251–260 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s reasonably normal to be more like garden-leave where the employee is paid some high percentage of their base salary for some amount of time when they may not compete. Some would use that money and time to start a competing company :)
Lawyers will advise you not to do this. It exposes you to accusations of IP theft and barred competition.
Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees. The tw…
Isn't the same true for SV companies, and aren't they doing fine without noncompetes?
So many stories, start with thr traitorous 8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes that's basically what everyone does.
No, it's what everyone should do.
Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees. The tw…
Why does it make sense. Pay employees for their work and they’ll stick around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe that buffers are a terrible system? Do you think that any significant piece of software could run without a buffer? If the answer is no, then you should reconsider thinking that garden leave is bad. It’s essentially a buffer that covers the switching cost for agents needing to decide which principal they work for. If you removed garden leave you’d have a higher up front cost for rational actors who nee…
Non-compete + garden leave = important resources siphoned off the economy [1] Remove non-competes, then there's no need for garden leave. If an industry insists it needs non-competes, the dept. of labor could issue exceptions with strong penalties (x3 wages (incld. expected bonuses) for the duration of the non/ -compete, etc) [1] an argument could be made that the more workers are put on garden leave the better it is…
Sounds like a great incentive to quit the job and hang out for the duration of the non-compete. If I can make more money by working than not working, I know what I'm doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete.
> I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete. It absolutely has to be something like this at a bare minimum. The whole "We pay full base" argument is nonsense when the TC is multiples of base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it make sense. Pay employees for their work and they’ll stick around.
The argument against this is that a company spends millions of dollars in research to learn something valuable, and anyone who didn't spend that money can trivially outbid for the employee that knows the results, since they can pay the employee some significant portion of the cost of the research that they didn't have to do and still come out ahead. I'm not sure I entirely buy this, but it's a lot more nuanced than "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what universe is it a good compromise that fast food workers aren't allowed to work at another fast food restaurant for 6 months after they quit, without any compensation? It incentivize companies to add it to their contract just because it makes it harder for employees to quit bad working conditions and low pays since they might not land a new job and be able to pay rent. It doesn't protect any sort of intellectu…
Well, it didn't even come to my mind that a fast food worker might have a noncompete agreement. I thought this only is about engineers, scientists, managers etc - people who actually have knowledge which is reasonable to prevent from leaking to a competing company too quickly. Applied to a fast-food worker any noncompete agreement sounds really wild. Do fast-food companies actually require this? Sounds crazy.
It has happened although it's probably a "man bites dog" sort of thing that made it into the news.
I'm not sure it's good policy in general to discourage people from working--especially in the area they presumably have some expertise in.
I hope the whole world will ban noncompete employment agreements. I always felt about them like I feel about WallHackers(.exe) in Counter Strike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Cry me a river. If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly.
Knowledge of a secret does not imply that you provide value.
The proposal is just to ask firms to put money where their mouths are.