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.
Bill who?
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.
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.
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.
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.