4 ms·

Full pay would be your tax return saying what the full amount of compensation you got from the employer. Stock rewards, bonuses, etc are all reported from spec

Full pay would be your tax return saying what the full amount of compensation you got from the employer. Stock rewards, bonuses, etc are all reported from specific employers. Your highest year in your previous years of employment with the employer is the year I would chose. And add other benefits like health insurance and such. Basically your still 'employed' on garden leave with the company until the non-compete period runs out. By making table stakes very expensive, the likelihood of companies even putting them into contracts will reduce to a small minority. The problem with non-competes right now is they are free and easy to put into contracts, and in practice the vast majority of employees do not refuse employment over it due to power asymmetry. They further more create chilling effects for employees to switch companies and thus make employees cheaper to hire due to the liquidity reduction. The other objections you bring up you can negotiate for yourself :) . If they were willing to put up the table stakes, you're probably an important hire to put that in for and thus probably have negotiation power.

dunpeal 8y ago
OK, I think full taxable income is a nice suggestion. But it will require legislation, i.e. probably will never happen. Moreover, the point of the article is that NCAs are a long-term drag on the economy. If the main reason there's SV in California and not near Boston, is the lack of NCAs, then that seems like a huge cost and a drag on the economy as a whole.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  It’s not a huge cost because if “full taxable income” became law, every non compete would instantly disappear overnight.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    No, they (the parliament) would make noncompetes mandatory like they made arbiters mandatory (as in, courts will statutorily turn you down if you skip the arbiter; this is way worse than, for example, alienable right to sue in the US, as you cannot contractually leave this out) in Turkey (OK, not in all cases; but employment, insolvency and customer issues are not small problems). Expect way worse in liberal jurisdictions such as US. And no one would object even if it were obviously unconstitutional (right to sue is inalienable here).

dunpeal 8y ago

OK, I think full taxable income is a nice suggestion. But it will require legislation, i.e. probably will never happen. Moreover, the point of the article is that NCAs are a long-term drag on the economy. If the main reason there's SV in California and not near Boston, is the lack of NCAs, then that seems like a huge cost and a drag on the economy as a whole.

ryandrake 8y ago
It’s not a huge cost because if “full taxable income” became law, every non compete would instantly disappear overnight.
- anticensor 8y ago
  No, they (the parliament) would make noncompetes mandatory like they made arbiters mandatory (as in, courts will statutorily turn you down if you skip the arbiter; this is way worse than, for example, alienable right to sue in the US, as you cannot contractually leave this out) in Turkey (OK, not in all cases; but employment, insolvency and customer issues are not small problems). Expect way worse in liberal jurisdictions such as US. And no one would object even if it were obviously unconstitutional (right to sue is inalienable here).