Your Non-Compete Was Just Voided

[ChpBstrd]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ftc-noncompete-agreement-ban/

TL;DR - FTC regulates non compete agreements out of existence except for existing agreements with executives. Chamber of Commerce plans to sue. Proponents of the ban expect higher wages, more options for workers, and more entrepreneurship.

[Taran Wanderer]

Non-compete for executives make sense.

Non-competes for mid to high level managers could make sense for the worker with the right incentives.

Non-competes for fast food workers are complete nonsense.  https://www.app.com/story/money/business/main-street/2018/07/09/nj-takes-aim-fast-food-restaurants-over-non-competes/768205002/  It’s bunk like this that led to the FTC decision, and the businesses who did it deserve to be taken to the cleaners.

[LennStar]

I hope that holds. Non-competition clauses always felt soo stupid outside a small amount of positions, mostly in oligopols. If you worked in chip design for AMD it's understandable that AMD does not wont you to do chip design at Intel next week. Here I can understand a year non-comp for the chip design, but for e.g. carpentry?

What is the reason to be able to say to worker X "if I kick you out of my carpentry workshop, you can't build one yourself for 3 years"?

[reeshau]

I think non-competes got to a point to ward off poaching by competitors; as a warning to them as the audience, rather than the employee at all.

Of course, there is significant collateral damage for an employee, facing no negotiation, and not having resources to counter it, to have to sign up as a condition of employment.

I understand the urge, but good riddance.

[Much Fishing to Do]

It is fascinating that it bans new non-competes for everyone, including top execs/earners.  Hard for me to decide if that is gonna change much or not.

[LaineyAZ]

Honestly not surprised, this just makes me dislike the Chamber of Commerce even more. 

Locally they seem like a benign bunch of folks who sponsor kids charities, etc. but at a national level they are ruthless in pursuing legal action against anything that may impact their profit-making even at the expense of progress and the common good.  They are the largest lobbying group in the U.S. and always seem, in my mind, to be on the wrong end of things.

[Psychstache]

Honestly not surprised, this just makes me dislike the Chamber of Commerce even more. 

Locally they seem like a benign bunch of folks who sponsor kids charities, etc. but at a national level they are ruthless in pursuing legal action against anything that may impact their profit-making even at the expense of progress and the common good.  They are the largest lobbying group in the U.S. and always seem, in my mind, to be on the wrong end of things.

Hopefully the courts will make it a three-peat of losses to crappy national lobbying groups (the other two recent ones in my mind being the NCAA and the NAR).

[Sibley]

Rather than a flat ban the rule should be "no non-competes unless the company pays full salary and benefits for the duration of the non-compete, no restrictions on location or unrelated earnings".

Companies get their precious non-competes, employees get paid for the hassle.

[GuitarStv]

Rather than a flat ban the rule should be "no non-competes unless the company pays full salary and benefits for the duration of the non-compete, no restrictions on location or unrelated earnings".

Companies get their precious non-competes, employees get paid for the hassle.

I like this approach.  Everyone wins and it discourages bad acting.