Hacker News Reader

Comment by nasmorn | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think they need to be outright banned but for the duration of the non compete the employer should have to keep paying the salary. They can then keep workers from joining a competitor if it is important to them. But the cost associated will prohibit its use as a scare tactic.

View on HN

That's how it works in many European countries. I once had a job with a boilerplate non-compete, the clause made it clear how much they would pay me if they chose to enforce it. When I quit, they immediately informed me they were not enforcing/paying for it.

> many European countries

Not two of the most wealthy ones I know, so I must ask: Which ones?

It's the case in France.

This is common in the financial industry: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp

> for the duration of the non compete the employer should have to keep paying the salary.

How does that interact with many people needing to get a new job to get a raise?

You'd have to go work a retail job instead of fast food but McD's would still be on the hook for your original pay.

How is what you're describing (paying someone a salary to provide value to the company) different from "employment"?

It is employment with severe restrictions on job requirements, while not paying someone for providing years of service is indentured servitude.

I think the implication is that salary is paid regardless of employment, as long as the non compete is enforced.

So if I quit McDonald’s they have to either keep paying me or release me from the non-compete and allow me to work at Burger King.

I think it’s totally fair.

"Garden leave" is when an employer keeps you on payroll so you can't start at a competitor until your strategic knowledge becomes stale. CA Courts require consideration be provided in exchange for not being able to earn a living.

Right, but is this person unemployed or not?

Alternatively, they could only be allowed for highly paid jobs, say, 10x minimum wage and more.

That sounds like a really powerful way to put downward pressure on the minimum wage.

An interesting retort. I did not think about this scenario.

Wages are notoriously sticky, but there could be pressure to keep the minimum wage stay put in periods of great inflation. Such as the one that we might face soon. Possibly, we are already in.

Maybe the limit could be derived from the median wage. Such as "only jobs that earn 4x or more median wage can be subject to noncompetes".

Counterpoint: noncompetes should not be allowed at all. Employers shouldn't be able to control the livelihoods of people who don't work for them. If they fear theft of trade secrets, there are already laws in place for that.

I think it's OK for highly compensated employees and employers to have these agreements, as long as the power balance is relatively equitable in the beginning. It allows a certain level of employer investment with assurances that those investments wont immediately be used to boost their competitors and presumably the employee is able to extract some concessions from the employer for signing it. In cases where it's literally just a soulless corporate chain bullying employees into being serfs it's completely immoral.

> as long as the power balance is relatively equitable in the beginning

That's a big 'if'

I think it’s fine in finance, noncompete terms are pretty generous and there’s a real case for IP sensitivity with trading strategies and alphas

Reply on news.ycombinator.com