Slashdot Mirror
Bill Guarantees 50% Salary For Workers Laid Off With Non-Compete (computerworld.com)
Reader dcblogs shares a Computer World report: Non-compete agreements are controversial for many reasons, but what may be worst of all: Even if you are laid off from your job, a non-compete agreement may still apply. California has made non-compete agreements unenforceable, but Massachusetts has not. Some opponents say that's partly the result of lobbying by EMC, which has considerable clout as a major state employer, headquartered in the Boston suburb of Hopkinton. But the pending $67 billion merger of EMC with Dell, and the prospect of merger-related layoffs, is spurring a new attack on non-compete agreements. State lawmakers are considering limiting non-compete agreements to one year, banning them for low-wage workers and for people terminated without cause. The leading legislative proposal will also require an employer to pay at least 50% of the former employer's salary during the period of time the non-compete is in effect. This salary guarantee is called "garden leave" and is in Massachusetts House bill H.4323. In May, the White House released a report about non-compete agreements. It found that 18% of the workforce is now covered by a non-compete agreement, but over the course of a career, some 37% of all workers (PDF) will be subject to them.
Can't have unions, can't get another job, have to take pay cuts, get randomly laid off, no job security. And now they want to make it so you have to find a whole new type of job? Add a poison pill to keep HR from running amok.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
That is the stupidest thing I read today. Thank you for making the internet dumber.
Unions caused these non-competes to happen. In an effort to ensure that even the shittiest employees get luxurious lifelong jobs with full pay and benefits, they forced companies to do things like this to stay afloat without unfair competition from other fat cat Union shops. So the next time you get laid off and are forced to sign a non-compete, remember that fat cat Union backed by criminal Democrats like Hillary Clinton are the reason you are suffering.
I'm interested in this because I've never heard those two things connected before. Can you substantiate it please?
The main reason so far as I know why unions exist is that worker productivity has steadily risen since the 1950s while wages have remained stagnant. It's a predictable situation when you have two parties with competing interests, only one of them has a great deal more power, can dictate terms to the other, and generally is holding all the cards. That's where the demand and support for unions comes from. The problems with unions happen when they participate in politics, generally.
Seriously, just ban con-compete clauses nation-wide and void any contracts that include them. They're only ever used abusively on the part of the company that insisted on them as a way to screw over employees in revenge for leaving. And they don't benefit the overall economy. Just look at California. The illegality of non-competes certainly hasn't caused the tech industry here to collapse in on itself.
Apple and Google got in a world of hurt a few years ago for screwing their employees over with an informal no-poaching arrangement. Well... non-compete clauses screw the employee an order of magnitude worse. And we should drop the hammer... equally hard if not harder... on the companies using them.
Imagine all the people...
Most WILL NOT issue a severance check UNTIL you sign the separation agreement. They WILL issue you your last paycheck, however - they must do that.
I think requiring companies to pay a 50% salary when a non-compete is in effect is brilliant as they can dictate for whom you can work (and, as such, the ability earn a comparable salary).
If a company determines you are no longer of value to them and they release you (fire/layoff, then the non-compete should be voided entirely. If they still deem you of value but have let you go, they need to provide compensation such as in a layoff with option to recall (as in temporary down-size), they need to pay up or release the obligation.
If the legislators are smart, they'll make the calculation of base salary depend on salary over the past few years. And making employees sign something to retroactively reduce their base salary could be made illegal for the purpose of the law.
Legislators (or at least their staff) aren't stupid. That's how they get hired into the private sector. They either keep writing laws that are increasingly onerous or business buys them out.
Have gnu, will travel.
Because that's what happened in states where non-competes are banned?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Non-compete "agreements" are hugely unethical in my opinion. If I work at Google and Apple wants to hire me I should have the right to switch employers without further restrictions. If companies want employees to sit on the sidelines they should either pay them enough to keep them on the payroll or pay them market value to sit on the sidelines. Putting a non-compete in front of an employee as a condition of employment should be illegal and unenforceable anywhere in the US.
You have it backwards. It's severance pay. If nobody loses their job, the cost is zero.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."