9 ms·

60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100%

60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.

chii 8y ago
It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.
- walshemj 8y ago
  But many countries ban people being allowed to ply their trade which is why non competes to be enforceable have to be narrowly drawn.
- luckydata 8y ago
  that's disingenuous, it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had. If you want to fix that you gotta fix the labor market and hiring practices first, which is wishful thinking. 60% is low.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    > it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had That's funny, I've never had a job that was exactly like any of the other jobs I've had. Depending on how picky you are, I've never had a job that was even particularly similar to any of my previous ones.
    - akoncius 8y ago
      I was thinking the same because I am a programmer and it’s quite easy to find programming job in another area. But then I thought about other industries, dor example if I’m researcher about LED lights for 20 years, then my other options for another non-LED related job is very limited. So I’m confident that there are many example as this which can prove your logic (and my initial thinking too) wrong.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Really? All of your jobs have been for competitors of each other? I don't think that is the case for most people.
    - luckydata 8y ago
      Most non-competes are usually imposed on very specialized professions like market analysts and accountants at global firms for example. If you're barred from working for another financial firm for 2 years, what are you going to do? I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        One area of non-competes I'm somewhat familiar with is consultants/analysts for a particular market. If they leave, sure, they can go work for a vendor or other participant in a different side of the market. Which is a very different job. But they basically can't do their role with another firm or independently. And my understanding is that these non-competes are regularly enforced.
        tlavoie 8y ago
        A company I worked for had something like this, basically along the lines of, "you can't poach customers or other employees for a year." You likely could still work on your own as a consultant in the same field, but what it appeared to disallow was trying to take your clients with you. The company was acquired, (and that in turn), when the new parent tried rolling out new contracts per employee, with a short turnaround to sign. Among other things, the new version basically would have prevented me from working in my field for a year. I told them I needed time to have it reviewed by my lawyer, and I did too. Sure, the backlash had them rolling back the demand forthwith, but it convinced me that the ideal time to leave was immediately, under my old contract.
      - dfxm12 8y ago
        I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum. This forum oddly has some anti-labor sentiment. It is seen in this thread and also in threads related to unions, where the tone is quite obviously anti-union.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Not being able to work a job on your career path freezes it in place, while your physical body continues to age at the same rate. Thus, there is even a case to be made for > 100% compensation. If you don't choose to retire a year later, the year you sit out is costing you what you would have been making in the last year of your career. To explain in more detail, starting with the year you return to a career job, your pay may be reduced by a differential representing one year less experience, for every year until the end of your career. You miss out on the pay for the year you didn't work, plus all the raises between years, and the one raise you never got, because your career was one year shorter. All that adds up to the pay you would have otherwise received in the last year of your career.
- BonesJustice 8y ago
  You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Those positions are the most likely to be covered by NCAs. Not only is 100% not too much, but it’s the minimum that should be required. The cost of requiring a NCA should be high; that ensures they are only used when they are really worth it to the employer.
  - gshulegaard 8y ago
    > You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. For me the key word here is "most". I interpreted the previous comment as implying that previous employers should pay for the opportunity cost of you not maximizing your value. Unless you are prevented from getting job that leverages _any_ of your previous experience...such as requiring a new career shift. In that case 100% compensation could be merited. Otherwise 100% is not likely to equal the opportunity cost to the employee.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    > You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Exactly. So per the non-compete, you'd have to take a position where you are only 40% as valuable as you could be—and the 60% noncompete makes up the difference.
    - code_beers 8y ago
      So what, I’m only expected to bring 40% of my abilities to my next job? That makes mathematical sense, but it’s impossible in practice. It would be like trying to use 40% of your arms. If an honest engineer sees a problem which is exactly the same as one she solved at a previous company, and it is still the best solution, she will solve it in the same way. This has nothing to do with company secrets, it’s basic tradecraft. But it’s covered in many of these agreements. They’ve got to go, plain and simple.
      - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        You're expected to do your best at your next job—but because it's not the most appropriate job for you, you're actual performance is probably some percentage less than what it could be elsewhere. This can in turn be an opportunity to diversify your overall skillset. (I was of course being a bit facetious with the 40% metric—real life isn't quite so simple—but saying the noncompete should have 100% compensation is silly. That would only make sense if your ability to work was being completely taken away)
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  That doesn't stop companies from asserting that their non-compete is more broad than it is. Once they do, no other company is going to risk having you work for them while that illegally-broad non-compete is in effect. You can sue but it's so expensive you probably won't and the company knows it.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That can happen even without a formal noncompete agreement.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  It should probably be more than 100%. You don’t just miss out on salary. You miss out on raises and promotions, which might put you behind. You miss out on opportunities that may be gone with the NC period is over. Depending on the work, keeping your skills honed might be impossible from home. The problem is that 60% is not about making you whole. It’s about discouraging NCs in general.
grecy 8y ago
> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? Well, you could take the American option where you're not allowed to work in that field, so you get 0% of your salary... (California excluded, if I understand correctly)
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  The German dev gets paid 25% of the US dev salary though.
  - singularity2001 8y ago
    And of that 50% are grabbed by the taxman.
    - yitchelle 8y ago
      But the service you get from German government is so much better, healthcare is a good example here.
      - chopin 8y ago
        That's paid on top of tax. Otherwise, I agree.
        grigjd3 8y ago
        The 50% that most people note includes healthcare, or at least it did from 2009 to 2011.
        hef19898 8y ago
        Still does include healthcare as the other response stated (I'm not able to directly reply).
      - singularity2001 8y ago
        Self employed consultants are pushed into private healthcare, which will ruin you when you retire (you have to keep paying >>$1000 per month until you die).
masklinn 8y ago
> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? They don't. They very specifically can not ask an employee to "give up their right to work", only in the US does that shit happen. German law (and most european law around NCC in various fashion) requires that the NCC ne limited in time and not have "unreasonable clauses" e.g. can't prevent working in the field throughout the country. As a result enforceable NCCs are extremely rare and only happen for actual business interest reasons, it's not a sword over the employee's head as it is in the US. Also it's at least 50% of gross, so closer to 65~70% of net.
- foepys 8y ago
  To add to that, it's very rare that companies deny employees to work on side projects (or rather claim all work an employee did in their free time for themselves). That's typically done by American companies.
  - distances 8y ago
    Yes, I don't know how anyone would agree on such a clause. Hobby projects are none of the employer's business.
maerF0x0 8y ago
60% for a year off? And you can return to 100% afterwards... Many americans would love that offer.
- Retra 8y ago
  If they are living well within their means and can afford it...
jeffdavis 8y ago
60% is a nice balance that leaves both sides unhappy. Which means that non-competes will be used sparingly; only in cases where it really means something. Sounds pretty smart to me.
- lovich 8y ago
  If a wolf and a sheep are having a discussion over what to eat, is letting the wolf eat only 1 or 2 legs a nice balance because both sides are unhappy? Should one side be made happy when they have an unreasonable ask? If companies do not want you to work for competitors, they should be paying your salary for that time. Employees still lose out on things like keeping their skills sharp through work, or career growth, but they are at least getting compensated for the job
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Well, it practically serves the prupose of limiting the actual use of non-competes. So it does serve the purpose pretty well IMHO. Enforcing those in Germany is really difficult by the way.
    - lovich 8y ago
      It doesn't serve the purpose of actually compensating people, but it is much better than America's free for all
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    I think you're missing the point: it is a ban. When poliicians pass laws though, there are often unintended consequences. Good politicians will intentionally create loopholes out of humility, realizing that they don't understand the entire issue and how it will affect everyone. If the loopholes are too big, then thr policy will be ineffective and they will either need to tighten the loophole later, or scrap the whole policy as unworkable. Do you think the ban is ineffective? Are there hordes of unhappy German citizens drawing 60% of their salary because they are unable to find better work without violating the non-compete? And tons of greedy companies making zillions of euros by paying people to not work?
im3w1l 8y ago
60% of salary with no duties? Perfect opportunity to create that Theranos for consumer goods logistics startup you've always dreamed of.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  That'd be competing. Given any company can pivot to do anything. Yoga instructor? Cough non-compete!
  - imhoguy 8y ago
    Well, practically the best is to do a yearly around the world traveling sabbatical sponsored by your previous employer. No hurt for CV, cash is fine. win-win
  - hvidgaard 8y ago
    Until you do pivot, you are not competing.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > That'd be competing. Given any company can pivot to do anything. That bullshit would not fly for a single second in germany. The NCC couldn't even prevent working for a direct competitor.
    - dfxm12 8y ago
      Just wondering, how can a German defend oneself from such bullshit?
      - masklinn 8y ago
        The first line of defence is the trade union. The second one is the labour courts system (Arbeitsgerichte).
        dfxm12 8y ago
mikekchar 8y ago
I love non-competes that pay me compensation and will happily (more than happily) sign one. But, yeah, 100% or it's no deal. If they want to pay 60% then they can easily cut the time be the same factor ;-) Personally, I won't negotiate for bonuses, or equity equivalent, though... just salary. I'm happy to use that time to invest in myself. It gets too complicated otherwise. I tend to negotiate for max salary anyway, as I don't trust bonuses or equity. YMMV. I think I've only ever had one company actually pay me NC compensation, though. Usually they realise that they are paying for nothing and strike it from the contract.
- BonesJustice 8y ago
  If it’s not based on total compensation, employers will just use that as a loophole. Compensation will shift even more heavily away from salaries to “additional” income.

chii 8y ago

It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.

walshemj 8y ago
But many countries ban people being allowed to ply their trade which is why non competes to be enforceable have to be narrowly drawn.
luckydata 8y ago
that's disingenuous, it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had. If you want to fix that you gotta fix the labor market and hiring practices first, which is wishful thinking. 60% is low.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  > it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had That's funny, I've never had a job that was exactly like any of the other jobs I've had. Depending on how picky you are, I've never had a job that was even particularly similar to any of my previous ones.
  - akoncius 8y ago
    I was thinking the same because I am a programmer and it’s quite easy to find programming job in another area. But then I thought about other industries, dor example if I’m researcher about LED lights for 20 years, then my other options for another non-LED related job is very limited. So I’m confident that there are many example as this which can prove your logic (and my initial thinking too) wrong.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Really? All of your jobs have been for competitors of each other? I don't think that is the case for most people.
  - luckydata 8y ago
    Most non-competes are usually imposed on very specialized professions like market analysts and accountants at global firms for example. If you're barred from working for another financial firm for 2 years, what are you going to do? I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      One area of non-competes I'm somewhat familiar with is consultants/analysts for a particular market. If they leave, sure, they can go work for a vendor or other participant in a different side of the market. Which is a very different job. But they basically can't do their role with another firm or independently. And my understanding is that these non-competes are regularly enforced.
      - tlavoie 8y ago
        A company I worked for had something like this, basically along the lines of, "you can't poach customers or other employees for a year." You likely could still work on your own as a consultant in the same field, but what it appeared to disallow was trying to take your clients with you. The company was acquired, (and that in turn), when the new parent tried rolling out new contracts per employee, with a short turnaround to sign. Among other things, the new version basically would have prevented me from working in my field for a year. I told them I needed time to have it reviewed by my lawyer, and I did too. Sure, the backlash had them rolling back the demand forthwith, but it convinced me that the ideal time to leave was immediately, under my old contract.
    - dfxm12 8y ago
      I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum. This forum oddly has some anti-labor sentiment. It is seen in this thread and also in threads related to unions, where the tone is quite obviously anti-union.
logfromblammo 8y ago
Not being able to work a job on your career path freezes it in place, while your physical body continues to age at the same rate. Thus, there is even a case to be made for > 100% compensation. If you don't choose to retire a year later, the year you sit out is costing you what you would have been making in the last year of your career. To explain in more detail, starting with the year you return to a career job, your pay may be reduced by a differential representing one year less experience, for every year until the end of your career. You miss out on the pay for the year you didn't work, plus all the raises between years, and the one raise you never got, because your career was one year shorter. All that adds up to the pay you would have otherwise received in the last year of your career.
BonesJustice 8y ago
You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Those positions are the most likely to be covered by NCAs. Not only is 100% not too much, but it’s the minimum that should be required. The cost of requiring a NCA should be high; that ensures they are only used when they are really worth it to the employer.
- gshulegaard 8y ago
  > You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. For me the key word here is "most". I interpreted the previous comment as implying that previous employers should pay for the opportunity cost of you not maximizing your value. Unless you are prevented from getting job that leverages _any_ of your previous experience...such as requiring a new career shift. In that case 100% compensation could be merited. Otherwise 100% is not likely to equal the opportunity cost to the employee.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  > You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Exactly. So per the non-compete, you'd have to take a position where you are only 40% as valuable as you could be—and the 60% noncompete makes up the difference.
  - code_beers 8y ago
    So what, I’m only expected to bring 40% of my abilities to my next job? That makes mathematical sense, but it’s impossible in practice. It would be like trying to use 40% of your arms. If an honest engineer sees a problem which is exactly the same as one she solved at a previous company, and it is still the best solution, she will solve it in the same way. This has nothing to do with company secrets, it’s basic tradecraft. But it’s covered in many of these agreements. They’ve got to go, plain and simple.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      You're expected to do your best at your next job—but because it's not the most appropriate job for you, you're actual performance is probably some percentage less than what it could be elsewhere. This can in turn be an opportunity to diversify your overall skillset. (I was of course being a bit facetious with the 40% metric—real life isn't quite so simple—but saying the noncompete should have 100% compensation is silly. That would only make sense if your ability to work was being completely taken away)
CoolGuySteve 8y ago
That doesn't stop companies from asserting that their non-compete is more broad than it is. Once they do, no other company is going to risk having you work for them while that illegally-broad non-compete is in effect. You can sue but it's so expensive you probably won't and the company knows it.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That can happen even without a formal noncompete agreement.
cgriswald 8y ago
It should probably be more than 100%. You don’t just miss out on salary. You miss out on raises and promotions, which might put you behind. You miss out on opportunities that may be gone with the NC period is over. Depending on the work, keeping your skills honed might be impossible from home. The problem is that 60% is not about making you whole. It’s about discouraging NCs in general.

grecy 8y ago

> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? Well, you could take the American option where you're not allowed to work in that field, so you get 0% of your salary... (California excluded, if I understand correctly)

quickthrower2 8y ago
The German dev gets paid 25% of the US dev salary though.
- singularity2001 8y ago
  And of that 50% are grabbed by the taxman.
  - yitchelle 8y ago
    But the service you get from German government is so much better, healthcare is a good example here.
    - chopin 8y ago
      That's paid on top of tax. Otherwise, I agree.
      - grigjd3 8y ago
        The 50% that most people note includes healthcare, or at least it did from 2009 to 2011.
      - hef19898 8y ago
        Still does include healthcare as the other response stated (I'm not able to directly reply).
    - singularity2001 8y ago
      Self employed consultants are pushed into private healthcare, which will ruin you when you retire (you have to keep paying >>$1000 per month until you die).

masklinn 8y ago

> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? They don't. They very specifically can not ask an employee to "give up their right to work", only in the US does that shit happen. German law (and most european law around NCC in various fashion) requires that the NCC ne limited in time and not have "unreasonable clauses" e.g. can't prevent working in the field throughout the country. As a result enforceable NCCs are extremely rare and only happen for actual business interest reasons, it's not a sword over the employee's head as it is in the US. Also it's at least 50% of gross, so closer to 65~70% of net.

foepys 8y ago
To add to that, it's very rare that companies deny employees to work on side projects (or rather claim all work an employee did in their free time for themselves). That's typically done by American companies.
- distances 8y ago
  Yes, I don't know how anyone would agree on such a clause. Hobby projects are none of the employer's business.

maerF0x0 8y ago

60% for a year off? And you can return to 100% afterwards... Many americans would love that offer.

Retra 8y ago
If they are living well within their means and can afford it...

jeffdavis 8y ago

60% is a nice balance that leaves both sides unhappy. Which means that non-competes will be used sparingly; only in cases where it really means something. Sounds pretty smart to me.

lovich 8y ago
If a wolf and a sheep are having a discussion over what to eat, is letting the wolf eat only 1 or 2 legs a nice balance because both sides are unhappy? Should one side be made happy when they have an unreasonable ask? If companies do not want you to work for competitors, they should be paying your salary for that time. Employees still lose out on things like keeping their skills sharp through work, or career growth, but they are at least getting compensated for the job
- hef19898 8y ago
  Well, it practically serves the prupose of limiting the actual use of non-competes. So it does serve the purpose pretty well IMHO. Enforcing those in Germany is really difficult by the way.
  - lovich 8y ago
    It doesn't serve the purpose of actually compensating people, but it is much better than America's free for all
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  I think you're missing the point: it is a ban. When poliicians pass laws though, there are often unintended consequences. Good politicians will intentionally create loopholes out of humility, realizing that they don't understand the entire issue and how it will affect everyone. If the loopholes are too big, then thr policy will be ineffective and they will either need to tighten the loophole later, or scrap the whole policy as unworkable. Do you think the ban is ineffective? Are there hordes of unhappy German citizens drawing 60% of their salary because they are unable to find better work without violating the non-compete? And tons of greedy companies making zillions of euros by paying people to not work?

im3w1l 8y ago

60% of salary with no duties? Perfect opportunity to create that Theranos for consumer goods logistics startup you've always dreamed of.

quickthrower2 8y ago
That'd be competing. Given any company can pivot to do anything. Yoga instructor? Cough non-compete!
- imhoguy 8y ago
  Well, practically the best is to do a yearly around the world traveling sabbatical sponsored by your previous employer. No hurt for CV, cash is fine. win-win
- hvidgaard 8y ago
  Until you do pivot, you are not competing.
- masklinn 8y ago
  > That'd be competing. Given any company can pivot to do anything. That bullshit would not fly for a single second in germany. The NCC couldn't even prevent working for a direct competitor.
  - dfxm12 8y ago
    Just wondering, how can a German defend oneself from such bullshit?
    - masklinn 8y ago
      The first line of defence is the trade union. The second one is the labour courts system (Arbeitsgerichte).
      - dfxm12 8y ago

mikekchar 8y ago

I love non-competes that pay me compensation and will happily (more than happily) sign one. But, yeah, 100% or it's no deal. If they want to pay 60% then they can easily cut the time be the same factor ;-) Personally, I won't negotiate for bonuses, or equity equivalent, though... just salary. I'm happy to use that time to invest in myself. It gets too complicated otherwise. I tend to negotiate for max salary anyway, as I don't trust bonuses or equity. YMMV. I think I've only ever had one company actually pay me NC compensation, though. Usually they realise that they are paying for nothing and strike it from the contract.

BonesJustice 8y ago
If it’s not based on total compensation, employers will just use that as a loophole. Compensation will shift even more heavily away from salaries to “additional” income.