31–40 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And pay full salary while enforced. That's a good clause, that will basically eliminate them. It makes sense from the government's standpoint, they don't want anything that restricts people's income because that restricts their (tax) income too.
> that will basically eliminate them in NYC, it doesn't seem to stop quant firms. they have a term for it, although I forget what.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And pay full salary while enforced. That's a good clause, that will basically eliminate them. It makes sense from the government's standpoint, they don't want anything that restricts people's income because that restricts their (tax) income too.
> that will basically eliminate them in NYC, it doesn't seem to stop quant firms. they have a term for it, although I forget what.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admin assistants (like actual admin assistants) usually have access to full customer contact lists, and exposure to rather intimate details of the business and executives lives. They’re definitely not comparable to security guards in that sense.
There are already laws against Admin assistants from taking full customer contact lists from one job to another. You don't need non-competes to enforce that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And pay full salary while enforced. That's a good clause, that will basically eliminate them. It makes sense from the government's standpoint, they don't want anything that restricts people's income because that restricts their (tax) income too.
> that will basically eliminate them in NYC, it doesn't seem to stop quant firms. they have a term for it, although I forget what.
IMHO, companies should have to compensate the employee for the period of the non-compete since they're still effectively working for them. Salary limits are okay, but don't really go far enough. If they want this it has a value and should be compensated for fairly.
I respect making sure the company doesn't steal someone's previous IP and I respect a company guarding their own IP. But I also respect that a person can work wherever the f they want without a previous company having any say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that will basically eliminate them in NYC, it doesn't seem to stop quant firms. they have a term for it, although I forget what.
But if they're willing to pay it, it seems like it probably means this is a real issue rather than just a way to punish employees who leave, and it seems like they're reasonably compensating employees for the problem.
someone who knows more will have to chime in, i didn't even remember this was called gardening leave
IMHO, companies should have to compensate the employee for the period of the non-compete since they're still effectively working for them. Salary limits are okay, but don't really go far enough. If they want this it has a value and should be compensated for fairly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already laws against Admin assistants from taking full customer contact lists from one job to another. You don't need non-competes to enforce that.
Specifically, you can't take trade secrets from one employer to the next. Customer contact lists are just one example of this.
That information however IS highly valuable, especially paired with knowledge of how a company is doing sales, how it is positioning itself internally strategy wise, etc. some of those things could be trade secrets, if adequately protected, but almost no one I know would meet such a bar with how they handle it. It would be at most confidential information, and could count as a NDA violation, but would be difficult to prove unless someone was really sloppy.
"But I'll spend money to train my employees and they'll just take those skills to go work for a competitor or start their own business!" Yes, that's a feature of the system, not a bug.