51–60 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.
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.
This would make things interesting. I kind of want to see what would happen if states passed laws saying that all non-compete clauses contained an implicit agreement that the employee be paid their entire salary (including bonuses) for the pro-rated duration of the non-compete and that such clauses can be triggered by either party. We all know the value of a non-compete clause is $0 for most employees. Hell, they are…
Makes a ton of sense. Completely absurd for security guards and administrative assistants to have non-compete clauses. Just another way businesses were trying to reduce the willingness of employees to quit so that they can suppress wages.
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.
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.
This is a great development for many of these new areas, but a bad one for California since it loses one of its edges
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.
That's attempting to solve a different problem (employee retention) than non-competes attempt to address in their original form. For example, how does a company prevent (setting aside the "should they" debate) an employee from: 1) leaving and starting up a consultancy for installing former employer's software (competing with company professional services) 2) leaving and starting up a new company that is a competitor…
1) That would be IP theft, and is already covered by other laws. 2) That is the problem I think this solves: retain your key employees. Maybe pay them a bit better than that 2% annual raise.
Creating a new competitor isn't about retaining employees. Consider the situation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Blumkin
> In 1989, six years after selling 90% of her company to Berkshire Hathaway, Blumkin retired, only to come out of retirement in three months to open up a rival store. It was called "Mrs. B's Clearance and Factory Outlet" and was situated directly across the street from the Furniture Mart. It became profitable by 1991. Buffett acquired the business in 1992. Blumkin continued to be involved in day-to-day operations until shortly before her death at the age of 104.
While this case wasn't covered and Buffett certainly handled it different than the non-compete, but should there be the ability to prevent that sort of behavior with a non-compete agreement?
Am I the only one who doesn't add any inventions and doesn't care about a non-compete clause because I will never honor it and come at me bro if you want to try to enforce it? 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.
Good riddance to this form of wage suppression. Let's do forced arbitration next.