to start with?
    DaDevil would not be on the scene period without them.

    By post 3 DaDevil made this clear:

    I'm not planning on burning anybody. No shell companies, No going behind the back etc
    That is good to know. Apparently the discussion allowed DaDavil to look at the situation from a different perspective.

    Then came Brendon's article.

    That seemed to stir up a hornets nest. A hornets nest that should be stirred up.

    Brendon did not read DaDevil wrong nor did he portray him wrong.
    DaDavil according to his own words was clueless that there was even an ethical problem with taking a client from an employer until Comp. A was blatantly outraged.

    Let me ask a question or 2 of you who seem to object to the newsletter article.
    Do you honestly think SP needs to "juice up" anything for these forums?
    Somehow I doubt they are hurting for visitors or business.
    I further doubt any of this will stop people from coming here and asking legitimate questions if they have them.
    This is the BEST website for what is offered here BAR NONE.
    Are those of you who object to the article suggesting a squlch of free opinion or speech?

    Somehow I imagine people who have vested their valuable time in signing up and reading these newsletters EXPECT to get hard hitting expert information that they do not already have themselves. I further imagine these readers have enough intelligence to read the article and thread then judge for themselves how valid the opinion was or was not. Without censorship!!

  2. #77
    SitePoint Enthusiast Weirfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the example presented throughout this thread I am in a position where I am Company A.

    Is there some sort of agreement that you can have Company X sign to stop them trying to poach your contracters? If so - what are they generally called?
    Web Design and Development :: Fish Forum :: Gaming Reviews

    Need articles or translations?
    Please PM me for rates and samples.

  3. #78
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's called a non-compete agreement (I think).

  4. #79
    Life is short. Be happy today! silver trophybronze trophy Sagewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver, Phang-Nga, Thailand
    Posts
    4,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kat7 View Post
    I too am here from the Tribune article.
    My experience is 55 years of successful business back when contracts were based on your GOOD WORD/ETHICS not a legal system.
    Today with the lack of ethics we need the legal system.
    I just couldn't pass this comment up without responding. Are you actually saying that ethics 50 years ago were so different than today? I think you'll have no trouble finding outrageous acts of unethical business practices throughout history, and to say that our legal system is necessitated by a sudden lack of ethics is a wild claim.

    There isn't much difference between Charles Ponzi and Benie Madoff.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •