zlacker

I've heard about a good compromise option existing in a country in Europe: noncompete agreements are not banned completely but are limited to last just half a year after the employee leaves the company. It can also last much longer in case the employer agrees to keep paying half the salary to the former employee.

>>qwerty+(OP)
Don't know about that but a compromise option always exists when the two parties are willing to compromise. E.g. in our country noncompetes are outlawed but if your company is willing to pay for your gardening leave for a year, then you might be willing not to compete with them for that time. Happened to my boss (at 100% salary).

>>qwerty+(OP)
Sounds like a terrible compromise to me.

Why do I need to spend 6 months without pay and then more time with only 50%?

>>qwerty+(OP)
In what universe is it a good compromise that fast food workers aren't allowed to work at another fast food restaurant for 6 months after they quit, without any compensation?

It incentivize companies to add it to their contract just because it makes it harder for employees to quit bad working conditions and low pays since they might not land a new job and be able to pay rent. It doesn't protect any sort of intellectual property, it's simply there to screw over the little guy.

The word "compromise" usually implies that both sides are getting something. What part of this would be a compromise?

>>Drakim+GM
Well, it didn't even come to my mind that a fast food worker might have a noncompete agreement. I thought this only is about engineers, scientists, managers etc - people who actually have knowledge which is reasonable to prevent from leaking to a competing company too quickly. Applied to a fast-food worker any noncompete agreement sounds really wild. Do fast-food companies actually require this? Sounds crazy.

>>qwerty+M81
>Do fast-food companies actually require this?

It has happened although it's probably a "man bites dog" sort of thing that made it into the news.

I'm not sure it's good policy in general to discourage people from working--especially in the area they presumably have some expertise in.

>>qwerty+M81
It is happening, Walmart was doing it to their cashiers, and why shouldn't they? It's a huge boon to companies to make it difficult and expensive for people to quit their jobs in favor of something better, it means they can push wages down further, give worse working conditions, without needing to worry about people quitting.

Back when it was allowed, some companies would pay in fake company money called "scrip" that you could only use in their company store to buy food. They also owned the houses so you could only rent if you were an employee. Wanna quit your job? Good luck also losing your house and not having actual money to go anywhere else.

You gotta understand that if you have something that can be abused for profits, then it will be abused for profit. Even if a company is has a heart of gold and decides not to do this, they will be out-competed by companies who are willing to do evil things and thus be more profitable. Abuse will happen by logical necessity.

>>dudul+6u
Because I would never want to jump straight into a new job anyway, a good sabbatical seems a great idea if you can afford it (leaving an engineering/management job suggests you probably can). Being totally free from a job and still getting 50% of the salary for free also sounds like a dream - just move to a cheaper place and enjoy the life.

>>qwerty+rb3
But that's not what you described. You talked about a 6 months non compete, and then potentially longer in exchange for 50% salary.

Not everybody wants/can move to a cheaper place.

Finally, as mentioned in any messages here, engineers are not the ones suffering the most from unfair non-compete. It's retail/restauration workers and more "vulnerable" demographics.

Your "compromise" comes out as completely disconnected from reality.