Infy raises exit barrier for employees
-
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys. The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition. The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months. I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more. What do you guys think about this?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
Satips wrote:
The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months.
This is fairly common in some industries more than others. I don't think it has crept as far and wide as it could, but it is definitely growing. I signed a similar clause at my first job in 1986, basically meaning I couldn't go to any customer that my boss did business with. I signed a similar one here for similar reasons. In the accounting industry it was just my boss' way of limiting his employees, and it was one of many. Here it has some similar reasons that Infosys is claiming. But it comes down to what else is happening that shows what the true reasons are. Since our company sponsors patents, but keeps them in the employee's name (there is a whole bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo as to why this is good), there are issues if an employee leaves with his company sponsored patents and takes them to the customer. :) I also signed a clause for competitors as well. I can stay in the same industry, but I have to move where my company is not competing against that new company. So I am not completely restricted. I could switch fields to something similar in scope, but not directly competing so again I am not completely restricted. And the list goes on.... If I leave, I just have to get creative. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
It seems standard to me. Surely if I work for Infosys, I can't go and get a killer offer from a competitor on the basis of what I proprietary information I can pass on ? I mean, that's just conflict of interest. And it's also common to say that you can't work for clients. I mean, Infosys has overheads that a person working from home would not have, it's not right that someone should go to their bosses client and undercut them.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely if I work for Infosys, I can't go and get a killer offer from a competitor on the basis of what I proprietary information I can pass on ?
If Infy were a research company doing cutting-edge niche work, it makes sense, yeah. When they're just a services company like Wipro or TCS, how does it matter? As already pointed out by some other dude, NDAs cover any proprietary information you may know. I have no thoughts of changing jobs now (I'm only into my 3rd week here :-O) but Infosys got knocked off my long-term list. X|
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys. The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition. The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months. I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more. What do you guys think about this?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
Satips wrote:
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys.
I doubt that it would hold up in court. :doh: I doubt they would try to enforce it because it would make the contract void (any illegal provision voids the contract [restraint of trade in the US]), including the other provisions in the contract and would open a can of worms. :~
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys. The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition. The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months. I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more. What do you guys think about this?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
I just want to know which companies are Infy's competitor ? I hope they would treat every big company as competitor Now where an employee can go for 6 months?
-
I just want to know which companies are Infy's competitor ? I hope they would treat every big company as competitor Now where an employee can go for 6 months?
Vikrant for VC++ wrote:
which companies are Infy's competitor ?
Infosys' competitors as Tata Consultancy Services, Accenture, IBM Global Services, Cognizant Technology Solutions and Wipro.
Regards, Satips.:rose:
-
It's basically a threat and hard to enforce. Unless they know you gave up 'trade secrets' chances are they won't spend the money to take you to court.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
leckey wrote:
It's basically a threat and hard to enforce. Unless they know you gave up 'trade secrets' chances are they won't spend the money to take you to court.
I agree 100%, but there's another aspect you're overlooking. The 'competitors' have been named explicitly - TCS, Wipro, and a couple of others. If you're with Infosys and interviewing with, say, TCS, they can/may/will refuse to give you an offer because you're employed with Infosys. After all, if they did give you an offer and Infosys decided to sue you, they just might decide to sue TCS as well. American culture is spreading here....
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
If they have to resort to enforcing terms like that, they can't be much of an employer. :~
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
If they have to resort to enforcing terms like that, they can't be much of an employer.
Perhaps, but some of this is simply agreement "creeping" from industry to industry. In my industry, this is SOP, and strictly enforced, successfully. But that is the exception rather than the rule. Still, because it is common and enforced in this industry, it creeps out to customers and business associates not in the industry as a "gee this sounds like a good idea." It has not met with as much success in the general business industry, but has in R&D environments even in the business sector. R&D being a significant investment of time prior to "final product" or "final discovery" that money has already been paid. If someone leaves just prior to protype, you can't stop the person from going but there are economic reasons why taking that R&D investment through employees is a danger. If the R&D investment goes to the competitor, they loose sales, if the R&D investment goes to a customer, they loose sales. NDA's are nice, but even more difficult to enforce. A person can be paid to "rewrite" code that he wrote once before, without the investment of research, development and design, because it was once a working product, it is cheaper and easier. You cannot limit a person's knowledge, but that knowledge is a security risk, or economic risk. Thus those industries with the most to loose are the ones with the most restrictions. Those industries with THE most to loose are those like mine where they are successfully enforced. General business simply hasn't been as lucky.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
leckey wrote:
It's basically a threat and hard to enforce. Unless they know you gave up 'trade secrets' chances are they won't spend the money to take you to court.
I agree 100%, but there's another aspect you're overlooking. The 'competitors' have been named explicitly - TCS, Wipro, and a couple of others. If you're with Infosys and interviewing with, say, TCS, they can/may/will refuse to give you an offer because you're employed with Infosys. After all, if they did give you an offer and Infosys decided to sue you, they just might decide to sue TCS as well. American culture is spreading here....
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Well at least that guy in Washington DC who is suing the dry cleaners dropped his claim from $65mil to a reasonable $54mil.;P
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
Who?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
-
Satips wrote:
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys.
I doubt that it would hold up in court. :doh: I doubt they would try to enforce it because it would make the contract void (any illegal provision voids the contract [restraint of trade in the US]), including the other provisions in the contract and would open a can of worms. :~
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
I doubt that it would hold up in court.
1. In the first world, it most likely wouldn't. This is India we're talking about. 2. Even if it wouldn't, it's a huge deterrent to the average employee. 3. Infosys can decide to extract revenge and give negative references during background checks, which are SOP in India.
JimmyRopes wrote:
I doubt they would try to enforce it because it would make the contract void (any illegal provision voids the contract [restraint of trade in this case]), including the other provisions in the contract and would open a can of worms.
The contracts have a clause that says something like Even if part of this contract is invalid/null/void, the other stuff still stands. Of course, if *that* clause were held invalid in a court of law, the worms would be everywhere. :rolleyes: ;P
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Well at least that guy in Washington DC who is suing the dry cleaners dropped his claim from $65mil to a reasonable $54mil.;P
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
I loathe cats. :rolleyes:
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Satips wrote:
What do you guys think about this?
Here in Germany, regulations like this would probably be null and void. And the wokers unions were all too happy to help you through the lawsuit. All in all, I think it further tips the balance away from the people side to the side of the major trusts. I hope this comes across in english as I intended it...
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
I heard EULAs are invalid in Germany.
jhwurmbach wrote:
All in all, I think it further tips the balance away from the people side to the side of the major trusts. I hope this comes across in english as I intended it...
Don't worry, it was quite clear. Only, they're called corporations and not trusts. ;)
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Satips wrote:
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys.
This is total BS. Infosys is trying to threaten people with their careers if they leave. In Michigan, this part hasn't held up in court. Well, I haven't heard of one getting to court anyway. The employer always caves in on this point. Once the employee/employer relationship is terminated, the old employer has no say in where you go and what you do with your own career.
Satips wrote:
The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition.
If you treated your people better, they wouldn't be jumping ship so fast.
Satips wrote:
The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months.
This is standard stuff and has been for at least 15 years.
Satips wrote:
I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more.
Yeah, chaining the employees to the boat to keep them rowing instead of having them jump overboard is always good for morale. :~
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007Couldn't agree more, 5d. The funny thing is that Infy generally has a very good reputation. I'm surprised they are resorting to tactics like this. Of course, that's my outsider's perspective; I've never worked there.
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys. The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition. The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months. I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more. What do you guys think about this?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
This is very often the case in Belgium, but nobody really enforces it. I don't think it would hold up in court either. in Consultancy I can understand the company a bit. They could loose their employees fast. In such case, when the employee wants to work for the client instead, the client has to pay a 'finders fee' of several months pay.
-
I just want to know which companies are Infy's competitor ? I hope they would treat every big company as competitor Now where an employee can go for 6 months?
-
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys. The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition. The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months. I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more. What do you guys think about this?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
Where I work there is a long notice period (3 months) that has the same effect but at least you'd get paid whilst waiting! Obviously by mutual agreement that could be shortened. Elaine :rose:
-
Where I work there is a long notice period (3 months) that has the same effect but at least you'd get paid whilst waiting! Obviously by mutual agreement that could be shortened. Elaine :rose:
Trollslayer wrote:
Obviously by mutual agreement that could be shortened.
I once told a consultancy that if they really insisted on my waiting out the agreed upon waiting period I could convince the client that they didn't want me to show up for work anymore! :~ They agreed that I should depart and go on to greener pastures. :doh:
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Employees will now need to give an undertaking that they will not join any of Infy's competitors for a period of six months after their job termination at Infosys. The new clause has been added to the employment terms as a part of the company's strategy to retain employees and control attrition. The agreement letter also mentions that the employees cannot accept job offers even from its clients (which they have serviced in the last 12 months) for a period of six months. I hope this is a good move by Infosys. But the Employees will suffer more. What do you guys think about this?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
-
I heard EULAs are invalid in Germany.
jhwurmbach wrote:
All in all, I think it further tips the balance away from the people side to the side of the major trusts. I hope this comes across in english as I intended it...
Don't worry, it was quite clear. Only, they're called corporations and not trusts. ;)
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
EULAs are not invalid per se. The problem: EULAs (or LVs / AGBs, as they are called here) are often included in the programm setup only. At that point, you (naturally) have already opened the package. And whoever sold you the package only needs to accept returns of unopened packages. Catch 22 situation: You may not open the package if you want to return it, but you need to open the package to learn whether you want to return it.... Thus, German courts regularly declare "setup only" EULAs null and void. It is common practise. Also, LICENSING software is hard in Germany. The manufacturer loses control over a particular copy as soon as he sells it to someone. Thus, in Germany, it is legal (though difficult due to hardware coupling) to sell OEM software seperate from the computer it was bought with.
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
-
Who?
Regards, Satips.:rose:
This link may help: http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/06/pearson_update_bogus_pants_law.html[^] Some Judge in DC had a bad experience with dry cleaners, and ended up suing them for $67 million dollars... Iain.