FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#2Apparently the case that really ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...
Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour (possibly under $15/hour), being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for such workers.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#3Apparently the case that really ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3... Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour (possibly under $15/hour) , being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for s…
Surely these were never enforceable, but I guess people don't know better. Reducing the asymmetry of knowledge is also key here.
To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context. Abusive non-competes should be banned, whether in the state's or elsewhere.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#4Hopefully non-solicitation agreements are next.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#5Apparently the case that really ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3... Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour (possibly under $15/hour) , being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for s…
Surely these were never enforceable, but I guess people don't know better. Reducing the asymmetry of knowledge is also key here. To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context. Abusive non-competes should be banned, whether in the state's or elsewhere.
>To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context.
You think someone making $15/hour isn’t any more likely to be swayed to do what a company says, compared to someone making 6-digits a year, when being threatened by a $100,000 fine? Do you actually believe that?
This has happened with take out chefs. Dog walkers making minimum wage. People who might be living close to the margin (or at least not in great circumstances) — who need even the crappy jobs they have, and cannot afford missing work for court, never mind the cost of representation if they can’t get it for free - nor the terrifying reality they’re being conducted into thinking will occur if they don’t play ball.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#6Apparently the case that really ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3... Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour (possibly under $15/hour) , being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for s…
Surely these were never enforceable, but I guess people don't know better. Reducing the asymmetry of knowledge is also key here. To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context. Abusive non-competes should be banned, whether in the state's or elsewhere.
At least within the US it’s always been my understanding that enforceability of non-competes is dependent upon state law.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#7Noncompetes should be illegal but it's a bit absurd to claim the FTC suddenly discovered they have the authority to unilaterally and retroactively modify contractual terms for tens of millions of contractors and workers - especially deciding whether it is "unfair competition" depends on whether the particular labor market segment votes reliably Democrat or not.
Under this reading of their authority they equally have the power to impose noncompetes on workers - it's all readable as "unfair competition", right?
Given the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on the major questions doctrine I'm skeptical this holds up in court.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely these were never enforceable, but I guess people don't know better. Reducing the asymmetry of knowledge is also key here. To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context. Abusive non-competes should be banned, whether in the state's or elsewhere.
>To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context. You think someone making $15/hour isn’t any more likely to be swayed to do what a company says, compared to someone making 6-digits a year, when being threatened by a $100,000 fine? Do you actually believe that? This has happened with take out chefs. Dog walkers making minimum wage. People who might be living close to the margin (or at least not in great circumstances)…
[deleted]
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#9Apparently the case that really ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3... Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour (possibly under $15/hour) , being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for s…
Jimmy John's used to make the teens that made your sandwiches sign non-competes. It stopped after this became public causing horrible publicity and lawsuits from the New York and Illinois attorney generals.
Re: FTC intends to ban noncompete clauses that bind 30M US workers
#10Apparently the case that really ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3... Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour (possibly under $15/hour) , being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for s…
Surely these were never enforceable, but I guess people don't know better. Reducing the asymmetry of knowledge is also key here. To be fair, pay is irrelevant in this context. Abusive non-competes should be banned, whether in the state's or elsewhere.
People certainly don't "know better" when their only form of legal knowledge is finally scrutinizing the papers they allegedly agreed to. Most people don't even know the clerical machinery of looking up authoritative contacts for Corporations/LLCs in their state's databases, never mind having enough understanding of prevailing law to know something written on an official sounding paper is blatantly false. Knowingly drafting a contract with blatantly illegal causes should be prosecuted as giving improper legal advice.