Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chimeracoder 1105 days ago
> It is at many HFT firms, including mine. You will be paid your base salary for some number of months to not work at a competitor, even if you don't have a signed offer for a competitor and just want to sit around

That's called "garden leave" and it's completely different from non-compete agreements as discussed by this bill.
2 comments
masklinn 1105 days ago
A garden leave is a form of compensated non-compete. The entire point is that you’re paying a former employee to not compete (in this case to literally not work).
link
pclmulqdq 1105 days ago
"Garden leave" wasn't a common term when I was in HFT in NYC. It was just called a "non-compete" (possibly confusingly).
link
ghaff 1105 days ago
Garden leave is just a (usually?) legal (or at least contractual) requirement associated with non-compete agreements in some jurisdictions. Unsurprisingly, it was originally a British term, although it meant something different.
link
pclmulqdq 1105 days ago
Personally, the only time I ever heard it was from the mouths of British recruiters.
link
chimeracoder 1105 days ago
> "Garden leave" wasn't a common term when I was in HFT in NYC. It was just called a "non-compete" (possibly confusingly).

The terms are used somewhat interchangeably in colloquial use, because (at least as of now) the distinction isn't meaningful for most people. The point is that garden leave isn't targeted by this bill.

link
delfinom 1105 days ago
The first bill outlaws all non-competes and garden leave would fall under it. The most they could do is offer it as a form of severance where you get to sit on your butt for 6 months conditionally.

The second bill would allow for garden leave aka compensated non-competes. It just codifies the "don't try any non-compensated/good faith aspect".

link
frankc 1105 days ago
I don't think that is true, or at least I have not seen that anywhere. My understanding is this bill removes any kind of non-competes. It was already basically unenforcible to have an unpaid non-compete in New York (through common law)
link
chimeracoder 1105 days ago
> It was already basically unenforcible to have an unpaid non-compete in New York (through common law)

That is not true - there are four criteria for non-competes to be valid in NY, and payment for the duration is not one of them.

> I don't think that is true, or at least I have not seen that anywhere. My understanding is this bill removes any kind of non-competes.

There are two bills - one of them requires payment for noncompetes.

link