• Σχόλιο του χρήστη 'Teemu Lehtinen' | 15 Ιουλίου 2021, 11:26

    Art 6(3) First of all, an 18-month "gardening leave" makes no sense, unless the State or the public authority for whom the person has worked, is willing to pay the 18-month period. But that is not all. In a democratic model of State, we should promote the idea of people moving from private sector to politics and from politics to private. A long gardening leave will discourage this, make individuals who have occupied a political position or an institutional role non-employable and create a situation where they lose income insofar as such a period is not covered by the insitution they used to represent. It would be deplorable for the legislator to imagine that any representative of an official institution or politician, who leave the Parliament, would, when moving to the private sector, somehow unethically exploit the networks, connections, acquintances and knowledge s/he has from her past employment. A gardening leave presumes this. Furthermore, it is counter the idea that people should progress in their professions, gather new experiences and knowledge which can add to their value to an employer. The gardening leave seeks to rip this away. Such gardening leaves have been a constant topic of conversation in Brussels and many other EU capitals. Just as in non-compete situations, the cost of such periods must be covered by the institions which impose them.