111–120 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlikely they are in a policy making position.
You're missing the subtle sarcasm here. OP is implying that companies will deem engineers making $150k+ as making policy decisions in order to continue enforcing the existing non-competes they have most likely signed.
I suspect this is bad for California, its lack of noncompetes was a huge differentiation for a while. (how bad? I don't know.)
I'd guess it will have the opposite effect as companies have one less big reason to avoid CA.
I am 100% for this, but it makes me sad that the legislative branch has nearly completely abandoned its duty to pass laws in favor of granting the executive branch the authority to regulate just about everything. This is a problem for two main reasons: 1. The executive branch can unilaterally revoke these regulations, making them more volatile. Maybe my non-compete is invalid today, but will it be in 4 years when I a…
> The executive branch can unilaterally revoke these regulations The US Constitution + amendments delineates the powers of the branches. Is the situation you describe possibly a window in time when executive branch constitutional overreach has not been yet challenged? [ edit : great explanations below -> sincere thanks ]
Some have argued that it's unconstitutional for congress to give away its power (even conditionally) in this way, but AFAIK that's a rather fringe legal theory. Certainly the FTC has existed for over 100 years at this point, so there's been plenty of time to challenge it.
Full text of the ruling here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule... It's not surprising after thinking about it for a minute, but it did startle me to read that the FTC measures innovation by the number of patents issued. > In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 year…
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2021/june/how-to-measu....
Does this change a lot for many people? This doesn't mean you can scurry off a just build a competing product/service to your existing employer. You probably also have NDA and/or IP agreements too. > The Commission found that employers have several alternatives to noncompetes that still enable firms to protect their investments without having to enforce a noncompete. > Trade secret laws and non-disclosure agreements…
> The Commission also finds that instead of using noncompetes to lock in workers, employers that wish to retain employees can compete on the merits for the worker’s labor services by improving wages and working conditions. I absolutely love this.
Hogwash! I demand a free market for my business, but a closed market for my assets.
If I have an existing non compete — what does this mean for me ? Is it invalid?
Going off of the press release, it doesn't go into effect until 120 days after publication and doesn't apply to current senior executives which are defined as "workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions." I would also imagine that it will immediately be challenged in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. It does sound like this clearly falls under interstate commerce, so within the scope of Fed action. Is there something that makes you think otherwise? Beyond court composition, that is.
That this is coming from the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total aside, but I think it is ridiculous that CoC larps as a quasi governmental organization. When in actuality it is a Union of Capitalists.
I don’t get that appearance. Their website does not end in .gov and their about page does not indicate they are an official agency: https://www.uschamber.com/about
Clicking through to the website and seeing the kind of articles on there makes it pretty obvious that's not the case though, even ignoring the .com domain.