9 ms·

> be on the hook for continued compensation at some proportion of the employee's former wage to actually exercise the privilege to deny the employee work in a s

> be on the hook for continued compensation at some proportion of the employee's former wage to actually exercise the privilege to deny the employee work in a specific field Yes. The proportion should be 100%, plus all benefits (401k, health, continued vesting of equity, etc). If you're being denied future employment then the employer can pay for it if it's that important to them. Possibly even more than 100% if they're preventing me from going to a company with a substantial increase in pay.

cma 4y ago
Ultimately that is still very anticompetitive, it just asks for more compensation to the worker but is still paying them to do nothing and hurting competition, a sure sign of a broken system (paying people to do nothing is usually a charged leveled at very broken bureaucracies).
- andrewjf 4y ago
  For sure - I would like to see non-competes banned outright, of course. I was just replying to OP for implying that a worker should get a reduced (i.e. proportional) payout for being denied employment at a competitor. The "losing" employer should pay substantially for such a egregious act and the employee should benefit.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  This is already done at financial sectors in some countries, mostly to prevent immediate poaching of clients and transfers of strategies. In six months everything will be out of date.
Spivak 4y ago
Which is why I think companies should have to “buy you out” in the event you get another job. If you get an offer and they want to exercise the non-compete they have to pay you total comp for that offer otherwise you can work there. I’m sure in a forum of devs you’ll will think of plenty obvious “hacks” which are just fraud and our courts are perfectly capable of sussing that out.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  This seems unwieldy because people change jobs for reasons beyond their own immediate salary. Maybe I want to make a lateral move because I'm unhappy with my boss or my commute. What if I'm moving because my partner found a new/better job elsewhere, or I want to be closer to my extended family? You can try to put a monetary value on some of these (pay my commute?) but I don't think you could "buy me out" of moving for an ailing parent or sick kid.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Huh? Why doesn’t this work? If you want to change jobs for any reason you can and if the employer wants to exercise the non-compete they have to pay you your best offer to not work, not to keep working for them.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      My bad! I thought the buy-out would keep your working at your original job. I still think there's something off about the power asymmetry though.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      Ehh, this seems like a hard deal to really get right, to the extent that it is sort of “fair” to the employee, the company could just offer that deal if they wanted. Which is to say, nothing prevents a company from offering that deal as an alternative, rather than attempting to force it through with a non-compete. But, the employee would have to consider the cost to them of basically pausing their career development and letting their skills atrophy. That’s a pretty big cost! It seems unfair to force that cost on them through the contract (especially if we agree with the premise that non-competes are usually entered on a sort of unwilling basis). Nothing prevents the company from offering this sort of deal currently. But I’d expect something higher than the offer, to take it. Companies don’t seem to offer this sort of deal currently, I guess because it seems like a pretty bad deal on their side too. Paying somebody to do nothing seems pretty expensive, I think you only do that for political favors.

cma 4y ago

Ultimately that is still very anticompetitive, it just asks for more compensation to the worker but is still paying them to do nothing and hurting competition, a sure sign of a broken system (paying people to do nothing is usually a charged leveled at very broken bureaucracies).

andrewjf 4y ago
For sure - I would like to see non-competes banned outright, of course. I was just replying to OP for implying that a worker should get a reduced (i.e. proportional) payout for being denied employment at a competitor. The "losing" employer should pay substantially for such a egregious act and the employee should benefit.
bobthepanda 4y ago
This is already done at financial sectors in some countries, mostly to prevent immediate poaching of clients and transfers of strategies. In six months everything will be out of date.

Spivak 4y ago

Which is why I think companies should have to “buy you out” in the event you get another job. If you get an offer and they want to exercise the non-compete they have to pay you total comp for that offer otherwise you can work there. I’m sure in a forum of devs you’ll will think of plenty obvious “hacks” which are just fraud and our courts are perfectly capable of sussing that out.

mattkrause 4y ago
This seems unwieldy because people change jobs for reasons beyond their own immediate salary. Maybe I want to make a lateral move because I'm unhappy with my boss or my commute. What if I'm moving because my partner found a new/better job elsewhere, or I want to be closer to my extended family? You can try to put a monetary value on some of these (pay my commute?) but I don't think you could "buy me out" of moving for an ailing parent or sick kid.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Huh? Why doesn’t this work? If you want to change jobs for any reason you can and if the employer wants to exercise the non-compete they have to pay you your best offer to not work, not to keep working for them.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    My bad! I thought the buy-out would keep your working at your original job. I still think there's something off about the power asymmetry though.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Ehh, this seems like a hard deal to really get right, to the extent that it is sort of “fair” to the employee, the company could just offer that deal if they wanted. Which is to say, nothing prevents a company from offering that deal as an alternative, rather than attempting to force it through with a non-compete. But, the employee would have to consider the cost to them of basically pausing their career development and letting their skills atrophy. That’s a pretty big cost! It seems unfair to force that cost on them through the contract (especially if we agree with the premise that non-competes are usually entered on a sort of unwilling basis). Nothing prevents the company from offering this sort of deal currently. But I’d expect something higher than the offer, to take it. Companies don’t seem to offer this sort of deal currently, I guess because it seems like a pretty bad deal on their side too. Paying somebody to do nothing seems pretty expensive, I think you only do that for political favors.