Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

natlawreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#11

Post by drpossum »

wand3r wrote: post #10

Seems to be a positive thing coming out of the Trump government, all other things being so.

To be clear: Your is stance that non-compete and stay-or-pay agreements do not interfere with employees' labor rights and that broadening their applicability is good? Because that is what happened.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#12

Post by like_any_other »

duxup wrote: post #9
like_any_other wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this action by the NLRB expands the applicability of non-competes. The policy that they rescinded held that (some) non-competes violate employee rights.

That's my understanding too, this isn't some wholesale / anything goes "non-compete bonanza". It does however tell you what direction the administration would like this to go.

Ah, I overlooked the "my state" in your original post.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#13

Post by lotsofpulp »

duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

Which state?

I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#14

Post by wand3r »

drpossum wrote: post #11
wand3r wrote: post #10

Seems to be a positive thing coming out of the Trump government, all other things being so.

To be clear: Your is stance that non-compete and stay-or-pay agreements do not interfere with employees' labor rights and that broadening their applicability is good ? Because that is what happened.

Ah, I fell prey to the double negative and reread the article. I'll leave my comment for histories sake.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#15

Post by angry_moose »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

Which state? I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.

Minnesota did as of 2023. Might be others

https://www.mmmlaw.com/news-resources/minnesota-becomes-yet-...

North Dakota and Oklahoma as well, according to this map:

https://eig.org/state-noncompete-map/

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#16

Post by andrewstuart2 »

janice1999 wrote: post #4
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

But think of the "employer community". How can they punish employees for leaving now?

If companies are implementing unfair policies like non-competes then the invisible hand of the free market will cause employees to leave those companies or never join them! I mean it's really not very likely that the 2-3 CEOs we currently have for each industry now could possibly find time to meet in a room together in order to pad their pockets with billions more and help squash further competition.

/s

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#17

Post by duxup »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

Which state? I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.

In my case Minnesota.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#18

Post by terminalbraid »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

Which state? I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.

Illinois has restrictions as well for employees https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3737&C...

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#19

Post by CrimsonRain »

drpossum wrote: post #11
wand3r wrote: post #10

Seems to be a positive thing coming out of the Trump government, all other things being so.

To be clear: Your is stance that non-compete and stay-or-pay agreements do not interfere with employees' labor rights and that broadening their applicability is good ? Because that is what happened.

Do you have to sign noncompete before joining the job or after?

If before, why not find another job? Is anyone forcing you to accept a job with noncompete?

If after, they should be banned.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#20

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

duxup wrote: post #6
caesil wrote: post #3

Does this matter? Corporations are on notice that this pendulum may swing the other way in four years (and remains permanently stuck the other way in certain states). They might just decide to steer clear of this minefield.

I don't think it's a minefield. Ignoring all the other details, if someone waves the magic wand and makes it legal you can use it, when someone waves the magic wand and it's not legal, then the agreement is just void at that point. There's no retroactive consequences.

TFA notes that it may not have been declared legal. Rescinding a memo doesn't reverse existing case law; the meaning of said case law is subject to some disagreements (that the memo sought to clarify/remove).
Post reply on HN