Once again, Trump sides with Bosses over Employees

[initforme]

Not exactly. It’s one thing to say, “I’m outta here.” But it’s another thing to say, but I can’t do this job for any other company in the same line of business with “X” miles of the office and/or for “Y” number of months.

In that latter case, sure they can leave. BUT, how they will get a new job is very complicated.

This is why our courts generally put a limit of reasonableness on the time and the scope of any “noncompete” clause.

1 month should suffice

 

[Papageorgio]

Noncompete clauses in employment contracts have been used to block employees from getting a better job or starting their own business. They are used to stop competition and hold down wages.
President Biden had pushed legislation to limit Noncompetes and allow employees to take their skills where they are best compensated.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administration-drops-defense-ban-employee-noncompete-agreements-2025-09-06/

More than 20% of U.S. workers have signed noncompete agreements, according to the FTC. The agency, in adopting the rule, had said the agreements limit worker mobility and suppress wages and competition for labor.

I refused to sign non-competes and still got jobs. I always said, if I treat you right, you treat me right and never lost a job for refusing to sign one.

But I am against non-competes, they are pointless and are really unenforceable 95% of the time.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I refused to sign non-competes and still got jobs. I always said, if I treat you right, you treat me right and never lost a job for refusing to sign one.

But I am against non-competes, they are pointless and are really unenforceable 95% of the time.

They are easily enforceable as long as they follow pretty simple state guidelines.

 

[Papageorgio]

They are easily enforceable as long as they follow pretty simple state guidelines.

Maybe, in all my years, I have never seen one hold up, but they weren’t challenged that often either.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Noncompete clauses in employment contracts have been used to block employees from getting a better job or starting their own business. They are used to stop competition and hold down wages.
President Biden had pushed legislation to limit Noncompetes and allow employees to take their skills where they are best compensated.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administration-drops-defense-ban-employee-noncompete-agreements-2025-09-06/

More than 20% of U.S. workers have signed noncompete agreements, according to the FTC. The agency, in adopting the rule, had said the agreements limit worker mobility and suppress wages and competition for labor.

.

Cute post.

Three more years, plus some.





.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would any company train an employee, provide them with the background and experience to do their jobs well and then have those same employees be free to use that very training and experience against them

Employees don’t come in as a blank slate
They bring education and job skills with them.
You teach them specific skills for your job so they can make you money.
While working for you they provide hours of service for which you pay them and make a profit.

In no way do you own them

 

[Rawley]

Noncompete clauses in employment contracts have been used to block employees from getting a better job or starting their own business. They are used to stop competition and hold down wages.
President Biden had pushed legislation to limit Noncompetes and allow employees to take their skills where they are best compensated.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administration-drops-defense-ban-employee-noncompete-agreements-2025-09-06/

More than 20% of U.S. workers have signed noncompete agreements, according to the FTC. The agency, in adopting the rule, had said the agreements limit worker mobility and suppress wages and competition for labor.

Just curious, how would an FTC rule govern a private corporation's contracts anyway?

 

[Polishprince]

Employees don’t come in as a blank slate
They bring education and job skills with them.
You teach them specific skills for your job so they can make you money.
While working for you they provide hours of service for which you pay them and make a profit.

In no way do you own them

All of that is certainly true.

But employers have a right to ask employees and prospective employees for the loyalty before they share their methods and procedures with them.

And if someone agrees to sign a non-compete agreement, why shouldn't they be held to it if they decide to quit?

 

[initforme]

All of that is certainly true.

But employers have a right to ask employees and prospective employees for the loyalty before they share their methods and procedures with them.

And if someone agrees to sign a non-compete agreement, why shouldn't they be held to it if they decide to quit?

NOBODY has a right to ask another for loyalty. That is wrong in EVERY sense of employment. These agreements could prevent an employee from changing jobs. Thats disgusting.

 

[initforme]

Employees don’t come in as a blank slate
They bring education and job skills with them.
You teach them specific skills for your job so they can make you money.
While working for you they provide hours of service for which you pay them and make a profit.

In no way do you own them

Perfectly said. Dont hire if you are so inept as to worry about this. Lessers.

 

[rightwinger]

All of that is certainly true.

But employers have a right to ask employees and prospective employees for the loyalty before they share their methods and procedures with them.

And if someone agrees to sign a non-compete agreement, why shouldn't they be held to it if they decide to quit?

Loyalty is earned not demanded

 

[Polishprince]

Loyalty is earned not demanded

No one is "demanding' loyalty, and its earned by the compensation that the employee is able to receive by signing the non-compete.

 

[rightwinger]

No one is "demanding' loyalty, and its earned by the compensation that the employee is able to receive by signing the non-compete.

If you have earned your employees loyalty

Why would you demand a non-compete?

 

[Polishprince]

If you have earned your employees loyalty

Why would you demand a non-compete?

So your trade secrets don't go flying out the door when a competing firm poaches an employee?

BTW, the US Military doesn't allow its officers or enlisted men to switch alliances either, if a competing military force wanted to sign someone on.

 

[BackAgain]

1 month should suffice

Those decisions have already been made.

It’s a pretty old issue.

 

[BackAgain]

Employees don’t come in as a blank slate
They bring education and job skills with them.

No shit.

You teach them specific skills for your job so they can make you money.

No shit

While working for you they provide hours of service for which you pay them and make a profit.

No shit.

In no way do you own them

No shit.

But not something under discussion.

Employment contracts with such restrictive clauses (“non competes”) are an agreement between the employer and the employee.

If you were the applicant for the job and the employer makes the offer to hire you, then you get to read that contract and seek advice about what the terms mean.

As an informed applicant, let’s say you’re familiar with the non-compete clause terms. Let’s say you don’t like it. You can (A) negotiate an alteration of that clause with your would-be employer or, if that fails you can (B) accept the clause in order to take the job or turn down the job offer.

 

[initforme]

So your trade secrets don't go flying out the door when a competing firm poaches an employee?

BTW, the US Military doesn't allow its officers or enlisted men to switch alliances either, if a competing military force wanted to sign someone on.

If a competitor offers an employer more money they shouldnt be able to leave? Thats wrong in EVERY sense. Time to BAN those clauses. At least FORCE the employer to HAVE to match the offer. At the very least. Very un ametican.

 

[Polishprince]

If a competitor offers an employer more money they shouldnt be able to leave? Thats wrong in EVERY sense. Time to BAN those clauses. At least FORCE the employer to HAVE to match the offer. At the very least. Very un ametican.

Employees are compensated for signing non-compete clauses, they would receive less wages if their employer knew that they could be stabbed in the back overnight by a competitor looking to hire them.

Banning non-compete clauses would reduce the value of the employee to their employer, not increase it at all.

 

[initforme]

Employees are compensated for signing non-compete clauses, they would receive less wages if their employer knew that they could be stabbed in the back overnight by a competitor looking to hire them.

Banning non-compete clauses would reduce the value of the employee to their employer, not increase it at all.

Anything that prevenrs an employee from being able to move and work somewhere else limits the employee. Its simply the WRONG thing to do to anyone. Perhaps 1 week is plenty long.

 

[initforme]

.

Cute post.

Three more years, plus some.





.

Thst has nothing to do with it.

We are talking about limiting employees ability to move to a better position. If one wants to walk off the job and move to a better one that is their god given entitled right.