Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncompete rules

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by vkou on Saturday April 13, 2019 @12:39AM (#19651152)

Requiring employers to pay for non-competes will be functionally equivalent to a ban. Nobody in their right mind will pay tens of thousands of dollars to enforce one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by thedufer on Saturday April 13, 2019 @12:59AM (#19651195)

Not true. This is called "garden leave" in the financial industry and is quite common. I believe the theory is that a lot of a trader's knowledge becomes obselete quite quickly, and it is cheaper to pay a former employee for a year or two then to let them use their strategies at a competitor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by cco on Saturday April 13, 2019 @01:25AM (#19651254)

Then it sounds like it wasn't worthwhile to begin with if the only risk was tens of thousands of dollars.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by omeze on Saturday April 13, 2019 @01:00AM (#19651199)

(I disagree with the downvotes here - this is a reasonable position if you have no context)

In practice, non-competes that pay out 200k+/yr are quite common in finance (think firms like 2 sigma, Jane Street). They will pay to keep people from going to competitors, mainly to keep their strategies and implementation details reasonably protected.

[ Parent | on HN ]