5 ms·

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

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)
    - SoylentYellow 8y ago
      How is 100% compensation silly? Non-compete agreements restrict your ability to freely practice your craft. They are prone to being improperly applied or outright abused (see Jimmy John's audacious non-compete clause). This has happened so often that California practically outlawed them. The root of the problem is that a boiler plate non-compete clause in every employee contract costs nothing. The company can pick and choose when to enforce it, so why not include it? Requiring 100% compensation forces companies to justify the non-compete with their pocket book. This is a powerful feedback mechanism that balances restricting a person's basic rights with legitimate business needs.
    - code_beers 8y ago
      Why exactly would I choose a company which will professionally handicap me for the rest of my career, locking 60% of my income potential at what it is now and leaving me to sort through how to have a career without getting sued? Ain’t gonna happen. Not going to sign the agreement. Like I said, it may sound mathematically right, but it’s absolutely absurd.
- cialowicz 8y ago
  What about the opportunity loss that results from taking a less relevant job with worse career prospects?
  - mcv 8y ago
    That sounds like a bad idea, but you could also take it as an opportunity to develop in a new direction and build some experience there. It's probably a bad deal for people who are extremely specialised and want to stay that way, but it'd be a pretty good deal for people like me, who love an excuse to learn something new.

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)
  - SoylentYellow 8y ago
    How is 100% compensation silly? Non-compete agreements restrict your ability to freely practice your craft. They are prone to being improperly applied or outright abused (see Jimmy John's audacious non-compete clause). This has happened so often that California practically outlawed them. The root of the problem is that a boiler plate non-compete clause in every employee contract costs nothing. The company can pick and choose when to enforce it, so why not include it? Requiring 100% compensation forces companies to justify the non-compete with their pocket book. This is a powerful feedback mechanism that balances restricting a person's basic rights with legitimate business needs.
  - code_beers 8y ago
    Why exactly would I choose a company which will professionally handicap me for the rest of my career, locking 60% of my income potential at what it is now and leaving me to sort through how to have a career without getting sued? Ain’t gonna happen. Not going to sign the agreement. Like I said, it may sound mathematically right, but it’s absolutely absurd.
cialowicz 8y ago
What about the opportunity loss that results from taking a less relevant job with worse career prospects?
- mcv 8y ago
  That sounds like a bad idea, but you could also take it as an opportunity to develop in a new direction and build some experience there. It's probably a bad deal for people who are extremely specialised and want to stay that way, but it'd be a pretty good deal for people like me, who love an excuse to learn something new.