9 ms·

I don’t think they need to be outright banned but for the duration of the non compete the employer should have to keep paying the salary. They can then keep wor

I don’t think they need to be outright banned but for the duration of the non compete the employer should have to keep paying the salary. They can then keep workers from joining a competitor if it is important to them. But the cost associated will prohibit its use as a scare tactic.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Alternatively, they could only be allowed for highly paid jobs, say, 10x minimum wage and more.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  That sounds like a really powerful way to put downward pressure on the minimum wage.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    An interesting retort. I did not think about this scenario. Wages are notoriously sticky, but there could be pressure to keep the minimum wage stay put in periods of great inflation. Such as the one that we might face soon. Possibly, we are already in. Maybe the limit could be derived from the median wage. Such as "only jobs that earn 4x or more median wage can be subject to noncompetes".
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      Counterpoint: noncompetes should not be allowed at all. Employers shouldn't be able to control the livelihoods of people who don't work for them. If they fear theft of trade secrets, there are already laws in place for that.
      - idiotsecant 5y ago
        I think it's OK for highly compensated employees and employers to have these agreements, as long as the power balance is relatively equitable in the beginning. It allows a certain level of employer investment with assurances that those investments wont immediately be used to boost their competitors and presumably the employee is able to extract some concessions from the employer for signing it. In cases where it's literally just a soulless corporate chain bullying employees into being serfs it's completely immoral.
        cratermoon 5y ago
        > as long as the power balance is relatively equitable in the beginning That's a big 'if'
      - affyboi 5y ago
        I think it’s fine in finance, noncompete terms are pretty generous and there’s a real case for IP sensitivity with trading strategies and alphas
ThePadawan 5y ago
How is what you're describing (paying someone a salary to provide value to the company) different from "employment"?
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  It is employment with severe restrictions on job requirements, while not paying someone for providing years of service is indentured servitude.
- anang 5y ago
  I think the implication is that salary is paid regardless of employment, as long as the non compete is enforced. So if I quit McDonald’s they have to either keep paying me or release me from the non-compete and allow me to work at Burger King. I think it’s totally fair.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- supertrope 5y ago
  "Garden leave" is when an employer keeps you on payroll so you can't start at a competitor until your strategic knowledge becomes stale. CA Courts require consideration be provided in exchange for not being able to earn a living.
  - ThePadawan 5y ago
    Right, but is this person unemployed or not?
HWR_14 5y ago
> for the duration of the non compete the employer should have to keep paying the salary. How does that interact with many people needing to get a new job to get a raise?
- brewdad 5y ago
  You'd have to go work a retail job instead of fast food but McD's would still be on the hook for your original pay.
ultrasaurus 5y ago
This is common in the financial industry: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp
himinlomax 5y ago
That's how it works in many European countries. I once had a job with a boilerplate non-compete, the clause made it clear how much they would pay me if they chose to enforce it. When I quit, they immediately informed me they were not enforcing/paying for it.
- krageon 5y ago
  > many European countries Not two of the most wealthy ones I know, so I must ask: Which ones?
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    It's the case in France.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Alternatively, they could only be allowed for highly paid jobs, say, 10x minimum wage and more.

cratermoon 5y ago
That sounds like a really powerful way to put downward pressure on the minimum wage.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  An interesting retort. I did not think about this scenario. Wages are notoriously sticky, but there could be pressure to keep the minimum wage stay put in periods of great inflation. Such as the one that we might face soon. Possibly, we are already in. Maybe the limit could be derived from the median wage. Such as "only jobs that earn 4x or more median wage can be subject to noncompetes".
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    Counterpoint: noncompetes should not be allowed at all. Employers shouldn't be able to control the livelihoods of people who don't work for them. If they fear theft of trade secrets, there are already laws in place for that.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      I think it's OK for highly compensated employees and employers to have these agreements, as long as the power balance is relatively equitable in the beginning. It allows a certain level of employer investment with assurances that those investments wont immediately be used to boost their competitors and presumably the employee is able to extract some concessions from the employer for signing it. In cases where it's literally just a soulless corporate chain bullying employees into being serfs it's completely immoral.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        > as long as the power balance is relatively equitable in the beginning That's a big 'if'
    - affyboi 5y ago
      I think it’s fine in finance, noncompete terms are pretty generous and there’s a real case for IP sensitivity with trading strategies and alphas

ThePadawan 5y ago

How is what you're describing (paying someone a salary to provide value to the company) different from "employment"?

smorgusofborg 5y ago
It is employment with severe restrictions on job requirements, while not paying someone for providing years of service is indentured servitude.
anang 5y ago
I think the implication is that salary is paid regardless of employment, as long as the non compete is enforced. So if I quit McDonald’s they have to either keep paying me or release me from the non-compete and allow me to work at Burger King. I think it’s totally fair.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
supertrope 5y ago
"Garden leave" is when an employer keeps you on payroll so you can't start at a competitor until your strategic knowledge becomes stale. CA Courts require consideration be provided in exchange for not being able to earn a living.
- ThePadawan 5y ago
  Right, but is this person unemployed or not?

HWR_14 5y ago

> for the duration of the non compete the employer should have to keep paying the salary. How does that interact with many people needing to get a new job to get a raise?

brewdad 5y ago
You'd have to go work a retail job instead of fast food but McD's would still be on the hook for your original pay.

ultrasaurus 5y ago

This is common in the financial industry: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp

himinlomax 5y ago

That's how it works in many European countries. I once had a job with a boilerplate non-compete, the clause made it clear how much they would pay me if they chose to enforce it. When I quit, they immediately informed me they were not enforcing/paying for it.

krageon 5y ago
> many European countries Not two of the most wealthy ones I know, so I must ask: Which ones?
- himinlomax 5y ago
  It's the case in France.