Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cma 1248 days ago
Ultimately that is still very anticompetitive, it just asks for more compensation to the worker but is still paying them to do nothing and hurting competition, a sure sign of a broken system (paying people to do nothing is usually a charged leveled at very broken bureaucracies).
2 comments

For sure - I would like to see non-competes banned outright, of course.

I was just replying to OP for implying that a worker should get a reduced (i.e. proportional) payout for being denied employment at a competitor. The "losing" employer should pay substantially for such a egregious act and the employee should benefit.

This is already done at financial sectors in some countries, mostly to prevent immediate poaching of clients and transfers of strategies.

In six months everything will be out of date.