3 ms·
Better than nothing but this is still a clear screw job for the employee. Ideally it would be 100% of their wage at a market rate - not the rate set by the prev
by blululu 3y ago
Better than nothing but this is still a clear screw job for the employee. Ideally it would be 100% of their wage at a market rate - not the rate set by the previous company. Most people get a pay bump when changing jobs, so the previous rate is generally below market value. But also having to take 1-2 years off from work makes landing your next job a really pain in the butt. Would you want to hire someone and then wait around for a year before they start? Makes it harder to forecast and it means a project takes an extra year to ramp up? Good luck trying to join a start up.
An outright ban on anti-competitive/anti-labor policies is just much simpler for everyone involved.
- vineyardmike 3y agoI get the appeal of a “garden leave” where you make your salary but don’t work. It’s a nice break after hard work before your next thing… but can you “quit” and voluntarily leave early? If you can quit the extended severance period, it would force employers to pay the market rate of their anti-competitiveness. If someone’s salary is X and they find a new job at 1.25X, then some would take X to do fully paid vacation for a few months after quitting, but surely some would force the old employer to pay up.
- xxs 3y ago> this is still a clear screw job for the employee. It's board members only. Non-compete clauses, overall, are not a thing in the EU.