Retro Graphics
New Member
Does anyone have a new hire contract template they would be willing to share? Looking at bringing on a part timer but have never hired anyone before.
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
New Hire Contract
- Thread starter Retro Graphics
- Start date
Texas_Signmaker
Very Active Signmaker
Why on Earth would you need a contract?
Boudica
I'm here for Educational Purposes
Non-compete?
Retro Graphics
New Member
I don't know that I would, but that's why I'm here asking.
Retro Graphics
New Member
that could also be an thing too. I did see that on another post but didn't want to link the ideas if they weren't one in the same. been doing things solo so long, I have never looked into this before.
Texas_Signmaker
Very Active Signmaker
Non-compete contracts are not for part timers working at a sign shop.
Retro Graphics
New Member
thank you. are there any tips or advice you can give when hiring part timers?
Notarealsignguy
Arial - it's almost helvetica
Non competes should be illegal.
Notarealsignguy
Arial - it's almost helvetica
Non disclosure is different
Notarealsignguy
Arial - it's almost helvetica
Warm body, pulse, social security card, legal photo ID, I9 form, W2 and a generic application. Search for them on mugshots.com. I always copy their ID and social and put it in their employee file but that is not required. If they aren't a US citizen, make sure you keep track of when their work permit expires. Workers comp will ask for their application if they ever have an accident.
Retro Graphics
New Member
thank you. I am planning on calling my insurance tomorrow actually to find out how much I'm about to add to plan lol.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Actually, this depends on the jurisdiction and how it is applied there. Independent contractors can be attached to a non compete (ironically, this would actually set them up as an employee and may entitle them to said benefits that an employee would have as well, overtime etc), it isn't so much how much you work, but if you signed it and if the non compete is "reasonable" in it's scope. Typically this is jurisdiction dependent.
Last edited:
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
That isn't non disclosure, that would be non compete.
Non disclosure would be giving info that shouldn't be given to the general public (or the competition). Poaching clients typically deals with competition side of things. Now, there is overlap, some places have done both and I guess depending on how one poaches clients, could violate both at the same time as well. But if someone told me that they had an agreement not to poach clients, not to open a competing shop within x amount of time and/or within y radius of original shop, I would think of those as all elements of a standard non compete.
Last edited:
Notarealsignguy
Arial - it's almost helvetica
Look up what an employment non compete is. It has nothing to do with poaching clients.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Some states have it to where you have a non compete separate from a non-solicitation. California I would imagine is one considering they and maybe 2 others (I'm wanting to say) come to mind do not allow for non competes at all (if I recall that correctly, I think Oklahoma is another, but I can't remember the third, if I'm remembering Oklahoma correctly). It's possible that Boudica signed a non solicitation only. But the only overlap with NDAs and poaching that I'm aware of (and I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time and I am not a lawyer so take this all for a grain of salt) is that people view client lists up there with proprietary information, but it would be divulging the list itself before anything else is done as a violation, because it could be used in other ways not just poaching.
There was a Virginia court case (Update Inc v Samilow) over a 1 year, 50 mile non compete and one of the elements there was a narrowly scoped non poaching clause. Court upheld the contract. Found the scope of the non compete "reasonable".
Now that court case is Virginia and even at that, a different court case in Virginia may go a different way, but non-soliciting/poaching was a clause in that agreement. Why I said earlier, jurisdiction dependent as each one probably has nuances to it. Now that is coming from a non lawyer, so again take that with a grain of salt.
EDIT: This is interesting even more. I was looking at that court case again. Apparently the title of the agreement is "Employee Nondisclosure and Employee Assignment Agreement" and yet it highlights non compete and focuses in on solicitation of 2 clients and having started up this business soon after resigning the original within 50 miles of the original's company headquarters. Go figure.
Last edited:
Texas_Signmaker
Very Active Signmaker
I'm talking in the practical sense... Sometimes this is lost on some folks
Notarealsignguy
Arial - it's almost helvetica
No that is not correct. An NDA restricts divulging proprietary information. A non-compete restricts where you can work. An NDA does not having any legal basis to keep you from going to work for a competitor where as a non-compete does. A non-compete is limited geographically, an NDA is not. Usually, a non-compete will be coupled with an NDA. The way around a non-compete is to move to a competing company outside of the geographical range until the time on it runs out, usually 6 months to a year. The companies will sometimes use the NDA to intimidate an employee or their employer with legal reminders when a person leaves and stays in the same industry but is outside of the enforceable area of their non-compete. It's all chest pounding at that point. Been there done that as have many of my friends that worked in the same industry.
Scotchbrite
No comment
Seen that happen with a competitor sign shop. Owner sold it, stayed out of the business (at least around here) for about a year, then opened a new, competing sign shop. The original shop he sold is now out of business.
I've always wondered if he had planned it that way from the start or if he'd legitimately wanted to get out of the business and then felt like the new owners were making his old shop a mockery, especially since the business name shared his last name.