3 ms·
Yes, the ability to prohibit an employee from choosing who to work for, while costing the company nothing at all does indeed lead to worse outcomes for the work
by olliej 5y ago
Yes, the ability to prohibit an employee from choosing who to work for, while costing the company nothing at all does indeed lead to worse outcomes for the worker.
Any non-compete clause must come with a requirement to pay that employee to not compete. That will quickly get rid of non-competes that aren't actually their for the purpose of protecting trade secrets.
- pottertheotter 5y agoOn Wall Street we often have Garden Leave, where an employee continues to receive salary and benefits for a period of time after resigning to go to a competitor. Seems pretty fair to me.
- david38 5y agoOnly if the pay is what he would be getting elsewhere and if the garden leave isn’t so long his skills will be considered old.
- lsaferite 5y agoCompanies like to frame this as "you were duly compensated via the pay you received while employed". I disagree with that sentiment.