I was subject to one as well, but it was just on my base, not total comp, which was not the majority of my compensation. And while my base was fine, it was more or less explicitly stated that this was meant to make it painful for employees to leave and had almost zero to do with any special information the employee had.
They have other tricks. My comp was about 80% bonus, most of which went into deferred comp for a few years. If I was to go to a competitor without permission (independent of the non compete) I would forfeit the deferred comp.
But at a certain point that deferred comp is “enough” that if you just go to work each day and hide in the loos it’s worth waiting around and collecting the cash. And the company won’t benefit from a mostly checked out workforce
The bar is quite high at these kinds of companies. If you let off the gas and try to coast like that, you'll just get fired and thus lose the deferred comp that way.
Reject the handcuffs. Once enough people do, they will stop making it deferred. They know that if you're willing to reject the money, you're willing to leave (the handcuffs aren't keeping you there), and that scares them.
I'm not sure that I understand. What does it mean for a noncompete to apply only to base compensation? Is the idea that if you join a competing company within X months of leaving your old company, you need to repay your base salary to the old company?
I think they are saying that the compensation they their previous employer paid them to not work for the competition for a year was based on their salary, not their salary plus bonuses, so it was not as good a deal as it sounds.
It means that GP was paid their salary for the non-compete time. In finance it is common for total compensation to be the salary plus a "bonus" of 100% of salary in normal years + any performance bonus. This means that if you had a non-compete in the finance industry and you left your employer for a competitor, then your previous employer could pay you your salary (meaning 50% of your usual compensation) to not work for that competitor for a year.
(These numbers are typical of finance industry compensation and non-compete terms.)
No, it just means that during the period after you stop working at the old job but before you can start working at the new job, you are paid only your base. This can be a significant reduction in total comp in industries such as finance.
I have worked jobs where the best bonus over 5 years was $500, while the typical year all we got was a promise that if things go well there will be a bonus. I've worked other jobs where the worst bonus was $15000 (a really bad year for the company), and could be up to $50,000. This is as a regular engineer, management can get a lot more. The first company taught me at until the money is in my account the bonus is meaningless. The second taught me that they aren't just a rumor. Most companies don't even pretend to offer a bonus which is acceptable - at least I know what I will make.
I think everyone should make 2-3x the poverty level income (we can debate exact numbers), and everything after that is bonus. So long as the company pays a bonus most years it means in a bad year you have enough to live on and don't need to find a new job, while in a good year you have a nice bonus to buy nice toys.
In finance, it's common to see a base of 150,000 and a VR of between 300k and 750k for engineers. During garden leave, you get paid your $150,000 as part of payroll, but are ineligble for VR. Your total comp goes from 450,000 (in mediocre years) or 900,000 (in good years) to 150,000 for whatever your non-compete period is (6 months, 12 months, 24 months are all common).
In finance you make more money, but work more hours and have more stress per hour typically. Still probably a good deal, but it's not a Pareto efficient deal.
