Re:Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncomp...
by thanksgiving on Saturday July 15, 2017 @02:23PM
(#14778112)
When I was younger, I used to think that non-compete meant that the company would continue to pay you the same salary as before for the duration of the non-compete. It just sounded like common sense.
I was young and naive. I am not that young anymore but I still think this needs to be a nationwide law. If you want me to not work (in an industry) for a particular length of time, you ought to pay me to not work about as much as what I would have made by working. Sure, put a ceiling at 50x minimum wage (so currently $725k a year https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 ) or something but this is just common sense that if you want to prevent me from working, you should pay me for the duration that I am not working.
Re:Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncomp...
by Clubber on Saturday July 15, 2017 @02:36PM
(#14778168)
I agree. I would say first make it non enforceable unless the employee is a certain status with certain parameters (like ownership) and then it's some multiple of salary after X years at the company. So you couldn't extend it to someone who's been there 6 months.
What if you worked for some huge conglomerate like GE. What industry does GE not compete in? Or Microsoft? Walmart? Amazon? Also, their duration is typically 2-4 years. So you can't work in any major industry that GE competes in for 4 years and you get zero compensation for it. How is that anywhere close fair or reasonable?
Non-competes also include no hiring. That further limits my potential employment. If me and my buddy quit because we're sick, or bored of a place, we can't hire either other or recommend hiring each other for 2-4 years.
Guess what? If you have people who can't find employment and a good chunk of their opportunity is blocked because of non-competes, guess who pays for it?
Also, here's the crux of the hypocrisy. Companies are all about free market, but only when it benefits them. In a free market, I should be free to work anywhere for anyone. The only restriction would be not to divulge IP or trade secrets. I'm perfectly fine with that, but chances are, that's not what you are signing.