Cisco’s general counsel Mark Chandler has criticised rival HP for allegedly suing another former employee that sought to change jobs…With ongoing hearings in California and an attempt by Cisco to resolve the matter out of court, HP reportedly filed a surprise suit in Texas, aiming to get a judge there to make a decision without Perez being present…
HP found itself on the receiving end of a similar claim from IBM over its former general manager Giovanni Visentin, however as in HP’s case, IBM’s aggressive behaviour was not appreciated by the courts
Do these companies think their employees are escaped slaves?
Depends on what they signed on the day they started the job…
If the contract says “at will” either party can end the agreement. Suppose the employee got pregnant and wanted to spend more time at home. That happens.
Can we get a working link to the original article?
Whore of Babylon, Inc. demands that you immediately cease and desist using our trademarked word, “the”, in any of your articles OR comments.
crn.com.au/News/281408,cisco-hp-sues-staff-running-from-chaos.aspx
I have had jobs where I had to sign a ‘no compete’ document, stating I would not work in the same field for some stated period of time after leaving the job. If it’s a separate piece of paper, I just don’t sign it. No one ever checks.
scandihoovian says: Depends on what they signed on the day they started the job…
I do agree but in some states some of the agreements are void by law.
Of course the Supreme court has been known to come out with rulings as in the Dread-Scott decision so you never know what the law actually says until the black robes have tooted.
“Do these companies think their employees are escaped slaves?”
uhmm yeah, where have you been hiding for the past 20 years????
Almost slaves. If you get a job @ $40K a year and they make you work 90 hours a week you are working the same as a minimum wage job with overtime hours applied.
YES! These companies think their employees are escaped slaves. And they think their consumers are even less!
Welcome to 21st century serfdom.
(Now, can we please focus on getting those AT&T bastards out in the bread lines with the rest of us?)
“(Now, can we please focus on getting those AT&T bastards out in the bread lines with the rest of us?)”
I am more interested in seeing the Wall Street aristocracy in the bread line.
Oh wait, they were in the front of the line and grabbed all the bread.
Never mind.
That is a more likely ending.
I worked and had cigars with them for several years.
They are in the millionaires club.
You’e not likely to find them down with OWS protesters even when they’re laid off their jobs.
They just go home to Westchester or Connecticut or some other far suburb and retire to one of the innumerable golf courses our there.
At least they’re not likely to be working (admittedly not very hard, the system does most of the heavy hauling,) to extract more out of your thousandaire pockets.
Some are real scum, and go into professional lying, aka politics.
That’s when the real suckage happens.
I told my boss I would not sign a broad non-compete when the idea on instituting one for our organization. So far I’ve never been presented with one.
I am expected to “apply” for leave of employment and to give a full calendar month of notice, complete HR interviews to settle outstanding grievances which might lead to a case, settle up my annual leave entitlement, pension contributions, insurance and tax, medical examinations if there are any injury related reasons I’m leaving, and finally the dry-eyed farewell where I get a plastic ballpoint pen as a gift after 26 years.
Plastic? Those cheap bastards.
Well while we’re in a suing mood. How about the American taxpayer suing the aerospace corps for using whatever they’ve learned from designing and building US military jets and bombers. And applying that to make their new commercial airliners. And NOT giving anything back to the taxpayers in royalties. What applies to the individuals who work for them. Ought to apply to these companies who work for us. Oh, I know. It’s probably in their contracts that they can keep and exploit anything their develop, for their own future profitability, without any remunerations to the public coffers. Well that just sucks, that Congress agreed to it. Trust me, it wouldn’t be a deal breaker, if they didn’t get that. Too many defense dollars at stake, to fuss over something they’ll just ignore, anyway. But if this is true (and I’m sure it is). then individual workers shouldn’t be sued for taking their skills and knowledge elsewhere. Want to retain good talent? Pay them better, you corporate idiots.
You refer to royalties, which suggests patents. Much of the research done in the aerospace industry is done by the government, either directly or through research grants, etc. Instead of being patented, the government distributes the research to all the other companies in the believe that the knowledge improves the products and the industry. It is my belief that it was this policy that made the US aerospace industry the world leader up until the last 15 yrs.
Much of the early work was done by or thru NACA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. They were the precursor to NASA and much of their basic research, such as airfoil design, is still useful today.
The Defense Dept. does still have the power to restrict the transfer of technologies it considers paramount. For many years strong encryption technologies could not be sold overseas without a waiver from DoD. Several very strong US allies like Japan desire to buy the F-22 fighter for their air force, but the DoD refuses to let the technology to leave US control, even though the sales would reduce the cost that the US pays to buy the airplane.
As an employer, i’d say that’s a pretty link bait title you have there. Here’s why;
It’s not so much about quitting, it’s about whether they’re taking inside knowledge to a direct competitor. Taking skills is not the same as taking knowledge. Knowledge such as a company’s long term plans and projects currently underway, etc. should not be shared. If a competitor were poaching staff just for skills, that’s fine, its the way it should be.
If an employee quits to become a housewife after birth, great. If an employee suddenly decides to leave this industry altogether to train to become a pilot (for example), excellent.
Very often, unfortunately, most people don’t honour confidentiality and so the suing begins.
TLDR: employers don’t sue employees for quitting. employer’s sue employees to prevent or reduce the risk of a competitor getting inside knowledge.