4 ms·

It feels like simple regulation could just be: - non-competes must be paid at the max of your past 3 years earnings, including benefits. - minimum $100k/year.

It feels like simple regulation could just be: - non-competes must be paid at the max of your past 3 years earnings, including benefits. - minimum $100k/year. - maximum 12 months. Assuming companies need to enforce them, they'll have a mechanism to (this is similar to what hedge funds do).

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
- tied to inflation
wahnfrieden 4y ago
why advocate for allowing them? what's in it for workers?
- eftychis 4y ago
  Yeah I agree. Why even allow them at all?
  - bmitc 4y ago
    I think allowing them but forcing companies to pay is a way to make them put their money where their mouth is. While I think removing them is good, removing them completely gives the opposing crowd something to yell about. If you allow them but then say, well you gotta pay to get the benefit, I think we'd quickly see them drop off, the proponents of non-competes would have little to no argument, and companies who really think they need them can just pay for them if they're so valuable to their business strategy.
    - a_techwriter_00 4y ago
      If history's any indication, you can't give companies an inch. They'll take advantage of employee ignorance of the law, or do shady things with the payments under the logic that if the employee sues them for the money they can tie the case up in the legal system until they give up, or whatever other chicanery they can imagine to squirm out of having to pay.
- hackitup7 4y ago
  There are some jobs (for example as referenced elsewhere hedge funds) where employees have knowledge that could be directly damaging to their former employer if it were taken to a competitor. For example, other Fund X has a huge short position in a company. The way that finance solves this is by paying employees to stay unemployed (and not take their potentially damaging information elsewhere). There isn't really anything directly "in it" for workers, so paying them out for their time seems reasonable.
  - Larrikin 4y ago
    So why not make it generally illegal except in very specific circumstances?
    - pnpnp 4y ago
      Or how about allow for knowledge of one firm being shared with the other being illegal since it’s proprietary (I think this is probably already the case).
      - phibz 4y ago
        That's very hard to police and prove. It's easier if you pay them to be unemployed for long enough for their knowledge to be less valuable. This is very common with businesses like hedge funds. But I agree non-compete should be narrowly allowed and only in situations like this that are more equitable.
- imgabe 4y ago
  fully paid vacation for as long as the company wants to enforce the non-compete? Or you get another job and get free double salary while working in a completely unrelated industry? I think the parent comment was pretty clear that what's in it for workers is a bunch of money.
  - terminalcommand 4y ago
    Fully paid vacation is sometimes called garden-leave. In my country, you have to pay some salary during non-compete but it is nowhere near your full salary (1/10th in most cases).
    - fbdab103 4y ago
      1/10 of a salary for all but the upper echelon of worker compensation does not seem sufficient to put food on the table.
      - terminalcommand 4y ago
        Normally high earning employees have non-compete clauses that are enforced.
  - whamlastxmas 4y ago
    Having to take two years of time off of work can be really detrimental to some careers in some fields. For as much as capitalists love free markets, they really hate the idea of employees selling their labor in a free market.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      That's why you get paid, to compensate you for the detriment. Employees should have the option to refuse the payment and go ahead and compete. Then it would be up to employers to make sure the offer is attractive enough that employees would want to take it. That's how a free market works.
surfsvammel 4y ago
Similar to what other countries do as well.
asah 4y ago
This hurts our economy, since we're not utilizing scarce talent.
- ISL 4y ago
  There are a lot of productive things one can do on garden leave. The only thing you can't do is the thing you were doing before. Continuing education, charity work, spending time with family, work in a non-competing field, etc. Working one job but getting paid for two ain't that bad, as long as it is at the rate specified by the grandparent post.
  - asah 4y ago
    This comment paints a bike shed: non-competes affect some of the scarcest talent in the world, in the prime of their careers.
Mizoguchi 4y ago
Skills + experience is the only way most people can put food on the table. That's a basic human right and should be non negotiable. If companies are too afraid of loosing their trade secrets that's what IP, NDAs and patents are for. I rejected offers after months of negotiations because of these bs poorly drafted and ridiculously broad non compete agreements. Many companies, particularly startups, don't even understand why they have them as it is usually the lawyers for the investors who draft them.
bagels 4y ago
Should be 2x or 3x as much. People change jobs to increase wages, this would still suppress wages and productivity.
runtu 4y ago
This is pretty much what was implemented in Finland starting last year. If an employer wants to keep a non-compete clause in a contract, they are forced to pay their prior salary for the agreed period (max 12 months) after employment - regardless of where the employee chooses to work afterwards. If they go to a non-competitor, they can start immediately and get their new salary on top of the non-compete compensation. Needless to say, nearly all non-compete clauses were systematically removed from existing employment contracts.
paxys 4y ago
I disagree. At most, we should allow it in limited circumstances where it would be on the company to prove why the non-compete is absolutely necessary. High tech chip manufacturing where the employee has a wealth of trade secrets in their head and taking it to a competitor would be disastrous – maybe. Reading a script at a call center or making a sandwich – hell no.
- mindvirus 4y ago
  That's where I'd push back. If Subway is willing to pay someone $100k to not make sandwiches at a competitor, why stop them?
  - paxys 4y ago
    Because the person should still have a choice as to whether they want to accept the $100k or not.
    - mindvirus 4y ago
      In this hypothetical, they'd also have the choice not to work at Subway in the first place. But realistically, very few companies (especially fast food restaurants) would want a non-compete if they had to pay for it. My broader point is that if we say that there may be places that a non compete makes sense, we can both allow that and give workers protections - especially workers with the least leverage to negotiate.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago

- tied to inflation

wahnfrieden 4y ago

why advocate for allowing them? what's in it for workers?

eftychis 4y ago
Yeah I agree. Why even allow them at all?
- bmitc 4y ago
  I think allowing them but forcing companies to pay is a way to make them put their money where their mouth is. While I think removing them is good, removing them completely gives the opposing crowd something to yell about. If you allow them but then say, well you gotta pay to get the benefit, I think we'd quickly see them drop off, the proponents of non-competes would have little to no argument, and companies who really think they need them can just pay for them if they're so valuable to their business strategy.
  - a_techwriter_00 4y ago
    If history's any indication, you can't give companies an inch. They'll take advantage of employee ignorance of the law, or do shady things with the payments under the logic that if the employee sues them for the money they can tie the case up in the legal system until they give up, or whatever other chicanery they can imagine to squirm out of having to pay.
hackitup7 4y ago
There are some jobs (for example as referenced elsewhere hedge funds) where employees have knowledge that could be directly damaging to their former employer if it were taken to a competitor. For example, other Fund X has a huge short position in a company. The way that finance solves this is by paying employees to stay unemployed (and not take their potentially damaging information elsewhere). There isn't really anything directly "in it" for workers, so paying them out for their time seems reasonable.
- Larrikin 4y ago
  So why not make it generally illegal except in very specific circumstances?
  - pnpnp 4y ago
    Or how about allow for knowledge of one firm being shared with the other being illegal since it’s proprietary (I think this is probably already the case).
    - phibz 4y ago
      That's very hard to police and prove. It's easier if you pay them to be unemployed for long enough for their knowledge to be less valuable. This is very common with businesses like hedge funds. But I agree non-compete should be narrowly allowed and only in situations like this that are more equitable.
imgabe 4y ago
fully paid vacation for as long as the company wants to enforce the non-compete? Or you get another job and get free double salary while working in a completely unrelated industry? I think the parent comment was pretty clear that what's in it for workers is a bunch of money.
- terminalcommand 4y ago
  Fully paid vacation is sometimes called garden-leave. In my country, you have to pay some salary during non-compete but it is nowhere near your full salary (1/10th in most cases).
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    1/10 of a salary for all but the upper echelon of worker compensation does not seem sufficient to put food on the table.
    - terminalcommand 4y ago
      Normally high earning employees have non-compete clauses that are enforced.
- whamlastxmas 4y ago
  Having to take two years of time off of work can be really detrimental to some careers in some fields. For as much as capitalists love free markets, they really hate the idea of employees selling their labor in a free market.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    That's why you get paid, to compensate you for the detriment. Employees should have the option to refuse the payment and go ahead and compete. Then it would be up to employers to make sure the offer is attractive enough that employees would want to take it. That's how a free market works.

surfsvammel 4y ago

Similar to what other countries do as well.

asah 4y ago

This hurts our economy, since we're not utilizing scarce talent.

ISL 4y ago
There are a lot of productive things one can do on garden leave. The only thing you can't do is the thing you were doing before. Continuing education, charity work, spending time with family, work in a non-competing field, etc. Working one job but getting paid for two ain't that bad, as long as it is at the rate specified by the grandparent post.
- asah 4y ago
  This comment paints a bike shed: non-competes affect some of the scarcest talent in the world, in the prime of their careers.

Mizoguchi 4y ago

Skills + experience is the only way most people can put food on the table. That's a basic human right and should be non negotiable. If companies are too afraid of loosing their trade secrets that's what IP, NDAs and patents are for. I rejected offers after months of negotiations because of these bs poorly drafted and ridiculously broad non compete agreements. Many companies, particularly startups, don't even understand why they have them as it is usually the lawyers for the investors who draft them.

bagels 4y ago

Should be 2x or 3x as much. People change jobs to increase wages, this would still suppress wages and productivity.

runtu 4y ago

This is pretty much what was implemented in Finland starting last year. If an employer wants to keep a non-compete clause in a contract, they are forced to pay their prior salary for the agreed period (max 12 months) after employment - regardless of where the employee chooses to work afterwards. If they go to a non-competitor, they can start immediately and get their new salary on top of the non-compete compensation. Needless to say, nearly all non-compete clauses were systematically removed from existing employment contracts.

paxys 4y ago

I disagree. At most, we should allow it in limited circumstances where it would be on the company to prove why the non-compete is absolutely necessary. High tech chip manufacturing where the employee has a wealth of trade secrets in their head and taking it to a competitor would be disastrous – maybe. Reading a script at a call center or making a sandwich – hell no.

mindvirus 4y ago
That's where I'd push back. If Subway is willing to pay someone $100k to not make sandwiches at a competitor, why stop them?
- paxys 4y ago
  Because the person should still have a choice as to whether they want to accept the $100k or not.
  - mindvirus 4y ago
    In this hypothetical, they'd also have the choice not to work at Subway in the first place. But realistically, very few companies (especially fast food restaurants) would want a non-compete if they had to pay for it. My broader point is that if we say that there may be places that a non compete makes sense, we can both allow that and give workers protections - especially workers with the least leverage to negotiate.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]