What's up with the recent need to sign this?
11 replies (most recent on top)
@OP Did you recently become AIP eligible? Usually, the non-solicit agreements are required to be signed by client facing employees eligible for AIP and LTC. The agreements are pretty boiler plate and attempt to keep employees that join a competitor from trying to “solicit” their clients after leaving the bank. The term solicitation is very “gray” and is not nearly as stringent as the bank makes them out to be. As stated in previous posts, the bank can sue and has sued former employees seeking monetary damages when they felt those former employees didn’t adhere to the agreement. If you have signed an agreement and are considering leaving for a better bank, you should probably hire counsel to review the agreement and provide you guidance on what actions are acceptable and what actions are not acceptable under the agreement.
@b9 they did give notice it was coming this year.
At the rate we are going no one is getting LTI, bonus or comp increases anyways. And what they gave me this year is such a joke. If youre going to try and threaten us with $, at least make it worth it. Its not enough $ to scare me into submission. Hey competitors, I can be bought! Name your price cuz my employer is clearly morally bankrupt and cant afford ethics or their hardworking employees.
@b9 you don’t get LTI
Its suspicious to suddenly require this without any communication. What happens if I dont sign it?
@b1 this is really what it boils down to. It will really only matter to people 55 and 10 years that choose to retire, if I read it right. Plus they have to know you violated it after you leave and then be able to enforce it in court, which is unlikely. It’s primarily to scare people into not retiring from here to go work for competitor. I suspect they will eventually raise the age to retire to 60 at some point.
There is next to no value in signing it, the value is in not being "the guy" who refused to sign it.
In the case of retirement eligible employees which is age 55 or older and 10 or more years of service, my opinion is that it is not worth signing. If terminated before September 1, you don’t get it anyway. Giving up all the restrictions not worth it if you want to consult, etc.
It also appears to be much what is contained in a bank severance agreement. Plus it restricts things like consulting.
Others who need the job and have vested LTI probably should sign.
Non-solicitation agreements are generally not illegal, but their enforceability varies significantly by state and scope. While common, they are increasingly scrutinized or restricted in places like California and Minnesota, which prohibit many of these clauses. To be enforceable, they must protect legitimate business interests (like trade secrets) and be reasonable in time and scope.
So no one should ever sign one?
It is to lower the value of the agreement that comes with a severance in order to fire people without severance.
It’s a trap!