www.cbsnews.com
I didn't know they had the authority to do that, especially when employees sign the agreements voluntarily.Wow....about time.
FTC bans noncompete agreements, making it easier for workers to quit. Here's what to know.
Regulators prohibit new noncompetes, which impede millions of U.S. workers from getting a better job.
I’ve been told it is caused at $150k per year. In other words high earners may still be subject to NCs. Of course, they hire attorneys to beat them
It will be challenged. Don't think they have the authority, but who knows these days.
I’ve fought three of them and nothing happened after they sent me the initial letter. I sent a letter back saying I’d counter sue them but I’d thank them for allowing me to retire early.
It must be hard being so intelligent and sure of yourself at times like these. Plenty of people smarter than you and me that don't think the FTC/ Fed Gov has this power.
www.bloomberg.com
Couple of thoughts. The non-competes are fundamentally unfair for a vast majority of workers. I've seen hair stylists with such agreements. They just stifle innovation, competition and bargaining for better wages.I believe that non-competes are unfair when the employee is faced with right-to-work laws. With these in place, an employee takes a job for a week and can be fired with no ability to make a living somewhere else. This is even true if they were experienced and brought that skill set with them. This is the way I attacked these clauses: I already had the experience and the company is covered by intellectual property rights. For example, I can't share internal documents or lists. But the company can fire me, after taking my IP, and bar me from working in the industry. Screw that.
But this will be challenged.
Chamber of Commerce Sues to Block FTC’s Non-Compete Ban
Business groups led by the US Chamber of Commerce sued the Federal Trade Commission Wednesday seeking to block a rule finalized this week that would outlaw non-compete provisions that prohibit workers from switching jobs within an industry.
Agreed. I feel like these are just "headwinds" that companies put in place to make it difficult to leave. But if you have any real experience, you know they are just BS and bluster. I know a guy that spent $5k on lawyers. I've had this issue three times and all three times I, politely as I could, told them to go screw themselves. I also threaten them back. I've found the best defense is a good offense in business. Of course, you have to use the polite "code words" and not be overly angry.
I believe that non-competes are unfair when the employee is faced with right-to-work laws. With these in place, an employee takes a job for a week and can be fired with no ability to make a living somewhere else. This is even true if they were experienced and brought that skill set with them. This is the way I attacked these clauses: I already had the experience and the company is covered by intellectual property rights. For example, I can't share internal documents or lists. But the company can fire me, after taking my IP, and bar me from working in the industry. Screw that.
But this will be challenged.
Chamber of Commerce Sues to Block FTC’s Non-Compete Ban
Business groups led by the US Chamber of Commerce sued the Federal Trade Commission Wednesday seeking to block a rule finalized this week that would outlaw non-compete provisions that prohibit workers from switching jobs within an industry.
spot on. non-competes have been used to scare and intimidate. When you show up they back down. But companies certainly deserve to keep their intellectual property secrets. But that is NOT a non-compete.
The federal government is completely out of control. People need to wake up before it’s too late. Saving Democracy. Yeah, right.
hehe. sometimes the federal government IS out of control but this is not one of those times. A lot of federal rules obstruct free enterprise (and usually these rules are requested by big business lobbyists trying to prevent competition, btw). But this is not that. This is, as the FTC chairman quite correctly points out, GOOD for competition and it will free up resources and create new businesses and new jobs. People forget that the best form of capitalism is a private-public partnership. The correct role for government is to create markets and keep them healthy. Just like you need police in your community to put criminals in jail, an economy needs the rule of law and needs enforcement. If government is absent or totally corrupt (i.e. Latin America) it costs you in economic growth and everybody makes less money.
totally agree. and I like the cap, to be honest. non-competes really hurt middle-class people who were intimidated and couldn't hire an attorney. People making a lot of dough could. I've never understood how businesses can have "right to work" and non-competes. Right to work meaning they can fire anyone for any reason if not covered by the protections of the constitution (race, sex, age).
