4 ms·
I disagree with banning noncompetes. The issue IMO isn't noncompetes, it's the fact that an employer doesn't have to pay. The rule should be that they can make
by endisneigh 4y ago
I disagree with banning noncompetes. The issue IMO isn't noncompetes, it's the fact that an employer doesn't have to pay.
The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure.
A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak.
- richbell 4y ago> The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure. > A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak. Agreed. Noncompetes and NDAs have become standard boilerplate in job contracts despite being inappropriate in the vast majority of cases. In my opinion, it's an intimidation used by employers against employees: "we don't actually enforce this, unless you do things like leave us a negative review on GlassDoor". Despite being unenforceable where I live, I know several people who have been threatened by their ex-employers. Even if such legal action is frivolous, most people don't have the time or money to spare fight it off, and employers know this. This relates back to the bargening inequality mentioned in another thread.
- netheril96 4y agoI disagree. The law can only mandate salaries during noncompete periods. It cannot mandate bonuses or stock grants, both of which can be significant. And as an employee, I prefer that noncompete has no effect. Even if I were paid during noncompete period, I would be outcompeted by other people who are working rather than being idle. It would set my career back.
- r00fus 4y agoWould you be ok if it was total compensation (averaged over a reasonable period) and not salary?
- CJefferson 4y agoThe problem there is people often leave one job for a job which might pay 2x, 5x, or even more. How about if you get another job offer, your original employer has to either "buy you out" of the new job offer, or you allowed to take it?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- r00fus 4y agoThis sounds great (as a worker). I could imagine it poses some risk of gaming the system (ie, have your friends startup fake hire you at 2/5x and use that to bypass noncompete or get a huge raise) - but then the company's out is to not enforce their noncompete (which is essentially what CA enforces) so I think it's a nice "velvet handcuffs" option for employers.
- Spivak 4y ago“Easy, just commit fraud.” It’s like people forget that we have a functioning legal system where a human can see through the bs.
- ericpruitt 4y agoThat seems ripe for exploitation. Someone could setup a company that effectively does nothing but offer to hire people for exorbitant rates.
- netheril96 4y agoNy second paragraph talked about that. It would set my career back doing nothing.
- endisneigh 4y agoMy fear around banning is that if an employer were willing to buy you out but non competes are banned the only real option they have would be to not hire you, no?
- foobiekr 4y agoBe careful what you wish for, there are significant non-salary benefits (stock ESPP and RSUs, healthcare subsidy, etc.) that matter a lot. These employers would just restructure compensation to effectively recreate low-cost non-competes.
- endisneigh 4y agoNot a big deal, could just say income as reported on your W2, then. Not to mention employers already enforce non competes and don’t pay anything.
- foobiekr 4y agoEverything is a big deal. Details matter. "Salary" is not what you want.