5 ms·

I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete.

arrrg 3y ago
In Germany non-competes have a max duration of two years and compensation has to be at least 50%.
- caskstrength 3y ago
  Living two years on half the salary sucks though.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Realistically though, you're never going to have a system where it's generally more attractive financially to spend a couple years on the beach than to keep working. That's a perverse incentive. But, yes, that's the thing with gardening leave. There are certainly some people who would be fine with taking a year off at significantly reduced pay--but not the majority.
  - F-W-M 3y ago
    It's a great start into freelancing though. They have to pay you 60% of your former salary upto 110% of it.
    - caskstrength 3y ago
      You know what would be even better? Them paying you 100% of your salary while you are freelancing ;)
vgatherps 3y ago
> I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete. It absolutely has to be something like this at a bare minimum. The whole "We pay full base" argument is nonsense when the TC is multiples of base.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  But bonus depends on how the team did plus individual perf... politics. How do you establish what the person would have gotten paid?
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    Take the average over the last years? If the employer doesn't want to pay that then the employee can always go work for a competitor, right?
  - eszed 3y ago
    That's why he suggested "average of preceding years". Maybe you allow companies to appeal to reduce the amount based on a decline in profits leading to reduced bonuses for employees on identical schemes, but... Meh. If they want to use non-compete clauses I think they should bear that risk. It will make companies think hard about on whom they should impose them, which in my opinion is the point of creating restrictions.
    - stephencanon 3y ago
      Right. They can always release them from the noncompete if they find it onerous.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Even this doesn't work because its often the case that an employee leaves for a higher salary elsewhere. Instead of trying to add epicycles to a stupid system it makes more sense to shit can it. There are about 338 million people who would benefit whereas the people who truly have anything to gain from such a system could all attend an event together.

arrrg 3y ago

In Germany non-competes have a max duration of two years and compensation has to be at least 50%.

caskstrength 3y ago
Living two years on half the salary sucks though.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Realistically though, you're never going to have a system where it's generally more attractive financially to spend a couple years on the beach than to keep working. That's a perverse incentive. But, yes, that's the thing with gardening leave. There are certainly some people who would be fine with taking a year off at significantly reduced pay--but not the majority.
- F-W-M 3y ago
  It's a great start into freelancing though. They have to pay you 60% of your former salary upto 110% of it.
  - caskstrength 3y ago
    You know what would be even better? Them paying you 100% of your salary while you are freelancing ;)

vgatherps 3y ago

> I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete. It absolutely has to be something like this at a bare minimum. The whole "We pay full base" argument is nonsense when the TC is multiples of base.

lordnacho 3y ago
But bonus depends on how the team did plus individual perf... politics. How do you establish what the person would have gotten paid?
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  Take the average over the last years? If the employer doesn't want to pay that then the employee can always go work for a competitor, right?
- eszed 3y ago
  That's why he suggested "average of preceding years". Maybe you allow companies to appeal to reduce the amount based on a decline in profits leading to reduced bonuses for employees on identical schemes, but... Meh. If they want to use non-compete clauses I think they should bear that risk. It will make companies think hard about on whom they should impose them, which in my opinion is the point of creating restrictions.
  - stephencanon 3y ago
    Right. They can always release them from the noncompete if they find it onerous.
michaelmrose 3y ago
Even this doesn't work because its often the case that an employee leaves for a higher salary elsewhere. Instead of trying to add epicycles to a stupid system it makes more sense to shit can it. There are about 338 million people who would benefit whereas the people who truly have anything to gain from such a system could all attend an event together.