3 ms·

What I don't get with non-competes is they effectively keep the employee in obligation to the employer, without keeping the reverse. At a minimum, they should

What I don't get with non-competes is they effectively keep the employee in obligation to the employer, without keeping the reverse. At a minimum, they should have to have paid minimum full-time wage continuously up to the point they attempt to enforce it, for it to be enforceable (in addition to the requirements), and if they haven't when they try to enforce it then it should be treated as a breach of labor laws.

SnowflakeOnIce 3y ago
I believe MA (which overhauled its noncompete laws a few years back) requires "garden leave" in the case of a noncompete — the employer would have to pay the employee's salary for the period of enforcement.
Broken_Hippo 3y ago
Should be a minimum of salary plus benefits plus approximate (or average) bonus. You shouldn't have to pay more for employer-provided health insurance, for example. You should still get any employer contribution to retirement accounts. You should get an approximation of bonuses you would receive if actively working. And so on. If a company thinks you are worth signing a non-compete, they should pay like you are still employed. Non-competes should be a burden for the company to discourage their use.
- jalapenos 3y ago
  I don't think that'd be well aligned. The noncompete obligation is present during employment too, but the work obligation doesn't continue after. So getting full price while you can still work elsewhere (just not anywhere) wouldn't be fair. I still say they should be banned outright for the same reason they originally were at common law -- that they restrain trade, which affects third parties.
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    I'd prefer banning as well, but I figure there are probably some reasonable reasons. And I agree, the work obligation doesn't continue after, but I don't think the employee should lose out on pay while they can't work elsewhere in the same field just because the employer wants to keep them from doing so. It should be painful for the company and easy for the employee.

SnowflakeOnIce 3y ago

I believe MA (which overhauled its noncompete laws a few years back) requires "garden leave" in the case of a noncompete — the employer would have to pay the employee's salary for the period of enforcement.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago

Should be a minimum of salary plus benefits plus approximate (or average) bonus. You shouldn't have to pay more for employer-provided health insurance, for example. You should still get any employer contribution to retirement accounts. You should get an approximation of bonuses you would receive if actively working. And so on. If a company thinks you are worth signing a non-compete, they should pay like you are still employed. Non-competes should be a burden for the company to discourage their use.

jalapenos 3y ago
I don't think that'd be well aligned. The noncompete obligation is present during employment too, but the work obligation doesn't continue after. So getting full price while you can still work elsewhere (just not anywhere) wouldn't be fair. I still say they should be banned outright for the same reason they originally were at common law -- that they restrain trade, which affects third parties.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  I'd prefer banning as well, but I figure there are probably some reasonable reasons. And I agree, the work obligation doesn't continue after, but I don't think the employee should lose out on pay while they can't work elsewhere in the same field just because the employer wants to keep them from doing so. It should be painful for the company and easy for the employee.