[bahularora]

Today, after completing almost a month of my trial at a new job, HR asked me to sign a document on Stamp paper with a very vague 1 year non-compete clause. All my objections to the same were casually shrugged of by her, by saying they don't use it until I would directly hurt the revenue of the employer.

When I refused to sign it she said that it might be hard to offer me a job in the case I don't sign it. Which very much sounded like a threat to me. If they insist I would most probably sign it, as without the salary I wouldn't be able to afford rent next month. According to her all the other employees have signed it and none questioned her on it.

Notably non-competes are mostly illegal in India, still almost all agreements I have come across have the clause mentioned in them. I don't understand the point in having a clause like this, when its non-enforceable.

Many other points of the agreement were as egregious as the non-compete clause. Also the whole agreement was extremely one sided. It also said all the IP/Products/patents I develop, even in my own time, during my tenure would belong by the employer.

[falcolas]

> It also said all the IP/Products/patents I develop, even in my own time, during my tenure would belong by the employer.

These clauses are getting worse too, claiming what you develop up to a year after you leave the company. I had to sign one of these or not take the job, non-negotiable. Not taking the job wasn't a choice at that time, sadly.

[CaptSpify]

This, to me, is the shadiest part of non-competes. I've only gotten one, but it was after I had quit my previous job, and moved across the country. Am I supposed to say no, now that I've already moved and have no other current source of income for my family?

Shame on me for not asking up-front what I would have to sign, but also, how is it legal to start throwing new contracts at someone, when they weren't part of the original agreement in the first place.