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.

Comments

Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill who?

Sign 'I don't agree' on all HR paperwork

[HornWumpus]

Seriously, nobody ever actually checks that you signed your name. Just write 'I don't agree' somewhat legibly.

HR drones are fucking morons, use it.

Consider signing actual name on IRS and 401K documents, but even there no big deal, nobody checks.

Re:Sign 'I don't agree' on all HR paperwork

[Ronin Developer]

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.

Re:Sign 'I don't agree' on all HR paperwork

[slew]

Seriously, nobody ever actually checks that you signed your name. Just write 'I don't agree' somewhat legibly.

HR drones are fucking morons, use it.

Consider signing actual name on IRS and 401K documents, but even there no big deal, nobody checks.

IANAL, but AFAIK, just signing an "X" in the presence of the counterparty is enough to "sign" a document. All you need is a meeting of the minds for a contract which is why they make you initial here and there when signing important documents, so you later can't claim you didn't get a chance to read a certain clause. This is why square can let you scribble illegibly on an ipad to charge your credit card.

Actually signing "I don't agree" might work against you in this case (since you are kind of admitting you understand it enough to disagree with it). It might be better to legibly write "I don't understand" or "I am incompetent", but it probably legally doesn't make much of a difference if you actually put pen to paper signalling to the counterparty that the contract terms are closed.

The only real argument you probably have if you have already scribbled on the signature line in the presence of the counterparty is that you signed it under duress. However, if you later accept a check, that might be a hard argument to make.

Seems fair to me

[mitcheli]

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.

Re:Seems fair to me

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is most of those companies or contracts claim basically anything and everything, including the experience you've gained, is exactly such information. This can be quite problematic if your financial situation (or even just your pay) were not-so-great.

Keep in mind these are the same types that try to steal our own intellectual property by pretending things we've done on our own time in our own house on our own computer belongs to them because we're under their employ.

Re:Blame the Unions.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the stupidest thing I read today. Thank you for making the internet dumber.

Just ban them outright.

[SvnLyrBrto]

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.

Interesting twist...

[Mitsoid]

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.

Non-competes are unethical

[sjbe]

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.

Re:I don't see the problem with non-compete clause

[Kreplock]

By all means, let me just not sign that NCA and miss payments on my house and other obligations to stand against NCAs. How noble! Meanwhile some incompetent schmuck will get the job and the company who would have hired me will never associate with me on any level. And let's not forget, even unenforceable NCAs can be damaging to the employee. Even though I'm in a state where NCAs are considered "unenforceable" I know of at least 1 job offer I did not get because of a 3 year NCA between current employer and potential employer. See, the potential employer plays for the "NCAs are good" team, doesn't want to rock the boat on current contracts, and has no interest in generating legal liabilities because even if the agreement is "unenforceable" if they get served with papers it already costs them money.

I like this approach!

[Applehu Akbar]

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.