4 ms·
That sounds like a feature to me. Noncompetes are terrible, and you should be prepared to pay out of your nose if you want to keep an employee off the market.
by clarry 6y ago
That sounds like a feature to me.
Noncompetes are terrible, and you should be prepared to pay out of your nose if you want to keep an employee off the market.
As long as you're not forced to pay that money, it's all good. It just means that the employee can actually switch jobs immediately (for a better pay or not) unless you're willing to pay them however much they're willing to stay out of the market for.
Say I make $100k today. I get an offer at a place I really like, for $150k. I'd really like to go there, but they're also a competitor. I offer to stay home for $200k, and if you don't want to pay that much, then I go to work for $150k.
- sgift 6y ago> That sounds like a feature to me. Then just be open about it and say you want to remove non-competes. Nothing bad about it, but inventing clauses which makes them effectively forbidden, but not really just clogs up courts.
- Thorrez 6y agoOk, so what you're saying is you want the employee to be able to optionally enter a non-compete at quitting time at a price the employee negotiates to, as long as that price is at least the employee's previous salary. That sounds like a reasonable proposal.