亲爱的安妮：我是一名手机应用开发人员，最近被业内一家一流公司聘用。最初的时候我非常兴奋，因为这不仅意味着一次提升，而且新工作的薪酬非常可观，还有诱人的特别待遇。但现在，我却有些不知所措。因为新公司希望我在开始新工作之前，签署一份竞业禁止协议。协议规定我离开这家公司一年内，禁止为其他软件公司工作。

    之前，从没有人要求我签署这样一份协议，所以我不知道我该怎么做。我可以试着协商一下协议的条件吗？比如，在签字之前，我能否要求把一年期限缩短到六个月？——NNP

亲爱的NNP：你当然可以要求把期限缩短（虽然失业六个月依然非常漫长），不过，如果你的要求遭到拒绝也不必感到吃惊。

    “如果在你所在的领域，你是真正的明星，可以得到许多份相互竞争的工作机会，你可能还有谈判的筹码，”埃里克•布劳特曼说。布劳特曼是纽约市Abrams Fensterman律师事务所的劳动仲裁律师，曾多次作为雇主和员工的委托律师参与竞业禁止协议的协商。“不过，99%的情况是，人们并没有讨价还价的能力。所以，如果他们想要得到工作，就只能在协议上签字。公司占据了绝对主动。这也是法院通常并不喜欢这类协议的原因。”

    这类协议确实不讨人喜欢。雇主的律师通常非常清楚，挑战竞业禁止条款的前员工往往能够获胜。最近的一个例子：六月下旬的费菲尔德诉Premier Dealer Services公司一案，伊利诺伊上诉法院一致判定，一名新员工在两年内辞去原先的工作之后，放弃了去其他公司工作的权利，但并没有获得充分的补偿。因此，除非雇主向新员工支付大笔签约奖金，或给予员工包括工资与福利在内的其他好处，否则竞业禁止条款将被视为无效。

    你并未提到自己住在哪个州，不过我敢打赌一定不是加利福尼亚州，因为在加州，要求新员工签署竞业禁止协议实际上是不合法的。正因为如此，其他许多州正在努力发动各州的高科技行业效仿加州，各地立法者们也开始对这类协议实行或考虑实行限制。布劳特曼说：“如果工程师和其他高技能人才无法自由流动，其他州便很难与加州的高科技行业竞争。雇主们如何吸引新的人才？所以，为了经济增长，许多州开始限制竞业禁止协议。”

    例如，马萨诸塞州的法律已经禁止雇主要求医生、护士和社会工作者签署该类协议，而且立法机构目前正在考虑一项法案（众议院法案2293）。除了其他变化外，这项法案还将把竞业禁止的期限限制在六个月以内。明尼苏达州的措施（H.F. No. 506）是彻底禁止大多数竞业禁止条款，弗吉尼亚州也有类似的提案（众议院法案1187），旨在禁止一切竞业禁止条款和期限。

Dear Annie: I was recruited away from my old company by a major player in my industry -- I'm a mobile app developer -- and at first I was really excited, because this move would be a step up, and comes with a sizable raise and very attractive perks. But now, I'm a little taken aback. My new employer wants me to sign a non-compete agreement before I start my new job. Among other things, it says I can't work for any other software company for one year if I leave this one.

    I've never been asked to sign one of these until now, so I'm not sure what my options are. Can I try to negotiate the terms? For example, can I request that the one-year period be cut down to six months, before I sign? -- No Name Please

Dear NNP: You can certainly request to have the time period shortened (although six months is still an awfully long time to be out of work), but don't be surprised if the answer is "no."

    "If you're a real star in your field, and can point to multiple competing job offers, you might have some leverage," says Eric Broutman, an employment attorney at New York City-based law firm Abrams Fensterman who has haggled over many non-competes, on both employers' and employees' sides of the table. "But 99% of the time, people really have no bargaining power so, if they want the job, they just sign. The company holds all the cards here. That's why courts generally don't like these agreements."

    Indeed, they don't. As your employer's lawyers are no doubt well aware, ex-employees who challenge non-competes usually win. One recent example: In late June, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled unanimously, in Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, that a new employee who quit his old job within two years had not yet received adequate compensation for giving up the right to work anywhere he pleased. So, unless an employer has paid a new hire a substantial signing bonus or some other extra chunk of change besides salary and benefits, the non-compete would be considered void.

    You don't say which state you live in, but I'm betting it isn't California, where requiring a new hire to sign a non-compete is, for all practical purposes, illegal. That's why, with so many other states trying to jump-start their own high-tech industries, lawmakers all over the country have placed, or are now considering, restrictions on these contracts. "It's hard to compete with California's tech sector if engineers and other skilled employees are not free to move around," notes Broutman. "How are employers going to attract fresh talent? So, in the interest of economic growth, most states now are moving toward discouraging non-compete agreements."

    Massachusetts law, for instance, already forbids employers from asking doctors, nurses, and social workers to sign such agreements, and the legislature is now mulling a bill (House Bill 2293) that, among other changes, would limit the time period covered by any non-compete to no more than six months. A Minnesota measure (H.F. No. 506) would completely ban most non-competes, and a similar proposal in Virginia (House Bill 1187) aims to prohibit all non-competes, period.