131–140 of 242 posts
“To rely on a restrictive covenant in a contract of employment an employer needs to be able to show that it is designed to protect a legitimate business interest (e.g. goodwill or confidential information); and goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect that interest.”
Any more than that and it is unenforceable.
Enforcement is in Employment Tribunals not courts where the burden of proof is largely on the employer.
Thank god the german law requires a NC clause to have a compensation directly mentioned in the contract that is not allowed to be less than 60% the person earned in the company in the last year she worked there. If the compensation is missing or too low, the NC is against the law. In other words: if a company wants me to not compete, they need to pay me for the time the NC is active. Its also limited to a maximum of…
60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.
Sounds pretty smart to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.
60% for a year off? And you can return to 100% afterwards... Many americans would love that offer.
More Info. ===== http://careers7.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, I think full taxable income is a nice suggestion. But it will require legislation, i.e. probably will never happen. Moreover, the point of the article is that NCAs are a long-term drag on the economy. If the main reason there's SV in California and not near Boston, is the lack of NCAs, then that seems like a huge cost and a drag on the economy as a whole.
It’s not a huge cost because if “full taxable income” became law, every non compete would instantly disappear overnight.
Thank god the german law requires a NC clause to have a compensation directly mentioned in the contract that is not allowed to be less than 60% the person earned in the company in the last year she worked there. If the compensation is missing or too low, the NC is against the law. In other words: if a company wants me to not compete, they need to pay me for the time the NC is active. Its also limited to a maximum of…
Yes! this is exactly how it should be! No free option! NC are antithetical to natural rights because they are slavery. If there is payment contingent on performance, than there isn't slavery. Given payment is required, firms that would ask for NC go way down.
Other place serf originally were peasants farming communal property who had they're rights taken away bit by bit over hundreds of years until they were bound to the land and had no rights.
Thank god the german law requires a NC clause to have a compensation directly mentioned in the contract that is not allowed to be less than 60% the person earned in the company in the last year she worked there. If the compensation is missing or too low, the NC is against the law. In other words: if a company wants me to not compete, they need to pay me for the time the NC is active. Its also limited to a maximum of…
60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
nice try but serves were attached to the land by nature.
Well, tying your labor force to the land should be no basis for a free economy! Imagine, just shackling your primary economic labor force to an arbitrary plot of land and demanding taxes and work of them?! How ghastly. Next thing you know, you'll be claiming right to their innovations in the advancement of farming technology. Ill have you know that I shall not be sharing MY designs for soil improvement through the ad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly. My first lawyer explained it well: "The question isn't whether you'll win. It's whether you can afford to win."
Land of the free
Thank god the german law requires a NC clause to have a compensation directly mentioned in the contract that is not allowed to be less than 60% the person earned in the company in the last year she worked there. If the compensation is missing or too low, the NC is against the law. In other words: if a company wants me to not compete, they need to pay me for the time the NC is active. Its also limited to a maximum of…
60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.
Personally, I won't negotiate for bonuses, or equity equivalent, though... just salary. I'm happy to use that time to invest in myself. It gets too complicated otherwise. I tend to negotiate for max salary anyway, as I don't trust bonuses or equity. YMMV.
I think I've only ever had one company actually pay me NC compensation, though. Usually they realise that they are paying for nothing and strike it from the contract.