Perhaps that sounds like overkill but it feels a bit more reasonable and more fair to the employee - if you want someone to agree to a non-compete then you should agree to pay them for their time where they can't work.
Perhaps that sounds like overkill but it feels a bit more reasonable and more fair to the employee - if you want someone to agree to a non-compete then you should agree to pay them for their time where they can't work.
It's just an industry-standard way of doing things. I didn't leave for a competitor but still got a paid vacation (though in principle I was "on call" while I was on the books).
To be honest, it sort of felt like a courtesy they extended rather than a means of protecting their IP. There's already a huge amount of lateral hiring in asset management, so everyone already kinda-sorta knows what everyone else is doing.
I don't understand - three months unpaid gardening leave is just unemployment.