Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncompete agreements

Re:Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncomp... by danpalmer on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:08AM (#14776662)

Many companies, particularly in areas like finance, or in C levels of management, will do this, paying employees for anywhere from a month to a year to not work. I’m not sure how much they can be enforced during that period, but as far as I’m aware the amounts of money are usually large enough for there to not be much of a problem enforcing them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncomp... by darkr on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:30AM (#14776798)

Yeah, this is euphemistically called "gardening leave" in the U.K, and is normally full salary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncomp... by giobox on Saturday July 15, 2017 @11:56AM (#14777279)

Former U.K. worker and lawyer: Gardening leave for sure happens, but basic non-competes (or "restrictive covenants" as they get called over there) without any kind of remuneration are fairly common in U.K. employment contracts for skilled workers too.

Successful enforcement is almost always a question for a court to decide, and many times an employer simply won't bother trying, but provided the employer can demonstrate a business interest to protect, the restriction isn't too widely defined and that the time scale is not "unreasonable" they stand a good chance of succeeding. I'm by no means endorsing this - it simply is what it always has been in the UK for a long time now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncomp... by walshemj on Saturday July 15, 2017 @01:01PM (#14777629)

But in the UK you cant be restricted from plying your trade which it only some highly paid senior individuals and you MUST be paid for it this is from the GC of an organisation specializing in hr/ir issues

[ Parent | on HN ]