Yikes. I could understand it if the limit was like $250k per year, but $900 per week is nuts.

Probably the law passed long enough ago that $46.8k was a high salary and it wasn't indexed for inflation.

Wait... Professional employee? So... Paid people need not apply? Or, is this some weird definition of professional that only applies to white collar jobs?

You know that limit was introduced because "most of the benefits of the labor standards board were going to the rich" or some BS like that.

Probably more via underfunding and civil servants wanting to focus on those that need it most.

Oof. Thank you.

Wow that is some BS

It's similar in Washington. If you make less than $116k, no non-competes. Otherwise, get fucked.

https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/non-com...

How dare quants get paid $5m to sit on their couches for two years after leaving their firms! Congress must act!

Non-competes that pay you at or near your salary during garden leave are a different thing. The bog-standard non-compete in a normal SWE or IT position prohibits you from making a living at all.

The standard and legal minimum for WA employers is no compensation for the non-compete period. Also, the vast majority of workers that make more than $116k do not make $5 million annually, either before or after leaving their non-compete employer.

It would be 2.5 a year. Non competes are 2y across all of finance.

Gardening leave and non-competes are not the same. I doubt anyone feels any affronted by gardening leave.