Hacker News Reader

Comment by fishtoaster | Hacker News Reader

I'm inclined to support well-compensated non-competes, eg "you can't work in this industry for 1 year, but we'll pay you 100% of your salary for that year." That would allow non-competes for people where it really matters to a company (eg where they're willing to throw a lot of money after it), but ban it the rest of the time.

It's still harmful, but you're at least able to get compensated for the harm.

View on HN

>but we'll pay you 100% of your salary for that year.

if you can't work in the industry, and you get just 100% of your salary that's completely not worth it as you waste time not becoming a more competitive hire in the market - unless you aren't that specialized, but then why bind you with non-compete anyways?

What if you had a life that you wanted to enjoy

But they're not paying you to enjoy your life, they're paying you to not work for their competitors, which has impact on your career in the longer term. So they should compensate you based on that, not you wanting to take up pottery or whatever.

Yeah, it’s 100% of salary in a competitive market

Y’all need to go outside if you think that’s not a fantastic deal

Sure, maybe we could have that conversation if noncompetes actually required that...but they don't

What if the competitor offers 150% or more? Then is 100% a fair deal?

Yeah

While I agree that they should go outside, I will point out that the common tactic is to make salary than less than 1/2 of the total compensation. In tech, they issue RDUs and then they can claim that those were always bonus and never part of salary. In finance, they give big bonuses depending on performance. This is a little more legit but usually takes recessions for bonuses to actually disappear.

How much more competitive are you going to get in one year (/what's your discount rate) that you wouldn't take a paid year off?!

Gardening leave typically is only salary, and doesn’t include extremely lucrative bonuses (that can exceed salary, sometimes by some multiples) in certain investment industries. So, it’s a pretty big hit to your income.

That's a good point, but an entirely different one to 'you waste time not becoming a more competitive hire in the market', which is what I was responding to.

Base salary isn't as much as I would be vesting while building skills at a new employer.

Oh come on nobody gives a shit about this bullshit except new employers. Even if you bought into it there's no reason to broadcast your weaknesses like they're public entertainment. Without the pressure of new employers this just comes off as histrionic simping.

There is absolutely no reason to allow this kind of strict anti-labor bullshit in almost any case barring high level leadership positions. Giving you 100% of your salary for a year doesn't cover the damages incurred by foregoing potential career advancement and skill acquisition.

Eh, this has literally no upside for humanity. It's just a straight negative for everyone. Even compared to wage-fixing—at least wage-fixing results in lower wages for corporations! This implies no such effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com