4 ms·

"Don't most of them include a provision forcing the company to pay a share of your salary if they decide to activate it?" Almost none of them do that. That's o

"Don't most of them include a provision forcing the company to pay a share of your salary if they decide to activate it?" Almost none of them do that. That's one of the reasons why they're so shitty.

dudul 8y ago
Interesting. My current non-compete mentions 50% of my salary at date of termination for a year, and I'm pretty sure my previous non-competes had similar provision. Maybe I only worked with mostly "ethical" companies.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That sounds incredibly shitty, though. You have to take a 50% pay cut and not be able to advance in your chosen field? Most people I know would struggle quite a bit with such a huge pay cut.
  - dudul 8y ago
    Oh don't hear me wrong, it is not a good deal at all. But at least it has a cost for the company if they decide to activate it. Not enough for me to make a living, but most likely enough for them to take a step back and think "does what this guy can do really justify the cost?".
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It wouldn't be great for a lot of people. I expect some here look at it and think "Ooh. I get paid 50% of my generous tech salary to work on my side project/travel the world for a year. Where do I sign up?" But the reality for many people is that they'd be taking a big pay cut to sit on the sidelines for a year which could be damaging both financially and professionally.
Latteland 8y ago
Yeah, if enforcing a non compete meant they had to match oldcomput would be different
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  oldcomput? And I don't think that simply paying them their existing salary, or the salary at the last day is enough. I feel it should really hurt to enforce a non-compete, because you are saying that you do not want someone to be able to earn a living with their labor. That to me, no matter what your motivations are, is some degree of evil. I say it should be triple of the highest wage the person made during their tenure with the company, or the prevailing market wage, whichever is higher.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    sorry, that was on my phone, was trying to say "if you had to pay someone their previous ("old comp") pay during the year the non-competes would be a lot more palatable to me. I support your argument that it should be painful for a company to enforce a non-compete. I was trying to go middle to maybe show how bad non-competes are and attract people in the middle. I just don't think it's politically viable to pay triple. On the other hand, you would be depriving someone of their liberty if they were not able to work.

"Don't most of them include a provision forcing the company to pay a share of your salary if they decide to activate it?" Almost none of them do that. That's one of the reasons why they're so shitty.

dudul 8y ago

Interesting. My current non-compete mentions 50% of my salary at date of termination for a year, and I'm pretty sure my previous non-competes had similar provision. Maybe I only worked with mostly "ethical" companies.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
That sounds incredibly shitty, though. You have to take a 50% pay cut and not be able to advance in your chosen field? Most people I know would struggle quite a bit with such a huge pay cut.
- dudul 8y ago
  Oh don't hear me wrong, it is not a good deal at all. But at least it has a cost for the company if they decide to activate it. Not enough for me to make a living, but most likely enough for them to take a step back and think "does what this guy can do really justify the cost?".
- ghaff 8y ago
  It wouldn't be great for a lot of people. I expect some here look at it and think "Ooh. I get paid 50% of my generous tech salary to work on my side project/travel the world for a year. Where do I sign up?" But the reality for many people is that they'd be taking a big pay cut to sit on the sidelines for a year which could be damaging both financially and professionally.

Latteland 8y ago

Yeah, if enforcing a non compete meant they had to match oldcomput would be different

s73v3r_ 8y ago
oldcomput? And I don't think that simply paying them their existing salary, or the salary at the last day is enough. I feel it should really hurt to enforce a non-compete, because you are saying that you do not want someone to be able to earn a living with their labor. That to me, no matter what your motivations are, is some degree of evil. I say it should be triple of the highest wage the person made during their tenure with the company, or the prevailing market wage, whichever is higher.
- Latteland 8y ago
  sorry, that was on my phone, was trying to say "if you had to pay someone their previous ("old comp") pay during the year the non-competes would be a lot more palatable to me. I support your argument that it should be painful for a company to enforce a non-compete. I was trying to go middle to maybe show how bad non-competes are and attract people in the middle. I just don't think it's politically viable to pay triple. On the other hand, you would be depriving someone of their liberty if they were not able to work.