Live data from Hacker News

The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

economist.com

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#103
Here's how non-competes could work that would be perfectly fair to employees: When you get a new job offer, you tell your old employer about it. Your old employer then has two choices: either let you take the new job, or pay you a salary and other benefits equal to what the new job would have paid, for the duration of the noncompete, except without you having to do any work. Then companies would only require noncompetes when it's actually really important.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#104

Outside of trade secret level engineering, pharma and biotech, I've never seen a non-compete enforced because the employer was actually worried about real competitive advantage. I have seen plenty where some Junior Vice President got angry at someone for quitting, and decided to sue to make that person's life hell. I've made several hires (sales, marketing, engineering, even executive) where the JRVP calls and tries…

> I've never seen a non-compete enforced

I have. Tiny company had a coder go off to another company in another state that they were approximately in competition with. They sued. Don't know the outcome, but I know it when to court.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why they don't have that authority? Do you think Congress can't delegate its power through a statute? Or do you think that it hasn't done so in this speciifc (Section 5) instance?

The latter. Courts are skeptical of agencies "discovering" new powers decades later that are based on vague sections of their enabling statutes. Congress could of course directly ban non-competes or amend the FTC Act to give the agency this power.

[deleted]

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh, this seems like a hard deal to really get right, to the extent that it is sort of “fair” to the employee, the company could just offer that deal if they wanted. Which is to say, nothing prevents a company from offering that deal as an alternative, rather than attempting to force it through with a non-compete. But, the employee would have to consider the cost to them of basically pausing their career development…

I think they are talking about doing it in place of a non-compete, so you’re either * not working due to noncompete and not getting paid for the duration of time * not working due to noncompete and getting paid for the duration of time The point is to make noncompetes a hassle and only worth it if you’re actually trying to protect something. The status quo is pretty poor if Subway’s “sandwich artists” are getting tol…

But what’s the status quo? My perception at least is that non-competes almost never get enforced or are struck down if they do get enforced, usually, outside of really specific situations. I guess my assumption is that the companies don’t offer the latter because they don’t actually care very much about individual engineers going to do similar jobs at the competition, and they just try to get their employees to sign as many contracts as possible because… “why not?” I guess.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#107
The main threads:

U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34260577 - Jan 2023 (494 comments)

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183 - Jan 2023 (176 comments)

Also related:

FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34287441 - Jan 2023 (22 comments)

FTC Proposes Banning Noncompete Clauses for Workers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34260696 - Jan 2023 (9 comments)

Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33425934 - Nov 2022 (216 comments)

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#108
post #56
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you highlight how allowing non-competes with garden leave is a mixed bag. If someone's fine with taking a year or two off while getting some fraction of the total compensation they were getting previously, I suppose it can look like a good deal. But that would be pretty unsatisfactory for a lot of people mid-career with kids in college.

IIUC we're generally talking about full base salary in the case of financial-industry "garden leave", though obviously missing out on the possibility of bonus payments could really sting for many in that business. And obviously being "out of the game" for a significant amount of time can hurt, especially if you're in an area where things are changing quickly.

From the offers I was getting back in the day, finance runs on low base salary and huge bonuses. Bonuses of 200% of the base salary are not unheard of. Full base salary can still mean quite a bit of pain.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#110

Banning (most) non-competes is likely good policy, particularly agreements that do not provide for payment during the period of enforcement. But you also have to ask whether the FTC is the right part of government to make this decision. The States have 50 different approaches written into their laws on how to deal with non-competes. Some ban them entirely, while others curtail their scope or shift the burden to emplo…

You're right: It is easier to effectively nullify this sort of thing in state legislatures.

One might conclude from this that there's a reason the Federal government can set minimum standards effective across the country.

Post reply on HN