4 ms·

For non competes, I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years. I think it'd solve a

For non competes, I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years. I think it'd solve a ton of problems.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years Legally-mandated golden parachutes?
- athenot 9y ago
  More like you are doing a favor to them, and that should be compensated accordingly. The actual amount should reflect how much the company values this. But the ban shouldn't be anything less than what you could earn elsewhere. So there should be an obligation to match the payout to the highest job offer you are able to get. Also, companies are still free to strive to keep their knowledgeable workers happy, with an attractive total comp and good work environment.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  As currently constituted non-competes allow your former employer to take the spoon out of your mouth, so to speak. The proposed change would simply say that they have to provide you with an alternate means of supporting yourself if they will prevent you from working. It's one thing for knowledge work (even there I'd like to see it go away), but there's zero justification for preventing a guy who gets fired from Jimmy John's from trying to work at Subway or Quizno's.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  It's not a payment for if they get rid of you like a golden parachute. It's a payment for if they want to use the legal system to prevent you from earning a living by working for another company.
troels 9y ago
I some jurisdictions, putting overtly one-sided constraints in an employment contract (or any contract, where there is an asymmetry in power between the parties) may render it un-enforceable. For example, a non-compete, for no good reason, and with no compensation attached to it. But you'd still have to take your chances in court though.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  In most US states that isn't the case, however.

For non competes, I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years. I think it'd solve a ton of problems.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years Legally-mandated golden parachutes?

athenot 9y ago
More like you are doing a favor to them, and that should be compensated accordingly. The actual amount should reflect how much the company values this. But the ban shouldn't be anything less than what you could earn elsewhere. So there should be an obligation to match the payout to the highest job offer you are able to get. Also, companies are still free to strive to keep their knowledgeable workers happy, with an attractive total comp and good work environment.
emodendroket 9y ago
As currently constituted non-competes allow your former employer to take the spoon out of your mouth, so to speak. The proposed change would simply say that they have to provide you with an alternate means of supporting yourself if they will prevent you from working. It's one thing for knowledge work (even there I'd like to see it go away), but there's zero justification for preventing a guy who gets fired from Jimmy John's from trying to work at Subway or Quizno's.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
It's not a payment for if they get rid of you like a golden parachute. It's a payment for if they want to use the legal system to prevent you from earning a living by working for another company.

troels 9y ago

I some jurisdictions, putting overtly one-sided constraints in an employment contract (or any contract, where there is an asymmetry in power between the parties) may render it un-enforceable. For example, a non-compete, for no good reason, and with no compensation attached to it. But you'd still have to take your chances in court though.

emodendroket 9y ago
In most US states that isn't the case, however.