Live data from Hacker News

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

ftc.gov

71–80 of 189 posts

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#71
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold. Source?

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/ls223.2.pd... Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you: - Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

Yikes. I could understand it if the limit was like $250k per year, but $900 per week is nuts.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#72
post #66
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then if you want to avoid the non-compete you would just get fired on purpose. Classic unintended consequence of regulation. But I do agree that non-competes should be illegal or somehow highly disincentivized.

Regardless of the specifics of any regulation, the burden should be on the company and should err on the side of the employee’s benefit. It’s never fair to pit an individuals livelihood against a corporation.

Can a salesman leave and take all his clients with him, even if there were given to him by the company?

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#73
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the specifics of any regulation, the burden should be on the company and should err on the side of the employee’s benefit. It’s never fair to pit an individuals livelihood against a corporation.

Can a salesman leave and take all his clients with him, even if there were given to him by the company?

Preventing a sales person from soliciting their former customers is entirely covered by a non-solicitation contract, and claiming that a non-compete agreement is needed is a total straw man.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#74

We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.

I posted on the parent as well, but I find non-competes reasonable only if they are time limited (like 6 months to a year), very narrowly tailored and affect a very small number of job openings. I think Google blocking someone from going to Bing ridiculous, but a stoping a move from being the chief of staff at Google Maps to the chief of staff at Bing maps is far more reasonable.

It’s far less reasonable.

If you are skilled in being the chief of staff at google maps, it is likely your highest market value is in that particular niche.

Restricting your employment opportunities to those where you don’t have the highest market value through the use of non-competes is absolutely unethical and needs to be banned.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#75

We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.

[deleted]

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#76

I wish federal law would just abolish non-competes completely. When I gave advanced notice to Tudor Investment that I would be quitting they threatened to fire me with cause so that they could still enforce the non-compete without paying me in accordance with NY state law. And they followed through with their threat, sending me a letter telling me I was being terminated with cause the day I officially quit. To make t…

[deleted]

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#77

[flagged]

Almost everything out of the initiative system (arguably, the design of the system); high state spending for mediocre outcomes; "big" (state) government in general. NIMBY housing policy in every major metro. Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#78
post #55

About 20 years ago I joined a large company in California, where non-compete clauses are essentially disallowed. A few years later, I moved to the company's offices in Washington State, where non-competes are allowed. Before the move I emailed HR and asked if I needed to sign the WA state employment agreement (with that non-compete clause) and they said "no". I saved that email. Forward a decade, I resigned to work f…

I worked remotely for a multi-state employer in the past. If I was a California employee on my last day, no non-compete. If I was a Washington employee, 1-2 year non-compete. I considered traveling to California to switch job locations and resign.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#79
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/ls223.2.pd... Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you: - Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

Wow that is some BS

It's similar in Washington. If you make less than $116k, no non-competes. Otherwise, get fucked.

https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/non-com...

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#80
post #78
post #55

About 20 years ago I joined a large company in California, where non-compete clauses are essentially disallowed. A few years later, I moved to the company's offices in Washington State, where non-competes are allowed. Before the move I emailed HR and asked if I needed to sign the WA state employment agreement (with that non-compete clause) and they said "no". I saved that email. Forward a decade, I resigned to work f…

I worked remotely for a multi-state employer in the past. If I was a California employee on my last day, no non-compete. If I was a Washington employee, 1-2 year non-compete. I considered traveling to California to switch job locations and resign.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN