Gardening leave in F1 and personnel transfer in general

[Pyrone89]

One of the ways to get more equality in F1 is by having plenty of personnel transfers between teams. However as of late there has been some controversy over this with the introduction of teams poaching FIA technical delegates that had intimate knowledge of next years cars and of contracts with up to 2 years of gardening leave to prevent the transfer of knowledge, sealing in the status quo.

Just like other major sport series (soccer, american football), should the regulating body set clear guidelines on who you can hire, when you can hire them, and the extent of locking down personnel/players?

Please share your thoughts.

[zac510]

Then who will look after all of England's beautiful gardens?

[Just_a_fan]

Contracts between employer and employee are their business alone, not a third party's business (other than the law of the land).

[Jolle]

Just like football players, drivers don't go on gardening leave (Raikkonen of course being the odd one out). For the transfer between teams, gardening leave like it's now is pretty fair and follows normal law. We call it gardening leave, but it should be called paid leave.

just imagine if your personal could work within a month at another team. The r&d departments would be more paranoia then apple.

[dans79]

Contracts between employer and employee are their business alone, not a third party's business (other than the law of the land).

I agree with this in regards to moving one team to another.

However, something needs to be done to prevent people who work for the FIA and have access to sensitive team data being able to move to a position with a team so quickly. Over the last few years we have seen what I would call semi shady moves!

[Just_a_fan]

Exactly jolle. This is about protecting a team's IP and is entirely as expected for such jobs. Drivers don't have access to, nor in depth knowledge of, the clever stuff. Likewise, the mechanics, the composite layers etc. The design team, especially at the higher levels, know the important details and, crucially, how they interact to make the car what it is. So they are restricted.

I remember a fair few years ago, a chap left Ferrari for McLaren. Next season he came back to Ferrari. Was that just a case of homesickness or was it a clever attempt to gain information? These days, that would be much more difficult to do.

[Pyrone89]

There is the perspective from the employer, but also the perspective of the sport. From a sport perspective fast moving personnel between teams can help break and prevent long streaks of year to year dominance. So just like soccer contracts for young players only being allowed 3 years, in F1 you could make the rule ‘if you want to participate in the world championship, these are the rules with respect to gardening leave’. You are in your legal right to say no, but then we are in our legal right to exclude you.

[subcritical71]

I don't think IP transfer in F1 is any different than in any other industry. The industry I work people go back and forth, sometime multiple times to competitors, regulators or customers. As long as I don't take any IP with me (other than what is in my head) and there is nothing that can be done legally to prevent me from making a living in a profession I choose using my skills. It's actually the opposite, when leaving we normally get escorted out the same day. I don't see why F1/FIA/Teams need to be any different.
Even giving someone fair compensation, even equal compensation as what they made previously for two years would not be enough for me. You loose too much change while tending to the weeds (that's what my garden looks like).

[Jolle]

There is the perspective from the employer, but also the perspective of the sport. From a sport perspective fast moving personnel between teams can help break and prevent long streaks of year to year dominance. So just like soccer contracts for young players only being allowed 3 years, in F1 you could make the rule ‘if you want to participate in the world championship, these are the rules with respect to gardening leave’. You are in your legal right to say no, but then we are in our legal right to exclude you.

No it would mean that as a team you'll cut up your information you share with your personal and have several people work on bogus projects. As a employee you wouldn't be trusted with anything important. Teams would be a horrible place to work. And teams wouldn't be poaching good personal, but buying information. a very unhealthy way of doing business. Most lower leven engineers won't have or have very short paid leave anyway.

And having a slight comparison with football, some teams invest in talent, they invest in their future while other teams only buy players. Imagine a team like Ferrari just buying all the senior managers from RedBull, Mercedes and McLaren each year?

[Big Tea]

Just how many people would this concern? are we talking 5 - 10 people in the team or 50+?

5 - 10, or maybe one a year on average (assuming it does not get activated for lay off or dis continued team) is not that major in the scale of things (except for those concerned ) but if it really is widespread I am surprised EU has not already got involved.

[subcritical71]

Just how many people would this concern? are we talking 5 - 10 people in the team or 50+?

5 - 10, or maybe one a year on average (assuming it does not get activated for lay off or dis continued team) is not that major in the scale of things (except for those concerned ) but if it really is widespread I am surprised EU has not already got involved.

I would think about the same rate we are seeing currently. Once in a while. The balance feels about right at the moment, 3 to 6 months. Why should someone be out of active work simply for what he knows? Think about your own career when you answer that.

I would say the bigger danger of IP transfer would be in the bars located closest to the teams HQ.

[Big Tea]

Just how many people would this concern? are we talking 5 - 10 people in the team or 50+?

5 - 10, or maybe one a year on average (assuming it does not get activated for lay off or dis continued team) is not that major in the scale of things (except for those concerned ) but if it really is widespread I am surprised EU has not already got involved.

I would think about the same rate we are seeing currently. Once in a while. The balance feels about right at the moment, 3 to 6 months. Why should someone be out of active work simply for what he knows? Think about your own career when you answer that.

I would say the bigger danger of IP transfer would be in the bars located closest to the teams HQ.

It must be factored in to the rate for the job, in the same way traveling is in others.
I doubt someone in a position to take one of these jobs would not consider loss of earnings for the 6 months at the end.
Some jobs require a re-training period before starting. It could be looked at the same.
As long as the overall payment is sufficient and it is not a matter of being told where you next apply that they have 'been out of the trade too long' does it matter? I suppose it would to some and not others?

My career is currently retired.
As I worked in test, I regularly had to 'go back to school' as part of the job, for which I was paid. Probably the same sort of thing.

[Pyrone89]

Just how many people would this concern? are we talking 5 - 10 people in the team or 50+?

5 - 10, or maybe one a year on average (assuming it does not get activated for lay off or dis continued team) is not that major in the scale of things (except for those concerned ) but if it really is widespread I am surprised EU has not already got involved.

I would think about the same rate we are seeing currently. Once in a while. The balance feels about right at the moment, 3 to 6 months. Why should someone be out of active work simply for what he knows? Think about your own career when you answer that.

I would say the bigger danger of IP transfer would be in the bars located closest to the teams HQ.

It must be factored in to the rate for the job, in the same way traveling is in others.
I doubt someone in a position to take one of these jobs would not consider loss of earnings for the 6 months at the end.
Some jobs require a re-training period before starting. It could be looked at the same.
As long as the overall payment is sufficient and it is not a matter of being told where you next apply that they have 'been out of the trade too long' does it matter? I suppose it would to some and not others?

My career is currently retired.
As I worked in test, I regularly had to 'go back to school' as part of the job, for which I was paid. Probably the same sort of thing.

Retired as in old age retirement of ‘retired’ as in wealthy as f?

[Big Tea]

I would think about the same rate we are seeing currently. Once in a while. The balance feels about right at the moment, 3 to 6 months. Why should someone be out of active work simply for what he knows? Think about your own career when you answer that.

I would say the bigger danger of IP transfer would be in the bars located closest to the teams HQ.

It must be factored in to the rate for the job, in the same way traveling is in others.
I doubt someone in a position to take one of these jobs would not consider loss of earnings for the 6 months at the end.
Some jobs require a re-training period before starting. It could be looked at the same.
As long as the overall payment is sufficient and it is not a matter of being told where you next apply that they have 'been out of the trade too long' does it matter? I suppose it would to some and not others?

My career is currently retired.
As I worked in test, I regularly had to 'go back to school' as part of the job, for which I was paid. Probably the same sort of thing.

Retired as in old age retirement of ‘retired’ as in wealthy as f?

I have enough money to last me the rest of my life (if I do not live as long as I intend too )

Early retirement, but by no means well off, just keeping it at about the same as working, but without the working expenses, so that expense it goes on holidays.

[Just_a_fan]

There is the perspective from the employer, but also the perspective of the sport.

The "sport" doesn't pay the salaries and make the contracts, the employer does.

If the FIA wants to spice up the teams' technical teams, they would have to employ the people directly and then short term contract them to the teams.

The FIA can't impose third party terms on employment contracts. Not in any proper jurisdiction, anyway. And trying to force the teams to do this won't work either.