[vgatherps]

> I feel like the solution is to force the company to pay full TC (average of previous years + inflation or something?) for the duration of the noncompete.

It absolutely has to be something like this at a bare minimum. The whole "We pay full base" argument is nonsense when the TC is multiples of base.

[michaelmrose]

Even this doesn't work because its often the case that an employee leaves for a higher salary elsewhere. Instead of trying to add epicycles to a stupid system it makes more sense to shit can it. There are about 338 million people who would benefit whereas the people who truly have anything to gain from such a system could all attend an event together.

[lordnacho]

But bonus depends on how the team did plus individual perf... politics.

How do you establish what the person would have gotten paid?

[snovv_crash]

Take the average over the last years? If the employer doesn't want to pay that then the employee can always go work for a competitor, right?

[eszed]

That's why he suggested "average of preceding years". Maybe you allow companies to appeal to reduce the amount based on a decline in profits leading to reduced bonuses for employees on identical schemes, but... Meh. If they want to use non-compete clauses I think they should bear that risk. It will make companies think hard about on whom they should impose them, which in my opinion is the point of creating restrictions.

[stephencanon]

Right. They can always release them from the noncompete if they find it onerous.