4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - burnished 4y ago
    You dont need non competes in order to do as you propose here though
  - whamlastxmas 4y ago
    > Employees should have the option to refuse the payment and go ahead and compete. Absolutely! But in reality NCs are mandatory parts of accepting employment to begin with, and it's a very broken power dynamic because I need this $150k job a hell of a lot more than my employer needs me as one additional person. Additionally, a non-compete that only matches your existing salary isn't enough. There is a super strong compounding effect of 1. You haven't worked for two years, your value going back into the labor market could be much lower 2. Your income could have grown tremendously in those two years instead of forced to be the same 3. The net effect between 1 and 2 means you're not just behind the effect of 1 on its own, you're now actually super far behind 4. You now have two fewer years of your working life for your salary to compound 5. The savings you could have made in those years at a higher income level also aren't compounded as they would have been in your investment portfolio
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by imgabe 4y ago

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.
- burnished 4y ago
  You dont need non competes in order to do as you propose here though
- whamlastxmas 4y ago
  > Employees should have the option to refuse the payment and go ahead and compete. Absolutely! But in reality NCs are mandatory parts of accepting employment to begin with, and it's a very broken power dynamic because I need this $150k job a hell of a lot more than my employer needs me as one additional person. Additionally, a non-compete that only matches your existing salary isn't enough. There is a super strong compounding effect of 1. You haven't worked for two years, your value going back into the labor market could be much lower 2. Your income could have grown tremendously in those two years instead of forced to be the same 3. The net effect between 1 and 2 means you're not just behind the effect of 1 on its own, you're now actually super far behind 4. You now have two fewer years of your working life for your salary to compound 5. The savings you could have made in those years at a higher income level also aren't compounded as they would have been in your investment portfolio

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]