371–380 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to take a short vacation to an alternate universe where all job descriptions say that applicants MUST NOT have any recent experience in the area of employment.
That's kind of how clean room design works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't Congress be able to delegate powers? Congress writes the laws and it seems appropriate that they should be able to write a law that allows a group they delegate to write and enforce regulations on their behalf. Especially when the scope of such laws is so narrowly and explicitly defined. Do you really expect Congresspeople to have the educational background necessary to regulate agricultural products, a…
Yes, I do expect Congress to either build up that expertise, or hire their own staff yo do the footwork for them. The Library of Congress, in point of fact, was established to fulfill that very need. Congressional research. Also, until Gingrich in the 104th-ish Congress convinced them to shut it down in the 90's, the Legislative branch had their own independent Office of Technology Assessment research arm which to my…
If you are going for a job that pays $100k or more, get a lawyer (ideally a lawyer in your sector) to look over your employment contract, NDA, Non-compete, etc. It is worth every penny, in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But even that has major drawbacks -- if you're not actually working, then you're not building your resume, you're not getting promotions, you're not advancing. And if you find your work meaningful and satisfying, that meaning and satisfaction is gone. Not to mention who determines how much "being paid" means, when compensation isn't just base salary but also variable things like company bonuses, individual performanc…
Highly motivated/skilled people will probably do valuable things with their time off that is not measured well by GDP.
I agree that noncompetes are bad, but the FTC declaring it without a congressional mandate seems deeply questionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, here are a couple of arguments for: 1. I have a relative who is an MD. He was recruited cross-country at great expense. (Average cost to recruit an MD can be about $250K). So, if his comp was $200K/year and it cost $250K to recruit, a neighboring practice could monitor for new incoming docs, and make an offer of $220K/year in salary to the newly hired doc. If that happened, it would be in the best interest of the…
In your first case, I'm pretty sure I've seen contracts that require the repayment of e.g. relocation costs if the employee leaves within x time period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would agree these are system-wide less efficient, but shouldn't paid "garden leave" be legal if parties agree upfront? “Garden leave” is basically just being in paid employment with no duties. Neither the FTC action nor state policies like those in California generally prohibit noncompetes while employed . However, if the compensation for such a contracted “garden leave” was substantially less than normal full-ti…
> Neither the FTC action nor state policies like those in California generally prohibit noncompetes while employed. Where did you get that idea? In California: non-competes are carte blanche unenforced and even considered abusive and illegal in many contexts (for non-executives), whether you're currently employed or not.
From the actual case law of application of the prohibition by state courts, etc.
> In California: non-competes are carte blanche unenforced and even considered abusive and illegal in many contexts (for non-executives), whether you're currently employed or not.
This both a misuse of the phrase “carte blanche” and inaccurate in its substantive message. Prohibition on competing work while employed is a well-documented exception to both California’s general policy against non-competes and its general policy against employer prohibitions against moonlighting; your employer can’t stop you from working for someone else who doesn’t compete with in your spare time while you are employed by them, and can't stop you from competing with them when you are no longer employed by them, but they can prohibit competing work while you are employed:
https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2020...
https://www.mossbollinger.com/blog/2020/december/my-employer...
I think we're all pretty familiar with the arguments against non-competes. Does anybody have a compelling argument for them, as practiced in 2023 in the US? While we're at it, does anybody have a compelling justification for allowing non-poach agreements, too? From my perspective, they both seem like a non-durable benefit to $current_employer at the expense of a compounding opportunity cost to the greater economy (in…
There are obvious scenarios in competitive industries where losing key people to competitors creates risks for everyone involved (not just the losing employer). The problem is when employers expect the individual employee to absorb the costs to mitigate that risk. Or where the non-competes are applied overbroadly. Rather than ban non-competes, it would be better to require compensation for the term of the non-compete. This prevents frivolous applications of non-competes, which is the actual problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I look at the last decade of my employment, my base salary is less than 10% of my overall comp. Maybe even 5%. For high demand folks (the kind we read about in executive emails between Apple and Google and so on) it seems very possible that a company would opt to pay 10% of the employee's comp to deny them from the competition.
That can be solved by setting the payment terms to match some minimum % of total compensation of some period before the paid leave. eg, you get full benefits plus no less than 80% of all compensation of the previous 12mo. Non-cash compensation (eg equity) may be replaced with equivalent cash.
> "Non-cash compensation (eg equity) may be replaced with equivalent cash. "
What's the equivalent cash value of options? The variability here is huge. Seems better to just ban these schemes entirely, especially considering there's seemingly zero upside to allowing them.
Remember: California has never allowed noncompetes and we're doing just fine in the tech department. Better plan would be for the rest of the country to follow our lead.