Work experts: What this mean?

[nonameless]

If pay 3 years full previous salary then ok , if not jump for better pay keep quiet.

 

[uselessbum]

No.. it says economic compensation, so it is indeed a compensation.. if it was the other way then they would call it a penalty clause.

Yes, logically, that would be the case.

However, caution is always good because companies cannot be trusted to not abuse semantics. Economic compensation in itself is a neutral term. It could mean compensation to either the former employee or former employer. It need not necessarily be called a "penalty" and companies tend to avoid that word because many labour laws frown on "penalizing" the employee, so companies resort to euphemisms to try and get around it.

In other words, a "penalty" is also a form of compensation. It just depends on the perspective one is looking from. From the employee's POV, it is a penalty. From the employer's POV, it is a compensation to the company.

 

[Milodrink]

3 years is v long leh… is the company giving 36 months of compensation?

Some companies will provide 6-months “garden leave” if the person has access to time sensitive sales or customer information.

Non-compete clauses may not be enforceable.

https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/par...n-competition-clauses-in-employment-contracts

I also thinking the same.

Plus how they can validate if someone really won't get employed after taking the fee?

Then if economic bad means will compensate more or less?


There are so many considerations that's beyond English reading some ppl are pointing lah. What era liao some ppl still think everything in life is about we in some primary sch english comprehension exam.

Real world question is about actual execution enforceable or not and how to.

 

[shawntyq]

Such clause is not valid one

 

[Milodrink]

Yes, logically, that would be the case.

However, caution is always good because companies cannot be trusted to not abuse semantics. Economic compensation in itself is a neutral term. It could mean compensation to either the former employee or former employer. It need not necessarily be called a "penalty" and companies tend to avoid that word because many labour laws frown on "penalizing" the employee, so companies resort to euphemisms to try and get around it.

In other words, a "penalty" is also a form of compensation. It just depends on the perspective one is looking from. From the employee's POV, it is a penalty. From the employer's POV, it is a compensation to the company.

Nice thoughtful analytical contribution!

 

[Bad kids]

Congratulations for the work. You are an expert leow... and don't leave the company as the company will snook you and make sure you bo kang zhuo...

 

[Milodrink]

Such clause is not valid one

Yeah also thinking there could be a chance of this.


In considering reasonableness, the Singapore courts will generally look at the scope of activity, duration and geographical coverage of such a clause.

 

[Milodrink]

If pay 3 years full previous salary then ok , if not jump for better pay keep quiet.

Good right. If 10k pm for next 3 years

 

[Milodrink]

By law, non-compete MUST include equivalent compensation for the period. E.g. Your annual salary is 120K a year, you sign non-compete of 3 years. They must compensate you 3 years of your last drawn as a bare minimum, but in reality, they need to add in pay increment as well and opportunity cost on top of that. E.g. You need to include how much your offer from the competition as the real baseline. And if the industry is fast moving e.g. A.I. where your experience gets outdated quickly the compensation must commensurate the loss of income that can be exponential.

 

[shawntyq]

Yeah also thinking there could be a chance of this.


In considering reasonableness, the Singapore courts will generally look at the scope of activity, duration and geographical coverage of such a clause.

Ya loh… If the person nature of job only limits to these few competitors means he out of job for that duration of time meh. I think for a clause to be valid must be reasonable and fair as well. But again if you do back end I don’t think such clauses matters unless you are doing like sales etc. locally I think such clause not really valid if bring to court. But overseas maybe different

 

[LocalRider]

This is quite elaborate article written by lawyers.

https://www.globalworkplaceinsider....-non-compete-and-other-restrictive-covenants/

https://dentons.rodyk.com/en/insigh...pore-and-insights-from-the-recent-shopee-case

 

[SaintPeachie]

After 3 years’ absence, one may already become irrelevant in the industry unless the compensation is one life time’s pay

 

[Milodrink]

After 3 years’ absence, one may already become irrelevant in the industry unless the compensation is one life time’s pay

Yeah lor I also thinking this

 

[KnyghtRyder]

Yes, logically, that would be the case.

However, caution is always good because companies cannot be trusted to not abuse semantics. Economic compensation in itself is a neutral term. It could mean compensation to either the former employee or former employer. It need not necessarily be called a "penalty" and companies tend to avoid that word because many labour laws frown on "penalizing" the employee, so companies resort to euphemisms to try and get around it.

In other words, a "penalty" is also a form of compensation. It just depends on the perspective one is looking from. From the employee's POV, it is a penalty. From the employer's POV, it is a compensation to the company.

But employment contracts are one way instruments - employers offer a contract, employees accept a contract.. so the terms are always written from the perspective of the employer. If they don't want to call it a penalty they might call it a clawback clause. But they certainly wouldn't call it a compensation

 

[Milodrink]

3 years is v long leh… is the company giving 36 months of compensation?

Some companies will provide 6-months “garden leave” if the person has access to time sensitive sales or customer information, or give some customary job title for short period before transitioning out of company.

Non-compete clauses may not be enforceable.

https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/par...n-competition-clauses-in-employment-contracts

Agree. Unless it's a 3years garden leave so can show on CV you still working for 3years.

If not 3years sir at home weird leh

 

[Hypernova]

Nice initiative appreciate!


Does that mean the ex coy will agree to compensate u for 3 years cos u cant join competing coy?

No. Means if you join competitor within 3 years you will have to pay for breeching contract.

 

[uselessbum]

But employment contracts are one way instruments - employers offer a contract, employees accept a contract.. so the terms are always written from the perspective of the employer. If they don't want to call it a penalty they might call it a clawback clause. But they certainly wouldn't call it a compensation

Companies are creative with terms, that's what they pay lawyers for. Even clawback isn't commonly used because it inherently carries a negative connotation that could be interpreted as a penalty.

Companies use "compensation" very liberally. For example, an employee that has received funding for training/studies. The company I used to work at did not mention clawback or penalty. Instead, the contract just said that "Employee will be bonded for x years. Should the employee leave the company before fully serving the bond, the employee is required to compensate the company for the following sums that represent what the company has invested in their training/studies".

 

[KakiMeow]

Means no work got money for 3 years is Gxgx?

sekali every other company in your line is competitor what

den u work as what, in different field?

 

[Milodrink]

It simply means if your existing company is doing this type of business and after you resign and within 3 years you are not allow to work with the company's competitors

I heard of this before. Normally, for high tech company and those specialists or for company having proprietary tech.

Prob is how much they can pay lol

 

[KnyghtRyder]

Companies are creative with terms, that's what they pay lawyers for. Even clawback isn't commonly used because it inherently carries a negative connotation that could be interpreted as a penalty.

Companies use "compensation" very liberally. For example, an employee that has received funding for training/studies. The company I used to work at did not mention clawback or penalty. Instead, the contract just said that "Employee will be bonded for x years. Should the employee leave the company before fully serving the bond, the employee is required to compensate the company for the following sums that represent what the company has invested in their training/studies".

Agree.. so the wording matters.. who is compensating whom.