zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
The article doesn't address what I think is the most important aspect of noncompete agreements: compensation.

In France, and I believe in many other places as well, you can't have a noncompete without proper compensation. Compensation is relative to how it will affect the former employee career, it is usually less than a full wage, but it can be that if it makes finding a new job particularly difficult.

There have been a trend at one time of bullshit noncompete clauses that were too broad and didn't come with compensation, these are not enforceable. If they tried to sue the employee (they don't), they would be laughed off by the judge.

>>GuB-42+lv
This is a problem in the tech industry but not on Wall Street.

The norm there is paid time off between jobs (“gardening leave”). Everyone knows it is part of the system and that a mid level or senior hire can’t start right away. They also buy out still vesting bonuses and the like.

It’s quite a civilized system and I think the law ought to leave it alone, while addressing abusive ones like we have in tech.

>>bradle+1A
> It’s quite a civilized system and I think the law ought to leave it alone, (..)

Or codify it. Imho the better alternative. One should never assume that companies won't try to change the system to the detriment of the employee if they see a chance.

>>sgift+eO
One thing I think is great about the finance industry is that the CEOs don’t pretend that humanity is split into two subspecies: executives and peons.

At other companies CEOs secure themselves giant equity packages to “retain the best talent and align shareholder interests” and then think they can motivate rank and file employees with t-shirts, “the mission,” and shoutouts during all hands.

In finance, CEOs acknowledge that everyone is there for the same reason—executives and regular employees alike. The numbers are definitely smaller but bonuses are bonuses and not employee of the month mugs.

>>bradle+pP
To be honest, I find this really refreshing in a - to me - weird way, cause at least no one lies to themselves or the other. It reminds me of what people say about Oracle, that it only has one goal: To make money. No bullshit about mission or whatever. Why are we at Oracle? To make money. The end.

Maybe if more companies and their executives were so open with what they want (and maybe I'm cynical, but imho it is the only thing at least 99% of them want) things would be better.

>>sgift+6Q
Mark Fisher had an interesting comment on this, and this is more in the context of public/privatization but the point is relevant, calling it “market stalinism”. In Stalin era Russia, bureaucrats spent enormous amounts of time compiling reports and window dressing for their project (essentially advertising its success back to the Party before it was complete). As a result, projects would be well known but mismanaged, slow, broken, etc. but the glory of USSR would definitely be upheld. I’m always reminded of this when executives get on stage and do the Steve Jobs thing about how great we are for working nights and weekends for the “mission” while only they have a vested interest in us making a profit.