4 ms·

No, the point is the non-compete keeps the employee from working for a competitor, so the employer pays the salary to prevent the employee from working for a co

No, the point is the non-compete keeps the employee from working for a competitor, so the employer pays the salary to prevent the employee from working for a competitor. The employer chooses to either pay the salary of the employee or free them to find work elsewhere. Why is it fair that an employer can fire someone or lay someone off and keep that person from working for a year?

nickff 10y ago
Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor?
- aikah 10y ago
  > Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor? Then sue if you have proof. What is not fair is to reduce a worker's opportunity to work when he isn't on your payroll.
  - nickff 10y ago
    You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. The parent's logic would say that if someone does this, the only way to stop this 'bad employee' from selling all your non-public information is to pay (at least) their full salary indefinitely.
    - aikah 10y ago
      > You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. Then let them quit and go somewhere else. NDA cover corporate secrets, non-compete are anti freedom, anti competition and should be illegal. If your employee stops working then perhaps you should question the way you do business and how you manage your work environment. Usually it's a clear sign you treat your employees like shit. They should have all the rights to go work in a better environment whether it is at a competitor or not doesn't matter.
      - nickff 10y ago
        The parent was commenting on fairness, I was positing a situation that was unfair to the employer. Please stop fighting the hypothetical, it is unproductive to the discussion.[1] [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/bwp/please_dont_fight_the_hypothetical/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/bwp/please_dont_fight_the_hypothetic...
        michaelmrose 10y ago
        It would be unfair for you to have to pay them for shoddy or nonexistent work it is similarly unfair to keep them from doing said shoddy work at your competitor. I'm not seeing any problem.
    - throw_away_777 10y ago
      If the company wants to stop you from working, they should pay your salary for the duration they want to keep you from working, not indefinitely. Already most states won't enforce non-competes lasting more than a year. Obviously companies benefit from non-competes, but they do so at the expense of workers. The fact that a company can fire someone on day 2 and not let them work for a year is absurd, but that is how non-competes are written. Once a company fires someone or lays them off, they shouldn't be able to keep that person from working without compensation, and compensation given while the person is employed doesn't count - that is money given for work. If an employee leaving for a competitor really harmed a company, that company can sign an agreement that isn't at-will employment.
- unscaled 10y ago
  Why is it fair that an employer can force an employee to kill kittens and then fire the employee and prevent them from ever working when they refuse? Do you realize that what you just said has nothing to do with Non-compete clauses?
  - nickff 10y ago
    I am sorry, but you've lost me. What do kittens have to do with intellectual property? I am also unsure of how a non-compete can stop someone from "ever working", as I cannot imagine a non-compete that would cover all other corporations (this would seem to be indentured servitude). In any case, I created a hypothetical to further the discussion; please address that one instead of changing the subject.

nickff 10y ago

Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor?

aikah 10y ago
> Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor? Then sue if you have proof. What is not fair is to reduce a worker's opportunity to work when he isn't on your payroll.
- nickff 10y ago
  You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. The parent's logic would say that if someone does this, the only way to stop this 'bad employee' from selling all your non-public information is to pay (at least) their full salary indefinitely.
  - aikah 10y ago
    > You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. Then let them quit and go somewhere else. NDA cover corporate secrets, non-compete are anti freedom, anti competition and should be illegal. If your employee stops working then perhaps you should question the way you do business and how you manage your work environment. Usually it's a clear sign you treat your employees like shit. They should have all the rights to go work in a better environment whether it is at a competitor or not doesn't matter.
    - nickff 10y ago
      The parent was commenting on fairness, I was positing a situation that was unfair to the employer. Please stop fighting the hypothetical, it is unproductive to the discussion.[1] [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/bwp/please_dont_fight_the_hypothetical/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/bwp/please_dont_fight_the_hypothetic...
      - michaelmrose 10y ago
        It would be unfair for you to have to pay them for shoddy or nonexistent work it is similarly unfair to keep them from doing said shoddy work at your competitor. I'm not seeing any problem.
  - throw_away_777 10y ago
    If the company wants to stop you from working, they should pay your salary for the duration they want to keep you from working, not indefinitely. Already most states won't enforce non-competes lasting more than a year. Obviously companies benefit from non-competes, but they do so at the expense of workers. The fact that a company can fire someone on day 2 and not let them work for a year is absurd, but that is how non-competes are written. Once a company fires someone or lays them off, they shouldn't be able to keep that person from working without compensation, and compensation given while the person is employed doesn't count - that is money given for work. If an employee leaving for a competitor really harmed a company, that company can sign an agreement that isn't at-will employment.
unscaled 10y ago
Why is it fair that an employer can force an employee to kill kittens and then fire the employee and prevent them from ever working when they refuse? Do you realize that what you just said has nothing to do with Non-compete clauses?
- nickff 10y ago
  I am sorry, but you've lost me. What do kittens have to do with intellectual property? I am also unsure of how a non-compete can stop someone from "ever working", as I cannot imagine a non-compete that would cover all other corporations (this would seem to be indentured servitude). In any case, I created a hypothetical to further the discussion; please address that one instead of changing the subject.