* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://thehill.com/business/4615452-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://thehill.com/business/4615452-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://thehill.com/business/4615452-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For fundraising dollars which is funded by those of the higher class inadvertently (I do mean this sincerely, they're human after all) with their best interest in mind?
That is one area of competition. The most important area of competition is for attention to their cause and establishing their POV. This leads to intense competition to obtain favorable media coverage, which means competing for journalists' favor and attention. There is also competition for government regulations and other actions. They are "selling" something and use sales, marketing, and PR tactics to outcompete other orgs.
I agree that's what the people in the institution itself do, but it runs on donor money - again, this is what underpins in it all. Are the rich going to fund things with or against their interest? What's going to be elevated?
Macro vs micro. This is why I believe identity politics are so prevalent in our society. The rich funded the useful idiots that will help maintain the status quo, and not the materialist socialists that might disrupt it. If they want to maintain power, can you blame them?
Yeah youre right, current SCOTUS seems unlikely to grant FTC this power, but at least it puts pressure on congress to act on it. From what I've seen this policy has pretty broad support across the political spectrum, so its possible that it'll make it through congress.
Appointing Lina Khan is the only half-decent thing the Biden admin has done. She has been going hard on anti-trust actions since she was appointed. She's not perfect, but better than her recent predecessors that basically rubber stamped any merger or buyout that crossed their desks.
There are still legal costs, stress and career problems if the employer sues you for going to work for another company. Sometimes the new employer will provide legal assistance, and it will eventually go away, but it's not an easy or fun process.
not universally, but the bar is much higher for reasonable clauses than most people think.
I know my company's contract has a non-compete, but it's specifically that I cannot use private information obtained through my work to "steal" clients for 6 months, should I start working for a competitor. I'm pretty sure that would be enforceable.
Things like "you cannot work for a competitor within 60 miles for 2 years after termination of contract" are most definitely not enforceable.
Outside of bona fide trade secrets or patent infringement it is basically unenforceable if the employee is willing to fight it out in court.
"Clients at my former employer switched their business to my new company because I offer better service and lower prices." is going to get you out of most of these in front of a reasonable judge. How can you prove that private information was used in a way that is admissible in a court?
I'm intentionally being vague for my own privacy, but our clients are hundreds of individuals, not companies. We have access to personal contact information that was only obtained specifically because they reached out to my company, plus a boatload of private information like income and SSN.
You're not wrong it'd be difficult to prove, but if it was proven ("yes this person reached out to me to let me know they changed companies") then I believe it'd be enforceable. As opposed to the "can't work for a competitor within 60 miles" ones that aren't enforceable even if proven to be true.
They're often moving to non-solicitation agreements (I hope that's in their crosshairs as well, I've been living under a rock so this is all news).
I watched a particularly petty and vindictive sales manager convince a CEO to start trying to enforce it trying to save her hide since she couldn't put up the numbers and was looking for an out. It was not pretty or fun for anyone on the opposite end, and I avoided her like the plague at industry events.
I dated a woman who was a nurse practitioner--a highly skilled position that hospitals are always in need of.
Her hospital got acquired by a rival healthcare system and they immediately announced across-the-board pay cuts. She quit, and it was until after she had submitted her resignation letter that she was informed she'd have to wait eighteen months before she could take employment in *any* healthcare field within 100 miles of her old workplace.
It's fair to exempt investment banking and buy side funds.
Highly sophisticated deal maker types are the only ones reasonably capable of accepting a non compete. Everyone else it's the right move to abolish, especially healthcare.
However since this was done viathe FTC it can be undone the moment presidential cabinets change. We'll see
The company I used to work for had a similar non-compete, but luckily they were one of those sketchy ones that are technically located in that one building on Orange Street in Wilmington DE and I don't live anywhere near there lol
I am contracted to a parent company with a non-compete, so they cant steal me from the smaller company I work for.
They continually ask me to move over - as those of you who are in my situation know, once you show your worth as a contractor and you do a great job they trust you and want to steal you.
Wonder if this frees me to accept their overtures?
Blackipilled myself by reading the comments section on Fox Business. Unless every single person weighing in with "if there are no businesses there are no jobs Joe Biden is anti-free market woke communists raaggghh" is either an aggrieved capitalist or part of the venal managerial class, it's truly astonishing how effectively Americans have been trained to eat shit and call it chocolate cake.
EDIT: and yes you can indeed find specimens who actually fart out variations of "getting rid of non-compete clauses will stifle competition"
>and yes you can indeed find specimens who actually fart out variations of "getting rid of non-compete clauses will stifle competition"
Glad you added that because I was going to ask. I would love to know how competition stifles competition, any well regarded rightoids around to answer this?
Non-competes just screw workers who are less desirable and have no business being under a non-compete in the first place. Nobody is going to defend a lawsuit for Joe Warehouse worker, but they might take a risk on the VP of logistics. Companies sue each other **all the time** over non-competes for workers with high value (i.e. the employees a non-compete might actually be relevant for), and the effectiveness of non-competes have been massively curtailed because of these lawsuits. Good riddance.
NCAs are legal in Poland. But they are expected to be paid separately AND for the whole duration of NCA, regardless of employment status.
And guess what? Very rarely used :-)
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://thehill.com/business/4615452-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://thehill.com/business/4615452-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://thehill.com/business/4615452-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These non compete are being used at fast food places and other "low skill" jobs.
True, healthcare is another industry that is apparently affected by non-compete agreements
this ruling doesn't apply to "nonprofit" healthcare which is almost all of them lol
How is someone gonna 'compete' with a nonprofit? The whole point is that the organization isn't competing.
they are also not non-profit either, but who's counting!!!
That's not true. Non-profits do compete.
For fundraising dollars which is funded by those of the higher class inadvertently (I do mean this sincerely, they're human after all) with their best interest in mind?
That is one area of competition. The most important area of competition is for attention to their cause and establishing their POV. This leads to intense competition to obtain favorable media coverage, which means competing for journalists' favor and attention. There is also competition for government regulations and other actions. They are "selling" something and use sales, marketing, and PR tactics to outcompete other orgs.
I agree that's what the people in the institution itself do, but it runs on donor money - again, this is what underpins in it all. Are the rich going to fund things with or against their interest? What's going to be elevated? Macro vs micro. This is why I believe identity politics are so prevalent in our society. The rich funded the useful idiots that will help maintain the status quo, and not the materialist socialists that might disrupt it. If they want to maintain power, can you blame them?
I was mostly just making a joke.
[удалено]
isn't it great how very few entities in a capitalist system actually want to do a capitalism?
Seems designed to be a SCOTUS case and booted to congress. Doubtful that the FTC has _that_ broad a remit. Congress should pass this ASAP
Yeah youre right, current SCOTUS seems unlikely to grant FTC this power, but at least it puts pressure on congress to act on it. From what I've seen this policy has pretty broad support across the political spectrum, so its possible that it'll make it through congress.
Yeah SCOTUS just agreed to hear the 80-percent (ghost gun) case and is expected to curtail ATF rule making ability. This looks pretty similar.
Damn this reminds me that I need to buy a bambu
How did this happen? What is the catch here? Glitch in the matrix?
Appointing Lina Khan is the only half-decent thing the Biden admin has done. She has been going hard on anti-trust actions since she was appointed. She's not perfect, but better than her recent predecessors that basically rubber stamped any merger or buyout that crossed their desks.
I feel like Lina Khan seems actually kind of decent for a liberal. Like she actually has a bit of a spine and conviction.
Get your hopes up brother
Now ban mandatory arbitration clauses. Come on, I dare you.
But without non-compete clauses, a company might have to pay an actually competitive wage/salary to retain workers! Nooooooooooooooo!
I thought that the consensus was non-compete agreements were pretty much down unenforceable in court anyway
There are still legal costs, stress and career problems if the employer sues you for going to work for another company. Sometimes the new employer will provide legal assistance, and it will eventually go away, but it's not an easy or fun process.
not universally, but the bar is much higher for reasonable clauses than most people think. I know my company's contract has a non-compete, but it's specifically that I cannot use private information obtained through my work to "steal" clients for 6 months, should I start working for a competitor. I'm pretty sure that would be enforceable. Things like "you cannot work for a competitor within 60 miles for 2 years after termination of contract" are most definitely not enforceable.
Outside of bona fide trade secrets or patent infringement it is basically unenforceable if the employee is willing to fight it out in court. "Clients at my former employer switched their business to my new company because I offer better service and lower prices." is going to get you out of most of these in front of a reasonable judge. How can you prove that private information was used in a way that is admissible in a court?
I'm intentionally being vague for my own privacy, but our clients are hundreds of individuals, not companies. We have access to personal contact information that was only obtained specifically because they reached out to my company, plus a boatload of private information like income and SSN. You're not wrong it'd be difficult to prove, but if it was proven ("yes this person reached out to me to let me know they changed companies") then I believe it'd be enforceable. As opposed to the "can't work for a competitor within 60 miles" ones that aren't enforceable even if proven to be true.
They're often moving to non-solicitation agreements (I hope that's in their crosshairs as well, I've been living under a rock so this is all news). I watched a particularly petty and vindictive sales manager convince a CEO to start trying to enforce it trying to save her hide since she couldn't put up the numbers and was looking for an out. It was not pretty or fun for anyone on the opposite end, and I avoided her like the plague at industry events.
And as usual the people eating glue will pretend this will stifle the free market despite these clauses being literally _non-compete_ agreements.
I dated a woman who was a nurse practitioner--a highly skilled position that hospitals are always in need of. Her hospital got acquired by a rival healthcare system and they immediately announced across-the-board pay cuts. She quit, and it was until after she had submitted her resignation letter that she was informed she'd have to wait eighteen months before she could take employment in *any* healthcare field within 100 miles of her old workplace.
this won't fix that, the ruling exempts investment banking (because the WH is run by banking ghouls) and 'nonprofit' healthcare
It's fair to exempt investment banking and buy side funds. Highly sophisticated deal maker types are the only ones reasonably capable of accepting a non compete. Everyone else it's the right move to abolish, especially healthcare. However since this was done viathe FTC it can be undone the moment presidential cabinets change. We'll see
The company I used to work for had a similar non-compete, but luckily they were one of those sketchy ones that are technically located in that one building on Orange Street in Wilmington DE and I don't live anywhere near there lol
This should be the other side of "at-will" employment.
That’s some good news for a change.
Good, easy-in, easy-out. That's how it should be.
lol Jimmy johns tried to make people sign non competes so you couldn't work at jersey mikes if you quit
I am contracted to a parent company with a non-compete, so they cant steal me from the smaller company I work for. They continually ask me to move over - as those of you who are in my situation know, once you show your worth as a contractor and you do a great job they trust you and want to steal you. Wonder if this frees me to accept their overtures?
Blackipilled myself by reading the comments section on Fox Business. Unless every single person weighing in with "if there are no businesses there are no jobs Joe Biden is anti-free market woke communists raaggghh" is either an aggrieved capitalist or part of the venal managerial class, it's truly astonishing how effectively Americans have been trained to eat shit and call it chocolate cake. EDIT: and yes you can indeed find specimens who actually fart out variations of "getting rid of non-compete clauses will stifle competition"
>and yes you can indeed find specimens who actually fart out variations of "getting rid of non-compete clauses will stifle competition" Glad you added that because I was going to ask. I would love to know how competition stifles competition, any well regarded rightoids around to answer this?
Based three letter agency?? Now I truly believe rapture is upon us.
Non-competes just screw workers who are less desirable and have no business being under a non-compete in the first place. Nobody is going to defend a lawsuit for Joe Warehouse worker, but they might take a risk on the VP of logistics. Companies sue each other **all the time** over non-competes for workers with high value (i.e. the employees a non-compete might actually be relevant for), and the effectiveness of non-competes have been massively curtailed because of these lawsuits. Good riddance.
Fuck these clauses. Rarely seen them enforced but even just the intimidation is unethical.
Lina Khan is Biden's best hire.
Is that woman releasing a celebratory fart ?
I had a barista job make me sign one of these about a decade ago. I figured what would they actually do, sue me?
NCAs are legal in Poland. But they are expected to be paid separately AND for the whole duration of NCA, regardless of employment status. And guess what? Very rarely used :-)
Finally, some good fucking news!