Judge strikes down Biden administration ban on worker ‘noncompete’ agreements.....

[rightwinger]

At most they should only restrict non-compensated non-competes, as well as open ended ones. I'd say 2-3 years is a solid limit.

And compensated means the salary of the person from before, not a $1 token compensation.

That's regulation, not "BAN BAN BAN" like progressives want.

If you support free enterprise for employers, you need to support free enterprise for employees.

A person with certain desirable skills should not be restricted from selling those skills elsewhere

What would be the result if noncompete agreements are banned?
Employees would make more money

 

[rightwinger]

At most they should only restrict non-compensated non-competes,

If an employer says…..I will pay you $10,000 for you to sign this non-compete clause
If the employee moves to a competitor he pays back the $10,000

 

[Polishprince]

You don’t own your employees skills and you don’t own who your customers choose to do business with

This customer patronizes your business because I am there.
If I choose to work elsewhere, a customer should be free to follow

That is why noncompete clauses should be illegal

How about the government? Do they own their employee's skills?

If someone is working for CIA, example given, should they be allowed to quit and start working for KGB or another competing firm?

 

[rightwinger]

How about the government? Do they own their employee's skills?

If someone is working for CIA, example given, should they be allowed to quit and start working for KGB or another competing firm?

CIA works with classified information
Divulging that information is a crime

 

[Foxfyre]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/20/judge-strikes-down-biden-administration-ban-on-worker-noncompete-agreements.html

A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday barred a U.S. Federal Trade Commission rule from taking effect that would ban agreements commonly signed by workers not to join their employers’ rivals or launch competing businesses.

U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas said the FTC, which enforces federal antitrust laws, does not have the authority to ban practices it deems unfair methods of competition by adopting broad rules.




Brown had temporarily blocked the rule in July while she considered a bid by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobby, and tax service firm Ryan to strike it down entirely. The rule was set to take effect Sept. 4.

Brown in her ruling said that even if the FTC had the power to adopt the rule, the agency had not justified banning virtually all noncompete agreements.

“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” wrote Brown, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump.

FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said the agency was disappointed with the ruling and is “seriously considering a potential appeal.”

Well now, it looks like killing Chevron is bearing fruit!

The question isn't whether non-competes are bad or not. The question is whether a Democrat controlled federal agency made a ruling way out of their purview for strictly political reasons. And I think we all know the answer to that one.

Don't like non-competes? Lobby your Congress-critter. Make them do their job.

For sure a business that takes the time to train an employee and trust him/her with their own innovations and concepts and processes etc. that make that company unique and successful do not want their secrets shared with competitors or for those employees to use that confidential information to go into business for themselves as competitors. A reasonable non compete clause in the employee contract should certainly be allowed.

 

[Polishprince]

CIA works with classified information
Divulging that information is a crime

Who said anything about divulging classified information?

I'm talking about someone just going to work for another employer, not giving the new employer private info from the old employer's files.

 

[martybegan]

If you support free enterprise for employers, you need to support free enterprise for employees.

A person with certain desirable skills should not be restricted from selling those skills elsewhere

What would be the result if noncompete agreements are banned?
Employees would make more money

And yet we don't, we regulate the crap out of them.

If they are compensated, they can be held to a non compete for a set period.

You would think, or the employers would pay them less due to the risk entailed in someone jumping ship with all their ideas, ideas made using their infrastructure.

You keep thinking non-competes are for blue collar workers, they are not. These are people probably making well over 250k, but of course this is the Dem party base now.

 

[martybegan]

If an employer says…..I will pay you $10,000 for you to sign this non-compete clause
If the employee moves to a competitor he pays back the $10,000

No, I mean "if I don't want you to work for 2 years, I pay you for two years your normal salary"

 

[rightwinger]

No, I mean "if I don't want you to work for 2 years, I pay you for two years your normal salary"

Works for me

 

[martybegan]

Works for me

That's how most are written, if not all of them. They can't stop you from working without compensating.

 

[postman]

Congress needs to do the job you hired them for, not some nameless and unelected bureaucrat.

The irony in that is, rulings from the federal judiciary, especially the 9 un-elected judges who sit at the top of the food chain.

 

[Picaro]

Conservative Judges never stand up for the rights of workers over their employers

There is money to be made

You're right for once. And this piss ant hypocrisy is why the GOP can barely beat your favorite commie lunatics in elections very often. Babble about 'free markets' and promote laws that do exactly the opposite. Frauds.

 

[Picaro]

No, they shouldn't. If a person doesn't want one, they don't have to apply for jobs where they are part of the contract.

But you're okay with employers being able to have govt. enforce contracts like this.

 

[initforme]

If I am employed and have a skill others will pay more for I am legally free to walk out on my employer rightbwhen they depend on me most. These agreements should not have to be followed.

 

[Polishprince]

If I am employed and have a skill others will pay more for I am legally free to walk out on my employer rightbwhen they depend on me most. These agreements should not have to be followed.

Not being able to sign a binding contract will reduce your value to the employer as he can never be certain you won't leave him high and dry.

Further, not being able to sign a contract will leave you liable to be fired at any time if the employer can find someone willing to work for less.

 

[Picaro]

Not being able to sign a binding contract will reduce your value to the employer as he can never be certain you won't leave him high and dry.

Further, not being able to sign a contract will leave you liable to be fired at any time if the employer can find someone willing to work for less.

lol yes, free markets are to be avoided by business; they've always been averse to free markets and free enterprise. Most suck at management, and can't keep employees without coercion.

 

[Polishprince]

lol yes, free markets are to be avoided by business; they've always been averse to free markets and free enterprise.

Barring businesses and employees from being able to sign contracts isn't a "free market".

 

[initforme]

For sure a business that takes the time to train an employee and trust him/her with their own innovations and concepts and processes etc. that make that company unique and successful do not want their secrets shared with competitors or for those employees to use that confidential information to go into business for themselves as competitors. A reasonable non compete clause in the employee contract should certainly be allowed.

As an employee I'd sell the company out in a heartbeat. That's capitalism 101.

 

[Picaro]

Barring businesses and employees from being able to sign contracts isn't a "free market".

Rubbish.

 

[Foxfyre]

As an employee I'd sell the company out in a heartbeat. That's capitalism 101.

As an employee I try to make myself valuable to an employer with interest in profiting as much as I can. I have had many jobs I loved and I would protect my employers and coworkers just because it was the right thing to to do. And because I was more often in the business end of the business I was interested in helping my employer doing well because that was how employees merit raises, promotions, better situations.

I've had one union job in which I felt like a carbon copy of everybody else. There was no personal initiative. A over zealous productive employee was frowned on because it made the others look bad. I hated that. I try to give 1000 percent on the job so when I leave it, the employer has to hire two people to replace me.

I've also had a few really shit*y jobs that I couldn't wait to get out of and go on to something better and more satisfying. And yes, without a non-compete clause in my employer contract, whatever I learned from any job I would use to my advantage in the new job however I was able. I never had to sign a non compete contract but would have to get a good job. I would like to think I would honor it.

But good employees trade their labor, expertise, talents, experience/know how for personal profit. And in so doing benefit their employers and coworkers.

And every business that does well benefits others businesses and their employees all of whom are working for their own profit/benefit. That is the beauty of free market capitalism that produces prosperity as no government directed, over controlled economy can.