The tyranny of "non-compete" clauses is ending, maybe?

[FlyingClayDisk]

An NDA would cover all of that, no?

Agree with Max, not really.

The reason is, there isn't really a competitive edge being divulged in the described process.  The end goal is often the same, the name on the paycheck doesn't change this goal.  The relationship between the ultimate employer (the government) and the 'employee' (who just happens to work for a contractor) doesn't change.  NDA's usually cover one of two things (or both), the disclosure of competitive information to a competitor, and/or the disclosure of classified information to those not authorized to see it.  Neither one of these scenarios apply in the situation I've described above.  In the case of violation of the latter an actual criminal act has occurred, punishable by prison and even death in some cases. 

So, a couple examples here to differentiate where an NDA applies and where one wouldn't:

1. A company like Lockheed-Martin wins a government contract to develop "Weapons System A".  The mechanics of how system "A" works are a proprietary trade secret to Lockheed-Martin and the basis on which they won the contract.  In this case if John Doe were to defect to Northrup-Grumman and take with him information about the mechanics of how system "A" functions such that Northrup-Grumman could now perform the same task as Lockheed-Martin, then this absolutely WOULD be a violation of an NDA.

2. On the other hand, (and as is more often the case) if Lockheed-Martin hires a subcontractor, Bill's Staff Augmentation Service, to employ John Doe, and at the same time Lockheed-Martin also has a contract with Joe's Staff Augmentation Service, and John Doe switches from Bill's staff to Joe's staff (again, both under Lockheed-Martin on the same contract) then there is no harm and no foul so an NDA violation would NOT be applicable.  This is what frequently happens.  Lockheed-Martin has no choice but to pass the added cost of John Doe's switch on to their employer, the federal government. 

Now, the above are is just some hypothetical and simplified examples.  The irony in example #2 above is, if Bill's Staff Augmentation Service would have just asked Lockheed-Martin to increase the rate for John Doe, this request would be denied by both Lockheed-Martin AND the federal government, but if John Doe just switches from Bill's staff to Joe's staff, then neither Lockheed-Martin nor the federal government can do anything about it...if they need John Doe's services.  John Doe often knows this (usually pretty well too, after they've been in the game for a while).

There are 10,000 other permutations of these same types of scenarios, and these are just a couple simplified examples, but I think you get the idea.  And, I could probably write an entire book on why Lockheed-Martin uses subcontractors to hire John Doe in the first place over hiring him themselves, but that would be a whole other post (and a very long one at that).

Just kind of a side note - When I first started out in engineering (while still in college), I was a pretty highly qualified Draftsman and team lead.  There were NDA's sixty-five ways from Sunday on some of the stuff we worked on.  This wasn't even defense work, but rather power generation and chemical plants.  It was very common for certain companies to employ huge teams of draftsmen to work things like plant shutdowns.  That's all they did, supply drafting resources to the big engineering firms like Bechtel and others.  We would often move from plant/process to plant/process.  I stayed with the same company, but many didn't, yet when the big crunches came I was often shoulder to shoulder with the same people.  They just worked for a different staff augmentation company.  Same project, same objective, same personnel, different mix of companies.