5 ms·

> Getting 75% of your salary to do nothing for 2 years is the opportunity of a lifetime The examples you listed makes me ask this. Imagine your parents, while

> Getting 75% of your salary to do nothing for 2 years is the opportunity of a lifetime The examples you listed makes me ask this. Imagine your parents, while raising you, given this option of having their pay reduced by 25%. How likely would the options you listed have been an "opportunity of a lifetime" to them?

tomhoward 8y ago
It could work out really well; they'd have loads more time to spend with their kids, and could take on other part-time/casual non-competing work to make up the difference. I can imagine plenty of people would accept the option of taking 75% of their salary to spend all/most of their time with their young kids for a couple of years. After tax, it might not work out to much of a difference anyway, especially after you consider the other incidental expenses relating to work (transport, attire, etc). Of course, no agreement is going to be 100% perfect in every scenario, but this is way more even-handed than a one-way non-compete with no compensation at all.
quickthrower2 8y ago
Would the non compete cover supermarket checkout work? That might make up the difference.
snovv_crash 8y ago
Are you really saying that 100% of your time is worth 25% of your salary? And that isn't even counting work-related costs.
- mavelikara 8y ago
  I have a right to earn a living. I have worked many years preparing to do so in a particular area of trade. There is a market price for my skills. Taking 25% of that away is unfair, is my point. Justifying it by saying "Oh, but you could travel!" is the same level of empathy as saying "Let them eat cake".
  - krageon 8y ago
    You can easily make half of your original salary back by working part-time in a sector not directly related to the one you left. If you're already given 75% of your old salary, you won't even need to be picky. You can learn new skills and work on your hobbies/the rest of your life, while receiving a princely sum for the amount of work you're actually doing. It's only a bad deal if your current sector is all you ever aspire to work in, and I'd posit that's not the case for the majority of people.

tomhoward 8y ago

It could work out really well; they'd have loads more time to spend with their kids, and could take on other part-time/casual non-competing work to make up the difference. I can imagine plenty of people would accept the option of taking 75% of their salary to spend all/most of their time with their young kids for a couple of years. After tax, it might not work out to much of a difference anyway, especially after you consider the other incidental expenses relating to work (transport, attire, etc). Of course, no agreement is going to be 100% perfect in every scenario, but this is way more even-handed than a one-way non-compete with no compensation at all.

quickthrower2 8y ago

Would the non compete cover supermarket checkout work? That might make up the difference.

snovv_crash 8y ago

Are you really saying that 100% of your time is worth 25% of your salary? And that isn't even counting work-related costs.

mavelikara 8y ago
I have a right to earn a living. I have worked many years preparing to do so in a particular area of trade. There is a market price for my skills. Taking 25% of that away is unfair, is my point. Justifying it by saying "Oh, but you could travel!" is the same level of empathy as saying "Let them eat cake".
- krageon 8y ago
  You can easily make half of your original salary back by working part-time in a sector not directly related to the one you left. If you're already given 75% of your old salary, you won't even need to be picky. You can learn new skills and work on your hobbies/the rest of your life, while receiving a princely sum for the amount of work you're actually doing. It's only a bad deal if your current sector is all you ever aspire to work in, and I'd posit that's not the case for the majority of people.