With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission notes that an agreement whereby the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis would not be a non-compete clause under the definition,350 because such an agreement is not a post-employment restriction. Instead, the worker continues to be employed, even though the worker’s job duties or access to colleagues or the workplace may be significantly or entirely curtailed. Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation
This would be a game changer. My experience with garden leaves was that the base salary remained but since the bonus and benefits were gone, the total comp was severely affected
> Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation
I think TC is not included, will still get a base, but benefits seems to be included
Sure, but to some degree bonuses are completely discretionary. A very bad year at some shops or on some desks could land you with a 0 bonus, although when that happens expect everyone to start looking for other jobs.
Bonuses come out of the money used to pay salaries. All things being the same, any company that pays bonuses will pay a lower base salary. That being said, if you're good at convincing people of your worth, you can come out with higher than the "base" bonus, so ahead of the curve. But you're also paying more in the way of risk (lower income of the company doesn't do well, or you can't convince people you were important).
Totally agree. I worked at a company where everybody was always paid the full bonus target. We were acquired by a much larger company that was confused. Eventually after much persuasion they just folded the bonuses into our base salary.
Pros and cons? As you increase in seniority your bonus ranges can grow significantly faster than your base salary, so while some years might be great, others may not be. And then if you leave mid-way though a year you miss out on any "bonus" you would have received if you stayed the entire way.
Isnt the whole issue that the non-compete prevents a new firm from entering the picture? I did have a friend who got hired by a new firm, which then waited out her garden leave for 18mo...but I wonder how many firms would do that in, say, technology
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule...