3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoFor 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 agoThis 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 In six months everything will be out of date.