4 ms·

Even that seems too much in favor of non-competes. Instead it should simply be treated like another job that I can quit at-will. If you don't want me to work f

Even that seems too much in favor of non-competes. Instead it should simply be treated like another job that I can quit at-will. If you don't want me to work for a competitor, pay me some amount of money we negotiate like a salary. It's up to you if you think it's worth enough to pay me not to work, and me to be paid enough not to advance my career how I choose during that time.

sagarm 4y ago
This seems equivalent to simply retaining the employee.
- MiddleEndian 4y ago
  Yes, exactly. As it should be. If you don't want me to work elsewhere but also don't want me to work, that's on you to figure out. Compensate me adequately to do nothing or let me be. If companies are unwilling to do that, perhaps it's not a real concern.
teawrecks 4y ago
Agreed, but how is that different from what the person you replied to said? I assume they can't pay someone for their silence against their will. Or maybe I'm wrong.
- MiddleEndian 4y ago
  If non-competes are enforceable by the German style listed above, the employee forced silent by the non-compete, even after they are done working, but the company is also forced to pay them. However, in that case, the company has two options: Forced non-compete with whatever percentage of salary is forced by law, or don't do a non-compete at all. While the employee has only one option: Whatever the employer chooses. Similar to most of the US (barring a few states) except US employees don't even get compensated. Meanwhile, if employees aren't forced to accept non-competes, the employee and employer can work out a deal or not. Given that as far as I know, California employers don't regularly pay people their TC not to work after they quit, it seems that non-competes are more of a threat against employees than something actually necessary to prevent trade secrets or whatever. Although even outside of California, I don't know anyone personally who had a non-compete enforced after quitting a job (unless this happened and they didn't tell me).

sagarm 4y ago

This seems equivalent to simply retaining the employee.

MiddleEndian 4y ago
Yes, exactly. As it should be. If you don't want me to work elsewhere but also don't want me to work, that's on you to figure out. Compensate me adequately to do nothing or let me be. If companies are unwilling to do that, perhaps it's not a real concern.

teawrecks 4y ago

Agreed, but how is that different from what the person you replied to said? I assume they can't pay someone for their silence against their will. Or maybe I'm wrong.

MiddleEndian 4y ago
If non-competes are enforceable by the German style listed above, the employee forced silent by the non-compete, even after they are done working, but the company is also forced to pay them. However, in that case, the company has two options: Forced non-compete with whatever percentage of salary is forced by law, or don't do a non-compete at all. While the employee has only one option: Whatever the employer chooses. Similar to most of the US (barring a few states) except US employees don't even get compensated. Meanwhile, if employees aren't forced to accept non-competes, the employee and employer can work out a deal or not. Given that as far as I know, California employers don't regularly pay people their TC not to work after they quit, it seems that non-competes are more of a threat against employees than something actually necessary to prevent trade secrets or whatever. Although even outside of California, I don't know anyone personally who had a non-compete enforced after quitting a job (unless this happened and they didn't tell me).