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.

2 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting twist... by Mitsoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if the company cut your salary before firing you?

    "Hey Bill, you've had your salary reduced to minimum wage, but don't worry, we're firing you!"

    Non-compete for 1 year price: ~$8,000

    Or even better:

    "Hey bill, we'll give you severance pay of $X, but you have to sign these papers..."

    Included in that pile is an agreement to take a lower base salary for your last pay check, which is then used for non-compete salary calculations.

  2. I like this approach! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Non-compete agreements were historically an executive clause, designed to protect a company against having a key man quit and then immediately apply a headful of inside knowledge against the former employer. When such a worker separated with a non-compete in effect, he was usually walking off with a tidy stack of equity shares whose value would be diminished if he were to violate the agreement.

    So when a company requires a non-compete from a worker who does not in any way benefit from the clause, let's require compensation in the form of a percentage of former salary.