4 ms·

Non-competes should require regular payment of for example 50% of your salary with some maximum, for example 2 years. Don't want your previous workers to compet

Non-competes should require regular payment of for example 50% of your salary with some maximum, for example 2 years. Don't want your previous workers to compete? Pay them. This it will only be used in justified cases and most people will happily accept significant salary for doing nothing.

ghaff 8y ago
>most people will happily accept significant salary for doing nothing. Nonsense. Most people are not in a position to just take a 50% pay cut. Furthermore, taking a year or two off from a career can be very damaging when you look for a new job after the non-compete expires.
- bluecalm 8y ago
  You can do something else. Usually non-competes are very specific. I don't know anyone who wouldn't take 50% of salary for day 2 years in exchange to have all this free time to do other things. It's not like you can't get another job.
dunpeal 8y ago
50% is a huge paycut. Most people won't voluntarily accept that, so it's hardly an adequate protection. For what it's worth, in states that do require compensation for non-competes, that compensation is typically about the same as the base salary, i.e. at or close to 100%.
- bhandziuk 8y ago
  But it is a heck of a lot of money if you want to get a job in another sector for a period of time.
- bluecalm 8y ago
  It's a huge pay cut but you're not working. You have tons of time to do something else while collecting money. It's a very sweet deal.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Exactly. Setup a consultancy and go do stuff that's out of your non-compete zone. Or just chill and take time off / spend with family. Maybe see the world?
Lionleaf 8y ago
I really like the way Norway has done it. A couple of years back they introduced a law that to make non-competes enforceable the company would have to pay you a full salary for the duration that you're blocked out of other work. Non-competes has function, but it's far too cheap for the company and far too expensive for the employee. Now the employer has to consider whether it's a position it's worth to protect or not, rather than just put it in the default contract

ghaff 8y ago

>most people will happily accept significant salary for doing nothing. Nonsense. Most people are not in a position to just take a 50% pay cut. Furthermore, taking a year or two off from a career can be very damaging when you look for a new job after the non-compete expires.

bluecalm 8y ago
You can do something else. Usually non-competes are very specific. I don't know anyone who wouldn't take 50% of salary for day 2 years in exchange to have all this free time to do other things. It's not like you can't get another job.

dunpeal 8y ago

50% is a huge paycut. Most people won't voluntarily accept that, so it's hardly an adequate protection. For what it's worth, in states that do require compensation for non-competes, that compensation is typically about the same as the base salary, i.e. at or close to 100%.

bhandziuk 8y ago
But it is a heck of a lot of money if you want to get a job in another sector for a period of time.
bluecalm 8y ago
It's a huge pay cut but you're not working. You have tons of time to do something else while collecting money. It's a very sweet deal.
r00fus 8y ago
Exactly. Setup a consultancy and go do stuff that's out of your non-compete zone. Or just chill and take time off / spend with family. Maybe see the world?

Lionleaf 8y ago

I really like the way Norway has done it. A couple of years back they introduced a law that to make non-competes enforceable the company would have to pay you a full salary for the duration that you're blocked out of other work. Non-competes has function, but it's far too cheap for the company and far too expensive for the employee. Now the employer has to consider whether it's a position it's worth to protect or not, rather than just put it in the default contract