FTC's noncompete ban could reshape the US workplace
The FTC’s decision to outlaw nearly all noncompete agreements could restructure the balance of power between businesses and workers — if it survives legal challenges.
Wow this is big! The end of noncompetes
- Thread starter mcmurtry66
- Start date
This wouldn't have been necessary if business hadn't abused the process. It makes perfect sense for executives and management types, but it had grown to the point where they were being required for front line workers. I saw reports where they were making fast food workers sign them.
Yeah it is out of control. My buddy owns a fancy hair salon and the stylists all have them and the salons sue each other. Hair stylists!
Like everything else.... to fix a problem they overreact and essentially create another problem rather than fixing what they set out to do.
There is so much wrong with this I don’t know where to begin.
FTC's noncompete ban could reshape the US workplace
The FTC’s decision to outlaw nearly all noncompete agreements could restructure the balance of power between businesses and workers — if it survives legal challenges.finance.yahoo.com
First, where does tge FTC or congress get the authority? I don’t see this as regulating commerce.
Second, what happened to freedom to make contracts?
Third, this meat-ax approach is not the best or least intrusive way to deal with the abuses. Colorado and many states have developed case law and passed statutes to deal with all abuses. That left Colorado with a very satisfactory approach that benefits both parties.
Let’s consider hair dressers. If an employer spends time, money, and resources to train a newbie, it makes no sense to allow said newbie to use that training to compete with a shop next door. . Reasonable time and place restrictions are reasonable. And they help people get on the job training that might not otherwise be available. .
This is just more clueless left-wing democratic policy.
That was just more clueless employees are chattle to be bought and sold by their betters
He’s essentially right tho in that I don’t see the point as they were long governed by state law and my limited experience judges would just review/limit their restrictions whether by time or geography. Not sure why the feds are getting involved.
I don’t know much about this so could be wrong
Not sure why the fed is getting involved. I don’t know. I do know it’s a big deal and impacts a ton of people. With hairdressers agree with what you say but the main concern is customer lists. In my business they are huge. We use 1099s and non competes
I don't care if he is right, he loves poking sticks in the eye with asnine comments like that last line. He knows they will get likes from your squad and he will fall in his fainting couch over the replies like mine. He doesn't want an honest discussion, he wants the hornets nest.
I just read Colorado banned them a couple years ago leaving them intact for highly compensated workers. I haven’t dug into work arounds. Some employers used job training reimbursement in lieu of non-competes. I don’t know if those are still valid. I think you are overstating the “chattel” argument. There are legit reasons for noncompetes. Bans are another example of how Democrats love employees and hate employers.
We don’t need more reasons for employers to use kiosks and robots instead of hiring some kid looking to make a few bucks.
Democrats are clueless in so many ways. I’ll cite the four ColoradonSupreme court justices on the ballot case for openers. In Colorado teens are regularly shooting other teens so our Democratic legislature address the problem with assault weapons bans while making it harder for cops to do their jobs on the street. I can go on all night with examples.
Marv. Two things. This iteration of the left is insane. A new batch of normal ones will return once people have had enough. Second. You’re the board’s general. You never get triggered. Don’t start now. We count on you
See you are just here to yell "yay my team, your team sucks". Stop acting like you give a damn beyond that.
I've worked for companies that made everyone sign them but then only enforced when it was a big sales earner or key player. total crap. I also remember them asking the front line folks to not discuss their compensation rates with each other.
you can't leave and work in this industry and you can't know what you earn compared to similarly skilled colleagues. total scam.
"Not sure why the fed is getting involved".
??.
As you most likely understand, the Leviathan must control everything.
All my employees had to sign NDAs and non-competes, good for a year and/or 50 mile radius. Didn’t want sales people sharing pricing and tactics. Certainly didn’t want operations taking customer lists.
Never had anyone turn down an offer due to the policy. Enforced the policy twice.
All my competitors had similar if not identical policies.
Exactly. Our customers are nationwide and easy to steal. Our nda is good for a year nationwide. I’m sure the latter isn’t enforceable. Whatever. We also provide materials and use ndas and receive ndas for their applications
Just stop. I actually voted for both Colorado democrats in the senate. I’ve said that. You seem obsessed with me, not with what I say. This thread is a perfect time and place to discuss policy.
The democrats are clueless about this. I’ve posted sound reasons for non-competes and you respond with snark about chattels and take shots at me.
I think you posted about how destructive the transfer portal is in colleges sports. Eliminating non competes are the same as a transfer portal. Why should an employer invest time in developing good employees when the employer can raid a competitor instead?
Last edited:
A problem with them is if you get a dickhead for a boss or have some personal shit where you don’t mesh or hell get fired then the EE is fkd
some companies cultivate, others prefer hiring proven achievers. both have their place.
I think the problem with this discussion is that many assume a non-compete is demanded for every employee and there are no restrictions. I don’t look at them that way. I’ve always negotiated and advised about them to be limited to certain kinds of employees and limit the application by geography and time. I think those are reasonable and useful. The meat-ax blanket prohibition the Democrats have implemented is just dumb. There is no reasonableness in that.
If all employers implemented them as you described there wouldn't be an issue. Too many have abused them.
The democrats on the FTC had an opportunity to implement reasonable restrictions. They chose unreasonableness instead.
Signing and enforcing are a different story, but I agree. No court would ever rule in favor of the employer for a middle management and lower employee.
Mark’s main argument is that business, who is better capitalized and advised (lawyers) puts out blanket non-competes which ordinary workers aren’t in a position to evaluate or negotiate. So they end up signing something and feeling like they cannot move, even though they can.
What is your objection to the exceptions put in place under this law? They are still allowed for senior levels of management and any sales process.
I agree these things have their place. But to an extent they remind me of cease and desist orders. A buddy has his own business selling material from businesses. For example, they give me a retirement pin, I sell it to him or he buys it at an estate and resells it to collectors. One company, a major one, sends him a cease and desist. His lawyer tells him if he fights it he will almost certainly win, he has legally obtained such product. But it might cost him $30,000. It is far easier, and cheaper, to just not sell that product. Corporations have a HUGE advantage when it comes to legal fees.
People who shouldn't possibly have non compete can use them, even if not valid, to scare people into compliance.
I’ll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don’t count.
(Hint-the answer rhymes with “hems”)
first of all. The exceptions are industry specific. That makes no sense, it smells like deep-state K street lobbying instead of reasonable policy.
There is no allowance for time and place restrictions. Those are IMO the most important and most sensible.. If a shop owner is going to take the time and effort train say, a rookie hair dresser, why allow that trainee to leave and compete with a shop next door? Why is it unreasonable to say a 5 mile distance, or within the limits of a small town, for the noncompete? You can also limit the time, such as for a couple of years. I think it is important to protect the ability for small business owners to take the time and effort to develop employee skills This is just more ways government makes being an entrepreneur difficult.
Thank you. It's not like it's always the employee trying to get over on the poor, abused employer. You find out the outfit is a shithole and you can't go elsewhere in the same line of work?
For hair dressers, you have to go to cosmetology school for like 1500 hrs (at least in Indiana) and renew a license every so often, so I'm not sure other then training for like how to use a register and such an owner would be training said hairdresser.
You can't just hire someone off the street without a license and have them start cutting hair.
Where are you seeing that? Aren't the rules universally applied with the only exceptions to Franchisee-Franchisor or and Non-Profits?
It's a reasonable argument IMO, and to your point, that is one of the most frequent complaints we hear from companies on the labor side. They invest a ton of time and money, but labor is more fleeting than it has ever been.
That being said, I would simply say - that is on companies to: 1) vet the applicant and their intentions/motivations during the hiring process, 2) provide a market competitive wage and benefits and 3) provide a better culture than others (2 and 3 are in no particular order and overlap).
In your example, it sucks for small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, as they are leaner and cannot afford to invest that time and energy while losing individuals. But, that's part of being in a free market. Free markets shouldn't apply to certain principles, but not others.
Most importantly, the enforceability of such a non-compete for a hairdresser was never realistic to begin with. If there was no extraordinary benefit or compensation received by the hairdresser, there was no way a court was going to enforce it.
You get the Glen Gary leads? Those are supposed to be choice.
Courts enforce them all the time jdb re hairdressers. Clauses not to contact former customers etc
