3 ms·
Wow. I almost feel sorry for the employers. I do not exactly understand this though: "contracts with executive and management personnel and employees who const
by FpUser 5y ago
Wow. I almost feel sorry for the employers.
I do not exactly understand this though: "contracts with executive and management personnel and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel"
Why are they any different? Does it mean that let's say CFO of company A can not quit and be CFO of company B (assuming they do not disclose A's private data / secrets)?
- runnerup 5y agoThat’s exactly what it’s supposed to mean. How big of a loophole it is remains to be seen. Would this loophole fit $300,000/year McKinsey consultants? Would it fit $75.000/year Accenture engineers? The idea is that the CFO people are compensated so highly that they’re not substantially harmed by the existence of the non compete. Losing out on a $100 million opportunity when you made $10 million in the last 4 years is much, much less painful than losing out on a $130,000 opportunity when you made $70,000 last year. Granted, a lot of CFOs are making $300,000 or sometimes even less. But they are seen as having a lot of power to destroy a business. Another way this works is that people like Anthony Levandowski could get a “CTO” esque title to go along with their stratospheric salary so that the non compete is still strictly binding in Colorado, even absent proof of trade secret violations.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIf that was the case, then why does the law not state a maximum compensation number after which non competes are allowed?
- runnerup 5y agoBusinesses want some leeway to be able to bind high level employees who are most likely to have the industry connections and strategic knowledge to truly beat them using knowledge they gained during their employment. General population finds the exceptions more palatable when the language can be presented to sound like it’s only binding deca-millionaires. This language is a compromise solution, so contracting firms like Accenture will attempt to figure out what they can still get away with.
- paranoidrobot 5y ago> Why are they any different? My understanding of it: General employees have minimal bargaining power, and while they may have knowledge of, or even be responsible for generating IP - overall they're not seen quite as important as senior executives who have knowledge of longer term plans. Those senior executives may also have better bargaining power - so for instance they might accept a 2 year non-compete for the industry, but in return get a sizable payout upon departure to compensate for that. It's basically to stop your C-Suites of FooCorp going to work for their direct competitor BarCorp and having direct internal knowledge of how you'd take down FooCorp.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- olliej 5y agoSerious question, why do you (almost) feel sorry for employers? Absent this rule non-competes provide a literally zero-cost method to pay below market compensation.