FTC Recinds All Non-Compete Agreements

[JohnDB]

The Federal Trade Commission has made almost all Non-compete agreements null and void. Mostly because these were being used to hold employees as slaves for slave wages. You couldn't quit, get another job in the same field without 18-24 months of not using your career expertise.

More here:

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The Federal Trade Commission has made almost all Non-compete agreements null and void. Mostly because these were being used to hold employees as slaves for slave wages. You couldn't quit, get another job in the same field without 18-24 months of not using your career expertise.

More here:

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

Long overdue! Pay people for their intellectual property and skills or let them try the free market.

 

[pknopp]

I agree that non competes are wrong but the problem I have here is some entity waving their arms and saying "let it be so".

A year from now it could all be just as easily reversed.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Federal Trade Commission has made almost all Non-compete agreements null and void. Mostly because these were being used to hold employees as slaves for slave wages. You couldn't quit, get another job in the same field without 18-24 months of not using your career expertise.

More here:

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

any job thats had a non compete clause is a high paying job thats no where close to slave wages which actually dont exist because slaves dont get paid,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree that non competes are wrong but the problem I have here is some entity waving their arms and saying "let it be so".

A year from now it could all be just as easily reversed.

its the same entity that made them so by putting the rule in place,,

best to shut down the whole system and go to a free market system instead of this government controlled cronyism system..

 

[progressive hunter]

Long overdue! Pay people for their intellectual property and skills or let them try the free market.

if youre being paid by someone to create that intellectual property or apply your skills the rewards of your actions belongs to them not you,,

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

if youre being paid by someone to create that intellectual property or apply your skills the rewards of your actions belongs to them not you,,

I agree...but the skill-set belongs to the worker--who is free to shop his expertise to the highest bidder.
Non-compete clauses are just one way for a company to hoard its pool of talent...instead of paying them top-dollar.

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree...but the skill-set belongs to the worker--who is free to shop his expertise to the highest bidder.
Non-compete clauses are just one way for a company to hoard it's pool of talent...instead of paying them top-dollar.

agreed,,

non compete is pretty chicken shit,,
in its defense the people that sign them are very well paid most times,,

 

[Andylusion]

The Federal Trade Commission has made almost all Non-compete agreements null and void. Mostly because these were being used to hold employees as slaves for slave wages. You couldn't quit, get another job in the same field without 18-24 months of not using your career expertise.

More here:

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

There is only one negative to this, but I think you need to know what it is, because it's real.

The downside to not having a non-compete, is that even fewer companies are going to have training programs. This is why they had non-competes at all, is because you train someone in the business you are in, and then they leave and go work for a competitor.

So you actually trained the people trying to drive you out of business.

Without a non-compete, companies are not going to want to train anyone to do anything.

I'm not saying good or bad.... I just saying, there is an unintended consequence.

People keep saying "Why don't companies invest into their employees" This is why. They train them, and then get hired by their competitor and are now working against the company that trained them.

 

[JohnDB]

Commercial Salesforce that provides a LOT of service for their customers are usually trapped by these contracts.

For example a corrugated sbox salesman can often be trapped by such things. Now he can open his own company for certain clients and stock boxes accordingly....make his own money. (Which is often more than he was making on salary+ commission)

The original company he was working for losing out on all those sales.

Same thing with a service electrician....often these guys know the industrial plants they service better than anyone else....now these guys can get their own license and bill themselves out directly....usually making more.

 

[JohnDB]

There is only one negative to this, but I think you need to know what it is, because it's real.

The downside to not having a non-compete, is that even fewer companies are going to have training programs. This is why they had non-competes at all, is because you train someone in the business you are in, and then they leave and go work for a competitor.

So you actually trained the people trying to drive you out of business.

Without a non-compete, companies are not going to want to train anyone to do anything.

I'm not saying good or bad.... I just saying, there is an unintended consequence.

People keep saying "Why don't companies invest into their employees" This is why. They train them, and then get hired by their competitor and are now working against the company that trained them.

Where I'm not saying that you are wrong....things certainly can go that way. But instead of hiring people who can't hold a job for 2 years they will look for those who hold jobs for 10+ years or more. Especially if it's a position requiring a high amount of training.

Currently we have an epidemic of employers absolutely having zero concern for their employees as a result of legislation crafted by corporations instead of a representative government. Workers today have almost zero rights. So in turn you have workers pretending to work for employers who pretend to pay wages. Many job applicants flat out lie and exaggerate the truth on their resumes (CVs) to get a job that they are not qualified to hold. And basically just bluster through with their performance because upper management is asleep at the wheel. Nobody notices or pays attention or cares to do either.

But in the meantime the actual work is usually done by 20% of the employees. Who have an inkling that they are worth more than they are getting paid. (80/20 rule is alive and well among employees)

This gives those highly productive employees an opportunity to advance their income and opportunities in their trade.

 

[JohnDB]

This is not a big deal....it's got nothing to do with NDAs. Those are still enforced and actionable upon. Trade secrets are still trade secrets.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I agree that non competes are wrong but the problem I have here is some entity waving their arms and saying "let it be so".

A year from now it could all be just as easily reversed.

Very good perspective.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is only one negative to this, but I think you need to know what it is, because it's real.

The downside to not having a non-compete, is that even fewer companies are going to have training programs. This is why they had non-competes at all, is because you train someone in the business you are in, and then they leave and go work for a competitor.

So you actually trained the people trying to drive you out of business.

Without a non-compete, companies are not going to want to train anyone to do anything.

I'm not saying good or bad.... I just saying, there is an unintended consequence.

People keep saying "Why don't companies invest into their employees" This is why. They train them, and then get hired by their competitor and are now working against the company that trained them.

Or instead of not training people they could just pay a competitive wage....

 

[JohnDB]

Or instead of not training people they could just pay a competitive wage....

Competitive is relatively low when all companies in an industry are using non-compete agreements.

When a large employer in an area (>20%) keeps wages artificially low for an extended period of time....all wages tend to follow.

So even if you work in another field your wages are usually 10-25% lower (sometimes more) than others outside of your metropolitan area. Just by one large employer having artificially low wages.

Which is kinda whacked.

Now one thing breaking that cycle is remote working. No more offices....meaning someone in Nashville can work for a San Francisco based employer and be paid 15% less than a SF employee but 200% more than a Nashville employee.

 

[skews13]

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday said employers could no longer, in most cases, stop their employees from going to work for rival companies.

The commission has said the proposal would raise wages by forcing companies to compete harder for talent. It was approvedin a 3-to-2 vote. Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson, both Republicans, voted against the measure.

F.T.C. Issues Ban on Worker Noncompete Clauses

The rule would prohibit companies from limiting their employees’ ability to work for rivals, a change that could increase competition and boost wages.

www.nytimes.com

Both repturds voted against it? Im shocked.

 

[rightwinger]

Long overdue and being abused throughout the country.
If you don’t work for us, you can’t work for anyone in the same business

When an employee complains it becomes…..If you don’t like it, leave
You just can’t work for someone else

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

 

[Harpy Eagle]

already a thread on this

 

[rightwinger]

Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

 

[JohnDB]

Long overdue and being abused throughout the country.
If you don’t work for us, you can’t work for anyone in the same business

When an employee complains it becomes…..If you don’t like it, leave
You just can’t work for someone else

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

And considering you can't even sign up for the job without agreeing to a non-compete agreement....it's a contract under duress to begin with. Completely illegal.