zlacker

[return to "New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy"]
1. GuB-42+lv[view] [source] 2023-11-18 12:31:22
>>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.

◧◩
2. bradle+1A[view] [source] 2023-11-18 13:07:44
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. apppli+jE[view] [source] 2023-11-18 13:32:07
>>bradle+1A
Where do you see this issue in tech? Certainly not CA.
◧◩◪◨
4. potato+CH[view] [source] 2023-11-18 13:50:19
>>apppli+jE
NY, WA, other tech hubs in the US that aren’t California.

That said garden leave is not all sunshine and roses like OP describes. It’s common on Wall Street but a huge part of your normal compensation is performance bonuses - and typically garden leaves only cover base salary.

A typical garden leave doesn’t come close to full income replacement for the period. But it’s better than nothing - which is the status quo in tech.

FWIW American courts also tend to frown on non competes that do not compensate for forced unemployment and have generally sided with the worker. This is (yet another) way that employers deprive employees of their rights by using the expense of litigation against them. This is also why we need regulation around this - you should not have to fight this in court to have your basic rights asserted.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ndrisc+Bc1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 16:50:34
>>potato+CH
At least in software, my base salary is ~2/3 my comp right now (ignoring stock growth). If I could take say 50% base (so ~33% total) to quit working for 6 months - 1 year, you bet I'd take that deal. Put me on garden leave for as long as you want.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ghaff+Gj1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 17:25:48
>>ndrisc+Bc1
How many people do you think are in a position to comfortably, even happily, take a 70% pay cut?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ndrisc+5G1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 19:21:36
>>ghaff+Gj1
In fields like software or quant finance, I imagine a lot? Investopedia says that 200 salary and 500+ total is "not uncommon" for a quant, and that even entry level is 120-150. At 120k, 1/3 pay puts you at the median personal income in the US, which I'd say is a pretty sweet deal. At 200, you're close to median household at 1/3.

People in this thread are saying you "only" get your base. If they really do get full base pay of 200k, that puts them in the 94th percentile to take a forced vacation.

[go to top]