41–50 of 120 posts
Quite a tough lesson to learn that Arkansas hillbillies make shitty leaders.
In the instance this change doesn't go through it is important to be aware that non-competes don't survive hardship tests. There is an extreme burden on the employer to prove that there are appropriate jobs available to the former employee that wouldn't violate the non-compete or (and this is much more common for "serious" non-competes in the modern world) provide partial compensation to the employee for the term of…
This may be true in theory, but more often that not for the most vulnerable people it's not true in practice. The problem is that people have to be both aware that they can challenge a noncompete and willing to do so. That is, at a minimum, very time consuming, and if you're working a low-wage job, you probably aren't going to be practically able to fight a noncompete. If you get a new job and your old employer sends a threatening legal letter to your new employer, they're probably just going to fire you rather than help you fight it.
If the system put the burden on the employer to prove that a noncompete was valid before making any attempts to enforce it, the current system might work well. Unfortunately, the reality is that even totally unenforceable noncompetes are still effective most of the time - that's one reason you still see them put into contracts in places where they have no chance of surviving a legal challenge.
When I first tried to transition into tech, I had a really hard time getting someone to hire me. I had a lot of potential, but no one wanted to take a risk on someone without experience. I still needed some training, and no one wanted to train me, just to see me leave in a few years. That seems to be an argument for keeping non-compete clauses--allow firms to hire people on the condition that they'll stay a few years…
That was an argument that the labor buyers you were negotiating with were perceiving an excess supply of labor that they wanted relative to demand at that time.
Your solution would have been to try to sell to other labor buyers or change the type of labor you were selling to something that was in sufficient demand such that buyers would not have a choice other than to train you, and treat you well enough such that you are incentivized to stick around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non competes have a direct impact on interstate commerce so the Federal government has a clear mandate from the constitution. Non competes are rarely enforceable as written, so the FTC has a clear mandate from both the unfair and deceptive standpoint.
Obviously the Federal government is constitutionally authorized to regulate non-competes. That's not my argument at all. And the FTC is not banning unenforceable non-competes, the proposed rule bans all non-competes. Regardless of which non-competes they choose to ban, however, the fact remains that this is the first time that the FTC is attempting to use Section 5 in this manner. It is very unclear that they have th…
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…
I also think "they never did it before" is not a very good reason to not do it now. Especially as this is a growing problem. In 2018 research found, "noncompetes cover 18 percent of all U.S. workers and have covered 38 percent at some point in time."
Had the FTC banned them earlier, like in 1914 when the FTC Act was written, surely somebody at the time would have squawked that it was not a problem and how this was just another example of needless government regulation. If the right time to solve a problem is neither when it's small nor when it's grown large, it almost sounds like some people don't want the problem solved at all.
In the instance this change doesn't go through it is important to be aware that non-competes don't survive hardship tests. There is an extreme burden on the employer to prove that there are appropriate jobs available to the former employee that wouldn't violate the non-compete or (and this is much more common for "serious" non-competes in the modern world) provide partial compensation to the employee for the term of…
> In the instance this change doesn't go through it is important to be aware that non-competes don't survive hardship tests. This may be true in theory, but more often that not for the most vulnerable people it's not true in practice. The problem is that people have to be both aware that they can challenge a noncompete and willing to do so. That is, at a minimum, very time consuming, and if you're working a low-wage…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer that those things would be mentioned _in the article_. As it stands, I came away from the article not having been enlightened on any of the topics you just linked.
Did the links I provide help with context? I am attempting to be helpful.
I realize that there are many times when non-compete clauses are examples of big companies punching down at low-level workers, but I've also watched them work out well for the low-level workers too. At least two of my friends have been good enough to be poached by competitors who were willing to pay them to take a 4-8 month vacation until the non-compete ran out. They loved the long vacation. All things being equal,…
Also, your experience here is perhaps limited. Non-compete clauses are being given to janitors and sandwich-makers. E.g.: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/when-the-guy-makin...
When I first tried to transition into tech, I had a really hard time getting someone to hire me. I had a lot of potential, but no one wanted to take a risk on someone without experience. I still needed some training, and no one wanted to train me, just to see me leave in a few years. That seems to be an argument for keeping non-compete clauses--allow firms to hire people on the condition that they'll stay a few years…
What companies probably can do in general (not an employment lawyer) is have a contract requiring the repayment of outside training if you leave on your own volition before some period of time--which seems reasonable.
In my experience, I've only used them when acquiring a business. I always like that there is a 3-5 year non-compete so the previous owner doesn't just setup shop again immediately after selling their business to me.