Hacker News Reader

Comment by vgatherps | Hacker News Reader

> I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete.

It absolutely has to be something like this at a bare minimum. The whole "We pay full base" argument is nonsense when the TC is multiples of base.

View on HN

Even this doesn't work because its often the case that an employee leaves for a higher salary elsewhere. Instead of trying to add epicycles to a stupid system it makes more sense to shit can it. There are about 338 million people who would benefit whereas the people who truly have anything to gain from such a system could all attend an event together.

But bonus depends on how the team did plus individual perf... politics.

How do you establish what the person would have gotten paid?

Take the average over the last years? If the employer doesn't want to pay that then the employee can always go work for a competitor, right?

That's why he suggested "average of preceding years". Maybe you allow companies to appeal to reduce the amount based on a decline in profits leading to reduced bonuses for employees on identical schemes, but... Meh. If they want to use non-compete clauses I think they should bear that risk. It will make companies think hard about on whom they should impose them, which in my opinion is the point of creating restrictions.

Right. They can always release them from the noncompete if they find it onerous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com