Hacker News Reader

This feels like it starts to get to the heart of the matter. If you want to compel someone's activities, especially if it involves restricting their employment, seems pretty fair to compensate them throughout the period in which it applies.

Why not 100%?

It looks like it is "at least 50%" according to the law.

You don't think there should be any consideration for the fact the person is not performing any labor? They are still able to pursue employment in non competing fields.

In a world where non-competes were funded 100% it seems like it should be the GOAL of every employee to be fired from a position where a non-compete needs to be enforced in order to secure extended paid vacations.

Society wants people to contribute productively. Stopping someone from working to protect business secrets is antisocial and bad for society.

Really, companies should have to pay >100% salary as a disincentive to idling valuable labor.

I believe this is true in most European countries, with minor variations.

not in the UK