Emily in Paris. But make it legal.
The global success of Emily in Paris, the cult Netflix series, has never had much to do with the reality of the Parisian life of the protagonist, Emily precisely, self-styled marketing associate of an American public relations company who moved to Paris with few local expertise and a giant wardrobe.
But what I couldn't help but notice were the distortions of the plot in everything that is not only Parisian life but the real working conditions, the basic rules, which one should keep in a European PR society and that even an inexperienced rookie like Emily should know. Let's look at the unforgivable plot errors, which in real life would have cost the protagonist at least a letter of reprimand if not a lawsuit with several zeros. But let's start from the beginning.
Emily works for the French branch of an American company. The American company has acquired the local "Savoir" . Since the company is not doing very well and above all there has been a worrying outflow of qualified personnel for reasons due to a discordant vision of company strategies, Emily is undecided whether to stay or leave.
At this point Emily has to decide whether to continue working for the American company (which is about to close the local Parisian branch and therefore would bring it back to Chicago) or whether to embark on a new adventure with the fledgling company of Sylvie, former marketing director of Savoir who has recently opened his own company.
The only things that Emily should not do, both for alleged contractual reasons and in general based on the non-competition and labor law rules established by French customs, are simple: she must not reveal secrets and information relating to her current job to competitors; she cannot take away customers from the company she still works for; she must not work simultaneously for two companies in the same sector, alternating the assignment of customers between one and the other at his own discretion and only for here own personal profit.
Emily does everything the other way around and instead ends up working simultaneously for the two companies without bothering in the least about stealing information and passing it on to the competitor for whom she even starts working without a regular contract. What is moreover highly risky for a non-European citizen who is bound to a local Visa and a specific work authorization to set foot and work regularly on French territory without incurring a real expulsion (and let's not talk about the criminal consequences in head of the company that should avoid declaring non-EU personnel internally to the competent authorities). The scene of Sylvie's frantic search for the information needed to hire a non-EU worker to get Emily in order is phenomenal. Chère Sylvie, here is the information!
The fairy tale remains the same and no one decides to sue Emily. And no local authority decides to break into her apartment to forcefully take her on a plane to the United States contesting the illegal work in France (which then, despite Sylvie's difficulties with the French immigration portals, is regularized).
This contemporary romantic tale written a little badly without thinking about the bad example it could generate unwittingly fits into a groove recently traced in the United States, which could have global and therefore also European repercussions. Yesterday's news of the approval by the Federal Trade Commission of a regulation which considerably narrows the field of application of the so-called NON COMPETE clause.
The question that US workers but also jurists have been asking lately is: if it is the company that is sending me away, preventing me from continuing my work at a time of severe crisis for my sector, why must it also prevent me from working immediately afterwards for one of its competitors, also respecting the confidentiality due to previous customers and opportunities?
Both in France and in the USA, as in most Western countries, the rules relating to the non-compete clause are contractually established with the individual employee and are not governed by local codes. They are applied by agreement and are subject to a series of rules in order for them to be considered valid. The aim is to prevent the person trained by a company from making the competitor flourish thanks to the experience gained in the company that trained him. For this purpose the clause usually provides for a specific payment against which the person undertakes not to work in the same territory for the same type of industry for a certain period of time.
But when the main companies in a sector fire thousands of people without giving them a concrete alternative, can they really oppose the non-compete agreement by forcing the former employee to sit still for one shift? Or would it not instead be more fair that if the company wants to terminate the employee (and employee is not leaving for mere opportunity) it also stops interfering with his potential capabilities with more or less large competitors? There are countless start-ups that could benefit from the skills of former employees of big tech companies currently in crisis to improve their performance, but only by freeing the employee from the non-compete in the termination phase they avoid getting involved in difficult litigations against previous employee.
No small company feels serene in hiring a professional from a large company if a claim for damages from the company that let him go can potentially come with him. Action that can turn against the former employee but also against the new company, if it is possible to demonstrate the awareness of the presence of the non-compete in the company that hires. Therefore, on the one hand, it is right to maintain the secrecy of previous specific experiences in the company (non-disclosure) and also to avoid raiding previously acquired customers by transferring them de facto to the new company where employee goes to work (customer distraction); but on the other hand, they should immediately be free to express their skills in other areas, even in an industry similar to the previous one, without suffering the sometimes disproportionate consequences.
Maybe Emily is a trend, not just a style.