3 ms·

Why not 100%?

• radiator 5y ago
  It looks like it is "at least 50%" according to the law.
• ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
  You don't think there should be any consideration for the fact the person is not performing any labor? They are still able to pursue employment in non competing fields. In a world where non-competes were funded 100% it seems like it should be the GOAL of every employee to be fired from a position where a non-compete needs to be enforced in order to secure extended paid vacations.
  • cwkoss 5y ago
    Society wants people to contribute productively. Stopping someone from working to protect business secrets is antisocial and bad for society. Really, companies should have to pay >100% salary as a disincentive to idling valuable labor.