US Chamber of Commerce to sue FTC for banning noncompetes in most jobs The US Chamber of Commerce is saying it will sue the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for officially banning noncompete clauses in employment contracts across America. A noncompete agreement typically blocks the employee who signed it from going to work for a rival or starting up a competing business of their own. The Chamber …
And this is why they've fought so hard to have a Republican majority at the FTC.
This will definitely go all the way to the Supreme Court which has 6 out of 9 justices aligned with the Republicans and against the common people
Sadly I'll have to agree with everything you said. Somehow corporatists have the nerve to claim that this is 'good' for employees, the fact that you can't get a job in your own field if you actually have the NERVE to leave your current owner employer.
You know what the problem is? It isn't that the corporatists have the nerve, it's that 38% of the stupid, inbred, dumb-as-rocks electorate will be behind them lock, stock and barrel, saying "Thank you sir! May I have another!".
Strange this is only happening now, in the leadup to an election. Could it be that brief time to temporarily turn away from fundraising and concentrate on "messaging"?
"38% of the stupid, inbred, dumb-as-rocks electorate" - Gallup Poll 2024 Mar 1-20 -- Party registration: (R)30, (Ind)41, (D)28 -- Leaning: (R)44, (D)45. Compare to 2008 Feb, when registered Dems were 40% of the electorate. One thing that has changed since then is an increasing level of ugly self righteous toxicity and tribalism in US politics - and with it a rising number of independents who are turned off by it. And I'm sorry to say, IMO your comment is an example of that down hill slide.
How is the Hospital Price Transparency Act of 2021 going? [healthcaredive dot com 2024] "Hospital price transparency compliance dips: Lenient regulatory enforcement has led hospitals to disregard price transparency requirements, according to watchdog group Patient Rights Advocate. ... Only 34.5% of 2,000 hospitals reviewed by the nonprofit watchdog organization were deemed fully compliant ... None of the hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare, Tenet Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Providence, Mercy and UPMC and reviewed by the nonprofit were found to be fully compliant". And that is law passed by Congress, which should have far more legal weight than an FTC rule.
Pre election messaging is not enough. Sincere, full time followup is also required - blaming the lack of it is the first necessary step.
"And I'm sorry to say, IMO your comment is an example of that down hill slide."
I'm sorry, I'm making no apologies.
For 40+ years that ~38% of the population has been voting for the pro neo-liberal economic agenda, pro-business and pro-supply-side economics.
And yet, according to analysis, since 1979 (read: since Reagan) the actual take-home wage of the average worker has gone up... $0.12, factoring in inflation. That's 12 CENTS.
So after FORTY YEARS we have demonstrable proof that the pro-liberal business agenda does. not. work for Joe Average worker.
But what does the ~38% do? Vote for the same thing, year after year. Because, like the interview in Idocracy showed, they keep voting the same expecting a potentially different outcome. As Einstein wrote:
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
After 4 DECADES you would think that anyone with a functioning brain would question why their, or their neighbor's, general lot in life hasn't improved in decades, instead of looking at your TV and listening to them blame everyone else in a culture war that distracts the plebs from what is *really* happening by the wealthy that fleece you.
It will probably be appealed to SCOTUS, but I wouldn't be surprised if they reject it under their favorite "no standing" excuse. The US CoC itself is not harmed by a ban on noncompete, and SCOTUS has other fish to fry.
There are some legitimate business reasons. If you are hiring a consultant or a contractor and paying $$$$ where $$ goes to the employee and $$ goes to the provider you might offer the employee $$$ to switch to contracting for you directly.
It would be impossible to operate a consultant business other than as a one man band
Sigh.
You don't need to restrict the *employee* to fix that.
Any good consulting contract has a poaching fee to keep companies from doing just that, or even an outright ban on the customer stealing the employee. Its pretty standard contract language. You don't need to restrict a person's right to make a living to achieve that goal.
My current employer tried to sneak a three year non-compete clause into my current contract when they sent me a new one to sign without mentioning that there were any differences from my current one except a new working location.
Thankfully, I read every word of anything that I'm expected to put my signature on. When questioned, the HR department tried to fob me off with a "it's a standard clause" lie. When I then pointed out to them that their suggestion was completely one sided and didn't follow accepted practice by including a 'paid gardening leave' clause to balance the restriction and that I would not, under any circumstances, sign the new contract as it currently stood, they eventually backed down.
What really gets my goat is that they actually tried to put one over on me. It still makes me angry to think about a major company trying to screw me like that.
Moral: Never trust your HR department! They are not ever acting in your best interests, they are a representative of the company and are only loyal to the company.
Second moral: If you sign something without reading and understanding every word, more fool you.
(posted as anonymous coward for obvious reasons)
Always need to read the contract and always ask for things you are not comfortable with to be removed.
HR will be huffing and puffing, but that's the job they have to take advantage of the employees, but if you press hard enough they will always back down.
I never had a case where such clauses wouldn't be removed, but you need to be ready to walk away. It is also a good opportunity for getting a raise.
Since they are so worried you may end up with the competition, it's good to tell them you need % bump so you won't even think about it wink wink.
Pay bump is like a non-compete, just with a happy employee.
Be VERY suspicious if your company suddenly asks you to sign a revised non-compete (I also suggest checking with colleagues if they have received the same request and same document)... it may well be a sign that your future at the company is about to reach an unplanned ending.
"it may well be a sign that your future at the company is about to reach an unplanned ending."
I'd say it's more like they know they have you at the bottom end of the salary scale and if you found out, you'd leave for greener pastures. Since that would impact those executive's bonuses, they want you locked in as much as possible so you can't do that.
In grad school we learned that your the odds of an employer winning in court for the non compete are slim to non, you can not deny person the right to work. But for years I told my employer to tell my engineers to sign a non compete as it is a mind trick, if they think they have a non compete it will make them think twice. Predatory business practice and stealing a former employers account list and customers is another situation. When you leave know you can not take significant business with you in a region, but telling me I can't work across the US is not defensible in court, you can not negate my relationships at major customers like ATT or Disney.
> I told my employer to tell my engineers to sign a non compete as it is a mind trick
I think it is little more than that.
In my usage it has been more to provide leverage when someone leaves unexpectedly and either immediately reappears as an employee of the company we had assigned them to or they have turned up at competitors and are now trying to get our customers to use them rather than us.
Obviously, the consultant client contract includes the no poach without permission clause. My main motivation is to make things visible, employee wants to work for client, the reason may be because client is 10 minutes from their home and they want to spend more time with their family and more predictable hours, in this case a negotiated in the open exit tends to results in everyone winning - we waive the poaching fee for the client taking an additional consultant, employee given option to rejoin in a few years (these employees tend to rejoin at a higher grade having gained experience) etc.
Those who leave quietly and suspiciously reappear, tend to get more closely investigated and may get reminded of their contract…
The other reason to go careful with clients, we’ve often recruited their senior staff…
"three unelected commissioners have unilaterally decided they have the authority to declare what's a legitimate business decision and what's not" -- Not unilaterally. This is the exact authority they were given when they were put into their positions. And they were put into their positions by elected officials, supposedly choosing commissioners who will do what is good for the country and its citizens. And given the ratio of "yes" to "no" comments, I think this is what citizens want. If the rich business owners couldn't flood the commentary with enough shills to even make it look evenly-divided, it's pretty clear.
When the "unelected commissioners" on the FTC or FCC and other agencies are Republicans and do what's good for business owners but bad for everybody else, they get cheered by business owners who don't mention that they were appointed by Republican Presidents. When they're Democrats and do something that takes away a tiny fraction of profits or control from employers or businesses, the words "unelected" and "liberals" get tossed about immediately as if it's a bad thing and negates their authority.
Conservatives always love to trot out lines like that when government officials do things that they don't like. Of course they forget that they're confirmed by either the House or Senate, which is made up of elected officials, so it's not like they were just plucked from some liberal think tank and parachuted into the role on Biden's whim, they had to go through the confirmation process.
As with almost everything with the political right (in the US at least) every accusation is actually a confession. The people who bemoan precious little snowflakes are themselves the precious little snowflakes who melt when the world doesn't conform to their very narrow view of what is acceptable.
Case in point. Been playing a game recently and, for whatever reason, the developers decided to go to the trouble of giving characters underwear. There's a couple of people who think it's funny to go around in just their underwear all the time. I generally don't want to see that, but 1) I'm not launching some kind of moral crusade to have these people banned from the game or anything, and 2) I recognize that it's my problem.
Having an 'elected official' isn't a good thing.
They are subject to pressure. No, not the pressure from the little guy, pressure from business, donors, etc, because of the stupid way campaign finance laws are set up in the U.S.
On top of that 'elected officials' rarely have any experience or education that would make them suitable for the job. i.e. if it wasn't an elected position, that person wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting that job. Think Majorie Taylor Greene.
Appointees have their own forms of pressure, from the people that appointed them. They may not have to do public campaigning, but they do still have to "audition", and get approved and appointed, and they have to sing whatever tune is desired by the party that's in power at the time. It doesn't seem to actually make things any better in getting appointees to do their jobs versus elected officials, it just shifts where the decisions occur about who gets that job. Appointees just have to pander to a smaller constituency.
"three unelected commissioners have unilaterally decided they have the authority to declare"
Well, they do have that authority. There's no way the US Congress can oversee everything, every minute of the day and aren't qualified to do very many jobs in the first place, so they have delegate the oversight and regulation of certain things to departments for which they nominate and put in place the people that run those agencies. Most people have no idea that their elected representative has staff that do most of their work for them already and none of them are elected.
Forget the Dem/Rep labels. Either side will choose to die on a hill over something if it looks like it will be good for their re-election campaign. They've all sold out any vestige of ideology long ago and just flap around like a flag in the wind.
I think this rule was written extremely well. For probably 99% of jobs, non-competes are just punitive measures to punish anyone who thinks about looking for a job somewhere else instead of continuing to eat the shit sandwiches where you are now. It's already illegal for employees to take proprietary info to another company, so those concerns are already covered. For people who are involved in setting policy for a company, or someone where you literally created some new department at a company and are now going to do the same thing somewhere else... I can see there being a legitimate desire for a non-compete of at least a few months.
However, if companies are willing to pay gardening leave for the duration of the non-compete, I'd be willing to let them remain. We all know they won't, of course, but it seems only fair that people be compensated if you're going to prevent them from working.
Agreed, patent and copyright laws can still be used to protect IP. Attempts to prevent someone from taking their skills somewhere else is a totally different issue.
The case that Mr. Brown's idea in his head is somehow protected corporate IP is ludicrous!
If a company invests in training someone, they have every right to require them to remain with them for a limited time, say 12-18 months, otherwise re-imburse the company for the cost of training, but they have no right to force them to remain indefinitely through legal threats.
" It's already illegal for employees to take proprietary info to another company, so those concerns are already covered. For people who are involved in setting policy for a company, or someone where you literally created some new department at a company and are now going to do the same thing somewhere els........"
Not fair, I was going to say that! Sigh, I'll just have to upvote and move on to the next article.
I will say that I've been on both sides as a business owner and an employee. The only time I'd ask for a non-compete is if I bought a business from somebody so they didn't stick me with old tech to raise money so they could come out with a better widget that they could make for much less. I learned that from one of the founders of Fender Guitar, Dave Randell. A couple of attorney friends that vetted employment contracts I'd been handed gave me some good lessons in the things to watch out for. I got one changed and walked away from a few.
Expecting someone to not disclose company secrets is reasonable. But as far as I'm concerned, once I'm not being paid to work for you any more, I'm not working for you any more, and you have no say over what I do with my time. This is true wage theft, expecting control over what someone does with their time with no compensation. Good on the FTC for barring it.
"This is true wage theft, expecting control over what someone does with their time with no compensation. Good on the FTC for barring it."
It's also important to keep employers from demanding the rights to everything an employee may come up with if they never use company resources to work on them. If I've done the work asked of me, that's all the salary covers. If that work gives me some ideas, those are mine.
The UK considers it restraint of trade and the Unfair Contracts Act has put reasonable limits on it, with notice periods and compensation usually incorporated into employment contracts. The US largely doesn't have such contracts, many employers expect you to give two weeks' notice (although you're free to just walk out) but wouldn't dream of giving you two weeks' pay if they fire you on the spot.
Gardening leave is a reasonable compromise, you get paid a fair wage, your (soon to be former) employer gets a 3- or 6-month head start on anything you might subsequently do, and you get a nice holiday. Although I've heard tales of people required to turn up for their notice period, to be seated in a bare room with the minimum of furniture.
They already are illegal in California, home to several of the world's most valuable companies. Elsewhere fast food workers are under noncompete contracts. It sounds like the case of businesses needing these is limited and frequently abused. It's not like they have zero recourse if a former employee does share trade secrets etc.
I know they are not defensible in court and just a jedi mind trick, but get rid of the do not work here clause when you force someone into an exit package. AWS and Microsoft have so many companies they are invested in that when they put that in a separation contract it rules you out from a half dozen other companies in IT. Just make them stop.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
