Hacker News Reader

Comment by monksy | Hacker News Reader

If the employee was terminated the non-compete should be terminated as well.

I had a friend who got RIF'd from a software company, and their offboarding paperwork included a 1 year noncompete that tied their severance as the consideration. Essentially, "we don't want you working here, but we also don't want you working anywhere else, either."

If the severance falls outside of the mandatory amount by law, then this is reasonable. They are paying you not to work for a competitor for a time.

It's reasonable if the severance is equal to the pay you'd get over the term of the non-compete. They don't want you working for a competitor for a year? That's fine, if they pay you a year's salary.

However, in my friend's case, she was given the 1-year noncompete in exchange for 4 weeks' pay.

Presumably she turned it down?

Probably didn't know it would be 1 month severence.

I got RIF'd and they included the paperwork signed at offer time for the non-compete. I didn't sign it thinking they would try to force the non-compete after the employment was terminated by them.

That creates the incentive for someone who wants to switch to a competitor to underperform - so she gets fired and can switch.

Noncompetes, viewed in a vacuum, are lopsided towards the employer by design. Which is why they are (ideally) counterbalanced by increased pay or other concessions to the employee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com