Re: TECHWR-L Digest - 28 Dec 1996 to 29 Dec 1996

Subject: Re: TECHWR-L Digest - 28 Dec 1996 to 29 Dec 1996
From: KTINY -at- AOL -dot- COM
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:02:39 -0500

In a message dated 96-12-30 01:02:38 EST, you write:

<< TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU >>

>>>She wants me to sign what she says is a standard "non-compete" clause
>>>before she even thinks of introducing me to a client. Effectively it would
>>>bar me from working for a company she "introduced" me to "directly or
>>>indirectly" for up to a year after I leave her employ.

Non-compete clauses are standard in our industry. Clearly, the agency is
looking to protect themselves from consultants with less than total
integrity. Some points you may want to consider -

1) Our non-compete clause only prohibits the consultant from working at our
client in that SPECIFIC area within the company and any associated areas. It
seems unfair to bar a consultant from working at all of IBM just because they
did a project in one specific area.

2) We are now working with our consultants to develop a program that
provides incentives to expand our client engagements. While most of the
focus in the industry seems to be how to protect the firm and limit others,
we are working actively to promote long-term and prosperous relationships
with our consultants.

3) In most areas where we have had problems in the past, it was the client
who approached the consultant. Perhaps we need to do a better job of
educating the client about the nature of these relationships?

Hope this helps. All the best this holiday season and in the New Year.

Ross Squire
Knowledge Transfer International
KTINY -at- aol -dot- com

Previous by Author: [no subject]
Next by Author: TW and Education
Previous by Thread: Re: job shop--non-compete clause?? (LONG)
Next by Thread: Two Courses on Product Usability

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads