41–50 of 530 posts
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is likely to file suit: https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments...
Edit: it was a dig to the pro-competition façade some pro-business people put forward.
> Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. Lot's of devs will be surprised to discover they are in policy making positions.
Unlikely they are in a policy making position.
This seems incredibly important. I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. I'm interested to see how this hits finance firms – I know people who were forced to take a year off between jobs (although they were compensated the whole time). Always thought that would be a pretty sweet deal.
> Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. Lot's of devs will be surprised to discover they are in policy making positions.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is likely to file suit: https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments...
> Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. Lot's of devs will be surprised to discover they are in policy making positions.
This seems incredibly important. I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. I'm interested to see how this hits finance firms – I know people who were forced to take a year off between jobs (although they were compensated the whole time). Always thought that would be a pretty sweet deal.
> 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.
My attorney friends tell me that the FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law. (My poor paraphrasing, not theirs.) I've been surprised I haven't seen this mentioned on social media or in the news. Are my friends wrong, or are people celebrating because this is just a step in the right direction even if it may not do anything yet?
This Supreme Court could be friendly to invalidating that expansive interpretation though
so, big mismatch from the executive branch / agencies with the judicial branch which could completely warp our relationship with the Federal Government and what we find familiar in our way of life
But I dont think its as simple as saying “contract law is part of state law”