3 ms·
“They would keep their pay and benefits but wouldn't be entitled to bonuses” I fail to see the issue here. The employee’s would continue to receive pay for up
by codeddesign 1y ago
“They would keep their pay and benefits but wouldn't be entitled to bonuses”
I fail to see the issue here. The employee’s would continue to receive pay for up to 4 yrs to keep the non-compete.
- collingreen 1y agoFinancial industry comp for top earners is mostly bonuses so 4 years of not being able to earn a competitive rate isn't a high cost for the company to prevent you from helping competitors or keeping your skills up to date.
- Avicebron 1y agoYeah I mean it's "scummy" as in you don't control your destiny, but if your guaranteed the pay and benefits for 4 years, and you know that up front when you sign the contract it's sort of like knowing you will get a sabbatical
- orangecat 1y agoThe downside for employees is that they're not able to keep current and will likely have a harder time finding jobs in the future. The downside for society is that it will cause skilled people to not be producing anything.
- Espressosaurus 1y agoHigh earners get most of their compensation from bonuses, RSUs, etc., none of which will be paid out over the garden leave period. It means whoever employs you in Florida controls your destiny for the 4 years after you leave. If you don't see a problem with that I can only assume you hope you'll be the employer and not the employee.
- OkayPhysicist 1y agoAdding friction to changing jobs stifles competition (hey, it's right there in the name), and thus suppresses wages. Employers already have a massive advantage in employment negotiations, so a just society has zero reason to give them more.