3 ms·
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 exa
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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.