3 ms·
A VP at Amazon is likely making seven figures, has a hand in directing decisions about high-level strategy, and has access to highly sensitive revenue data. If
by throwawaygh 6y ago
A VP at Amazon is likely making seven figures, has a hand in directing decisions about high-level strategy, and has access to highly sensitive revenue data. If all of that is the case here, then I actually think a non-compete is reasonable.
That said, non-competes without 100% garden pay during the term should be unenforceable. Also, trying to enforce a blatantly unenforcable non-competes should have criminal penalties.
- saagarjha 6y agoSounds like you think NDAs are the way to go, then?
- throwawaygh 6y agoNo, I'm actually okay with non-competes. But they should be illegal if they don't come with >100% total comp garden pay for the term of the non-compete. Also, attempting to enforce a blatantly unenforcable non-compete should result in criminal charges for whoever made the decision to push enforcement, disbarment for their legal team, and substantial civil liability. The bar for that should be very high, but the choice to enforce a non-compete should be one that's only made when the legal team is damn sure there's a compelling argument that the non-compete is legally enforceable. Too many people are handcuffed by definitely-garbage non-competes because they can't afford the legal fight. With >100% garden pay terms, I would personally prefer limited/short term non-competes over infinite/long term NDAs, for example. I've explicitly made that choice in the past.