Re:The case for banning non-competes
by laGrenouille on Friday July 16, 2021 @12:07PM
(#27857747)
> be financially compensated (significantly, usually on the order of 50% gross salary for the entire period)
I think this is the most important protection that's needed in the US. NCCs for high-level executives with golden parachute clauses actually makes a lot of sense. If their former company is essentially paying them (usually a lot!) after they leave during the NCC period, that is unlikely to get abused and overused.
For anyone who's knowledge and connections is not important enough to those kinds of payouts offered to C-suite execs, NCCs are just a way to bully employees into not leaving.
Re:The case for banning non-competes
by ghaff on Friday July 16, 2021 @12:14PM
(#27857832)
For C-suite execs, I can definitely see it being a reasonable thing. And, honestly, at that level especially in large companies, skills are far more transferable to even totally different industries.
I think this is the most important protection that's needed in the US. NCCs for high-level executives with golden parachute clauses actually makes a lot of sense. If their former company is essentially paying them (usually a lot!) after they leave during the NCC period, that is unlikely to get abused and overused.
For anyone who's knowledge and connections is not important enough to those kinds of payouts offered to C-suite execs, NCCs are just a way to bully employees into not leaving.