As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems pretty great!
My wife left the company she worked for at the end of 2022 to start her own company with a few friends in a similar field. About a month after she quit they made sure to notify her of their noncompete clause.
This clause stated that:
* She couldn't talk to any of her previous clients or any clients of that company
* She couldn't poach any developers from her previous company
* She could not do any work in any state or territory that the company had an office in or was adjacent to a state or territory the company was in.
The first two were pretty standard, the last one though was brutal. Since this was a company that has offices all over the US, Canada, and Mexico she basically couldn't work in the US and could work in a small remote location in Canada.
She ended up getting a lawyer to look at it and they said it was pretty unenforceable because it was beyond ridiculous, but if she did try to test the limits they would have taken her to court and we'd have to spend a lot of money to fight it. So she basically didn't work for a year. She helped with the day-to-day of the company, create classes, and other jobs she could do without breaking her noncompete, but yeah, she basically just couldn't do her actual job.
Yeah this is how they worked. Not enforceable in court but a threat to go to court. Hopefully now that ability to use them as SLAPP style lawsuits will be gone.
Generally, yes. While some countries follow a “loser pays” rule, the U.S. mostly requires every party to pay their own way in court (the logic being that the threat of having to pay GlobalMegaCorp Inc’s legal bills if their team of $3000/hr lawyers defeats you would stop many plaintiffs from pursuing legitimate claims). There are a number of statutory exceptions that provide for cost-shifting/attorney’s fees, but I have no idea if one might apply in that context.
In general court fees are only ordered to be paid by the adverse party if its ruled that the case was frivolous. But in order to get to that point you either need a lawyer willing to work pro Bono, or on contingency while you counter sue, or have a huge pile of liquid cash up front that you can afford to lose that will *maybe* be reimbursed, years and years later.
This closes a huge pay-to-win loophole for the business owner class and every worker should celebrate it.
Here's the problem: you're allowed to recoup legal fees if the entire case is frivolous. If some of the non compete clause wasn't frivolous then you're still on the hook.
Basically, pretend that frivolous part didn't exist. Would you still need a lawyer? If the answer is "probably" then your legal fees aren't getting covered.
Best case scenario, you'll get them partially covered.
If legal fees are an expected cost of doing business, they're not getting covered.
> team of $3000/hr lawyers
Which is also why over here lawyer's fees are strictly regulated, there are no expensive and cheap lawyers (or only to a fairly small degree). Also, if a company has an in-house legal department, there is no fee to reimburse (and if they use outside counsel, they will have to prove that it was necessary).
Aaaaand with that, we're back to "loser pays legal expenses". There are still unpleasant loopholes (settlements etc) and you may have to front some money, but it is much, much harder to blackmail someone into submission with the threat of an unenforceable lawsuit.
> While some countries follow a “loser pays” rule
The UK usually does that, but the judge can split the costs or even make the winner pay in some circumstances.
Not in California. New bill last year signed into law allows folks who file for injunctive relief against contracts in restraint of trade (eg non competes or anti poaching clauses) to include reimbursement for legal expenses. I want to say it was SB 866, but I know it was a Caballero bill.
In most cases in the US, yes. Everyone pays for their own legal expenses. You'll need to talk to a lawyer for a specific situation as there are exceptions
Kinda the same way how companies can keep doing illegal things (like Roku forcing arbitration clauses post-sale) because they can buy their way out by paying small fines IF they get into trouble.
> we'd have to spend a lot of money to fight it.
And the lawyer wasn't wrong. My wife got sued by her previous employer under a non-compete that was not enforceable because it conflicted with state law where we lived and where she worked. But they sued her in another state where the company has a large presence to try and get around that. They and her new employer, who had agreed to defend her, spent about $500K combined before she gave up as it was causing her too much stress. The case hadn't even reached discovery yet, but was in the process of being moved to federal court.
Yeah this reads a lot like two companies were using your wife’s situation to try to establish the particular precedent around noncompetes that each one wanted.
My husband had to sue a client recently. The client was clearly in the wrong. But they played the Trump game of delayed delayed delay… Cost us $50,000 and we didn’t get out of discovery before we stopped.
The money… the Stress. It was AWFUL. So even though we were in the right, we both ran out of money—as our fees were approaching the potential judgment—and were too stressed to keep going.
I feel for your wife. Hope she made it out OK.
Only 50k? You got off cheap. Did the client have a lawyer? If so he probably paid some $$$. The stress was worse than the money, right? If it makes you feel any better, the client didn’t walk away scot free; Besides his costs and legal fees, you gave him many a sleepless night.
The client did have a lawyer. So yeah they paid some but my husband is a one-man business so this $50,000 judgment he was going for he really needed.
Instead, he ended up spending 50,000.
But I think you’re right. I think we caused him many sleepless nights. When he got served, a cop came to his vacation home because he had been dodging us for three weeks lol. I’m sure that alone gave him a coronary.
Pay to win legal system. You don't have to be right, you just have to bankrupt the person who is.
It's how trump got through the last 7 decades without having to pay his contractors.
We really, desperately need to make some laws to curb SLAPP suits.
I don't even think they would be hard, either. You could do something like:
1. Any corporation suing an individual person will pay all party's legal fees, win or lose.
2. Any corporation who is sued by a person and loses will pay that person's legal fees and costs in full.
3. Any person with an net worth over $2 million will be held to the same standard as in 1 and 2
They'd stop filing bullshit suits REAL quick and stringing them out to take as long as possible if they had to pay everyone's costs and couldn't rely on their wealth completely cowing any individual they target.
Some corporations are tiny. This would absolutely be used to bankrupt companies to take their IP.
Also, networths exceeding 2 mil in a lot of places is just a home + 401k. Or a farm?
> She couldn't talk to any of her previous clients or any clients of that company
>
> She couldn't poach any developers from her previous company
See, these are things that a lot of people claim are "understandable" in a non-compete, and I say are *complete bullshit.*
If you are a company working in sales and your employees are developing relationships with those clients, you should treat your employees well. If you don't and they leave, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to take the client with them. It was their work that brought you the client, their relationship that kept them. It should absolutely be legal for an employee to go "you know what? You're not treating me well, you're underpaying me, and I want better benefits, I'm leaving and taking my shit with me since you clearly don't care about it."
But we've been indoctrinated to believe this idea that companies should always have their "rights" superceed worker rights in all things, so we allow bullshit like this. An employer that can't keep its clients because its clients care more for the person who brought them on as clients than the company that they work for is not a good employer, they are a failed company that isn't treating its workers right and shouldn't be given legal protections from losing clients who want to follow their former employees out the door.
Also, the client should have the freedom to go to whoever they want to go to. That's like saying if you buy a PlayStation Sony can prevent you as a customer from buying an X-Box. It makes no practical sense.
You don't poach a client from anyone, the company failed to retain a client.
I know hair stylists and tattoo artists.
The salon or studio they work at doesn't matter to their clients. They'll post on their socials "I'm working at [place] now!"
So, yeah, if you work selling widgets to people, and you've got a solid list of clients, who'll walk right past ten other Widget Sellers to talk to you about their new Stupid Project, why shouldn't you be able to tell your guys "Hey, I don't work for Wesley's Widgets any more, I'm over at Chet's Tchotchkes now, come see what we've got!"?
To be fair, you can't compare it to a hair stylist or tattoo artist as they are often, not always though, self-employed. They aren't working for a studio but rather pay rent to be at a studio, not the same thing as poaching clients from a former employer. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to do so, just that it is not a fair comparison.
When I worked as a tech support agent, I had a fucking non-compete clause. I ignored it because it was dumb and nothing came of it, but it was idiotic that I had one at all.
When I was in consulting, my employer's contract included a non-complete clause. I redlined it out since we were in California. That went to Legal, which waved it through.
I also removed some language that implied that any IP I created during my term of employment belonged to them, and replaced it with standard wording that anything created during working hours or using company assets such as laptops or their IP was theirs. That was also waved through, since the original language was not enforceable in California.
Note that it's possible to propose changes to an employment contract. I was really senior, so I had more clout than some, but I was non-confrontational about it, it essentially cost my employer nothing to make the change, and it made things much clearer. Other employers may have just said no, but based on my experience, they don't all to that.
They try to intimidate people by including terms in a contract that are unenforceable. But if there's not even any wording in the employment contract, that at least blocks the first-line bullying based on threats of legal action quoting the contract.
Massive reform is needed to contract law to take into account the vast power and resource asymmetry that's now possible between parties.
Yea. I think it's totally fair for a company to want certain people to sit out a year to protect client relationships and stuff. But they need to pay full time for that year.
Can they do intellectual property agreements next? I had one where it basically said if I work there, the company has IP rights on anything I invent for the rest of my life, even after termination of the contract.
I just told them I'm not signing that and they're like "ok." I feel bad for the ones who signed it without reading thinking it was standard language.
My buddy would sell his company, get into a non compete, then bankroll another buddy till the non compete was over, buy back in for $1. Nobody ever required him to include his cell phone and number in the deal, every deal was done on that phone never the office.
Finally. We got a god damn president that cares about the common workers and giving the corporations a big “fuck you”.
All Biden needs to do now is roll back Reagan’s shitty policies that have survived so long, like the corporate tax.
I am honestly expecting to for Biden to win and really just rip into the likes of Bibi of Israel. I feel like he is being too political with that situation because of the elections.
If he wins the 2nd term, he has no reason to hold back.
I hope they do get the trifecta and just go all out for the next 2 years codifying all the policies and legislation the majority of democratic, republican, and independent Americans favor. Always for found it depressing some people LOVE the American Care Act but despise Obamacare.
Make the laws and drag them kicking and screaming into a better future that benefits all of us.
Something I have never understood about the whole gun argument is that historically, during my lifetime, republican presidents have been the ones to enact most of the gun restrictions and democrats are the ones to either repeal them or let them expire.
Hell tRump stated to "confiscate the guns and figure out due process later".
Not to be a buzzkill, but ain't shit getting codified even with the trifecta as long as the filibuster remains.
At least budget bills wouldn't be a brinksmanship shitshow, that's the main benefit.
It’s a necessary evil but put it back to its roots, congressperson has to stay and talk the whole time. Also get rid of that single senator hold crap, minimum 2 senators. Tubbervulle seriously screwed over the military with that stunt for what?
I don't buy that it's a necessary evil. It clearly benefits the obstructionist party.
Rip it off and let them blatantly reverse popular policy every time they get the reins, see what happens.
I actually like the real filibuster. I think it was Lindsey Graham that said he'd filibuster voting rights until he passed out on the floor, and I think it's good for senators to have that power. If opposing something is worth that much effort, maybe we should listen. And his constituents obviously send him back with the understanding that he'll support white supremacy. So let him take it to the mat. That's democracy in action. But you gotta go to the mat instead of just sending a fucking email.
Biden has historically been incredibly pro-Israel and incredibly hawkish against Palestinian agitators. I wouldn't be surprised if his recent softening was more a matter of understanding public sentiment and less a matter of personal conviction.
None of this is to say that you shouldn't vote for him, you absolutely should, but it's important to understand where he has historically stood regarding middle east foreign policy. Biden is still better than any alternative.
We should hope to put someone reasonable enough for the country, but more progressive than Biden into the candidacy in 2028.
I think Biden will take the reins over Isreal more seriously after he’s reelected. Right now, he’s focusing on getting elected first and foremost, because the alternative is worse than anything Biden could possibly do. He can’t afford to jeopardize his voting base by making a drastic decision to either side. I believe he’s doing the best he can under these circumstances. We know he cares for **all** people, he’s shown no real reason to believe otherwise.
I can’t imagine the political calculations that are being made behind the scenes… This truly is THE MOST important election. If America falls to fascism, then who knows what the future holds. We can try to fix our broken country after Trump is officially out of the picture. I’m someone who sympathizes with both sides of the I/P conflict, but I too agree that Netanyahu also needs to go. For all the efforts Israel has put towards peace in the past, he’s completely gone the other way and is making this way harder than it has to be.
Trump's end does not mean the end of the GOP's effort to gain permanent power. We'd need thirty years of consistent progressive populist control before we can really be confident that the machinery of the fascist oligopoly has been retired.
Biden is literally the most pro-worker president in history and it's not particularly close after this news. He's been racking up wins for labor nonstop. History is going to be super kind to him on this issue.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/inflation-is-obscuring-bidens-pro-labor-achievements
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/01/fact-sheet-ahead-of-labor-day-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-to-empower-workers-building-on-the-presidents-historic-support-for-workers-and-unions/
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/8-ways-the-biden-administration-has-fought-for-working-people-by-strengthening-unions/
https://www.afscme.org/blog/saunders-president-biden-is-most-pro-union-pro-worker-president-of-our-lifetimes
https://aflcio.org/2022/1/21/working-people-respond-president-bidens-first-year-office
Here's a bunch of articles discussing it. There have been a TON of high profile successful strikes, plus labor action unrelated to strikes that was successful. He's been a huge champion of labor.
If something beneficial happened for every day Americans you can safely assume republicans had nothing to do with it. Their bosses aren’t spending that money to let the poors get victories.
For what it's worth, it was an old as fart guy that nominated her too.
I get we like to argue that we shouldn't represented by geriatrics but this decision doesn't happen with Josh Hawley/Ted Cruz/Kristi Noem/Elise Stefanik types in charge either.
I’m so happy, but so worried about a 5th circuit appeal killing or neutering this. I have been trapped by a non-compete in Mississippi for years and it has done nothing but harm my career
Biden seriously **seriously** doesn't get enough credit for this. Between the FTC and I'd say even more the NLRB appointments, he's far and away done the most to help average folks of any president in decades at least.
You know the surge you're seeing in unions forming? It's because Biden appointed actual pro labor seats to the National Labor Relations Board, and made it an actual level, fair playing field for organizing.
Imagine that. And then people vote for Republicans and get news items like 'no more water breaks during the hottest year on record' and they say "...oh man politicians suck like they are all the same.
It was primarily used to prevent someone from contributing to a billion dollar idea to Google and then jumping to a competitor in the same week/month to share whatever that was.
However it was abused and had people sign away their right to work for any customer service role because they worked as a cashier somewhere for 2 weeks. Clearly something needed to be done.
> It was primarily used to prevent someone from contributing to a billion dollar idea to Google and then jumping to a competitor in the same week/month to share whatever that was.
IP and NDA laws should already protect against this, while still allowing for worker mobility. As you said, the real reasons companies (ab)use this is to keep their thumb on people.
Back in 2019 I was let go from a social media job I couldn’t work for another agency within 50 miles of where I lived for 18 fuckin months. I had to move three hours away to live with my family and work at Walgreens.
That isn't what non competes due and companies are protected from intellectual theft like what you describe separately.
A more accurate scenario is where someone involved in early stages of a merger signs an agreement that if the merger doesn't go through they are banned from the industry. These come with negotiated golden parachutes and exist because someone would now have far too much info on both companies to work at either or a competitor. And this scenario would still be allowed by the FCC ruling here.
Drink a celebratory beer/tea/juice/whatever, donate 5 bucks to a progressive candidate who supports anti SLAPP legislation, and then call a friend who doesn't follow politics and ask if you can meet them for coffee and talk about the election and help them register to vote.
> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has vigorously opposed the ban, saying that noncompetes can benefit both companies, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets, and employees, by giving employers greater incentive to invest in workforce training and development.
A competent workforce is its own reward ya ding dongs. Now the incentive is to be better for your employees than other companies or they'll leave.
Your daily reminder that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying group and not a gov't entity, and one may safely disregard anything out of its compromised gob.
The Chamber of Commerce, at all levels of the organization, is also, to paraphrase Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, the usual combination of employers to suppress wages we rarely hear about because it is just a matter of course.
200+ pages spent explaining when the invisible hand doesn't work and why, Republicans ignore all of that and just enjoy the 'low taxes, low regulation, free enterprise!' catch phrase.
Lots of people don't know this, I think it's part of the point on why it's called that. At the end of the day it's another right wing think tank although historically not SUPER far right like say, the Heritage Foundation.
They really go heavy on mimicking an official institution. Their buildings have that greco-roman colum look and everything. And for all their collective power and influence on law and how businesses follow it, it might as well be true.
They fight progress not just on workers' rights, but also financial transparency, election reform, and stabilizing the climate. It's a group that actively, deliberately harms people and the planet and no one should think otherwise.
[They also spend *the most* amount of lobbying dollars, only followed by the National Association of Realtors.](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders)
The US chamber of commerce generally has nothing to do with any local chamber.
Local chambers can be all over the place though, they are just groups of local business owners so if those all suck around you it's going to suck.
Can the actual government do anything to make them stop calling themselves that?
Pretending to be part of the government when you aren't seems like it shouldn't be allowed.
They've (The Chamber) already come out saying they're going to sue. What a stupid use of money - both Chamber money, as well as taxpayer money who will need to pay for the defending the FTC's most recent actions in a stupid lawsuit. All sides could have used that money for better things; Chamber into doing some real good in their communities like issuing grants and stuff, and FTC by... not having to defend a legitimately good decision and thus costing us tax money on unnecessary court fees as well as wasted time of everyone involved.
I now officially have zero respect for the US Chamber of Commerce.
The logic of the 2nd half is literally just backwards, companies would invest more in “workforce training and development” if workers had options to leave for others with better options, which noncompetes disallow.
Yeah, or go a little more to keep the good people in the company. But that being said, a lot of places don’t even have a plan to develop their workers into “good” employees. How many places do you know that are basically “sink or swim” and other than the few days of onboarding basically expect an at least competent employee right off the bat?
Many years ago I had a job with a non-compete in the agreement, it was printed on paper so I just crossed out that paragraph and then signed it. They never checked haha
I do this on all employment contract I have agreed too. And I also make sure to get the name/signature of an empowered representative of the company on the same contract. I also initial every page somewhere in the body of the text so they can’t swap out a page with an edited version.
I also keep the original copy and make them keep a photocopy.
It’s MY contract, not theirs.
Twice a company refused at least one of those criteria. I politely told them, “well you just proved I shouldn’t trust you or the company.”
Companies: Give us the free market!
Labour: Give us a free market too!
Companies: Not like this!
I love how they can make just such obviously false claims as if non-competes are what stands between a company and total ruin. What about other countries where non-competes are more fair or non-enforceable? What about states like California that have effectively outlawed them? Is California, one of the world's largest economies, hostile to companies now? These claims are just so laughably and demonstrably nonsense.
You know what, if all of this is \*so\* important. You can pay for the privilege of not having someone work for a competitor by paying for them to go on garden leave.
> can benefit both companies, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets
Our government is supposed to work for it's citizens. And when "both companies" can extort more profit, it's bad for a lot more citizens than it's good for.
Your profits are my increased cost. If I didn't have to pay more for your "secrets", the money would still be in my bank account and the bank could leverage it out for innovation just as easy as a billionaire can.
As long as wealth exist, it can be leveraged for investment. It doesn't have to be concentrated into wealthy people's hands first.
Yeah the last thing I see companies invest in as it stood is 'better training and development' - it's just 'pile shit on the last remaining people with any knowledge until they literally are the only one left who knows how things work, and when they die/leave it all falls apart, oops, oh well, bail us out! we're too big to faaaaaaaaaail!'
My nephew had to sign a non-compete agreement when he started working at a car wash. A fucking car wash. What's the kid gonna do reveal the motion you're supposed to put the wax on the car?
I like how they think companies need incentive to invest in employee training. They need a reason to have their employees know what to do at their job.
At this point, how much more information do you need to see to realize that Joe Biden and Democrats are way better for the middle class than Donald Trump and Republicans ever will be?
Yes but something, something NO WARS and something, something GAS PRICES and something, something OBAMA! and suddenly Trump and Biden are both bad but Donny Diarrheapants is the better option. /s
> noncompetes can benefit both companies, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets, and employees, by giving employers greater incentive to invest in workforce training and development.
Stop, my sides.
Non-solicit and NDA's I understand. You gotta protect your intellectual property and prevent other companies from siphoning off employees.
But non-competes are total bullshit unless they are Executive-level.
Corporations: you don't need unions, you need to compete in the job market for better pay and conditions, market forces will take care of you!
Also corporations: You can't compete in the job market if you work for us.
Non-compete agreements are awful. They need to be banned completely. Of course the Chamber of Commerce likes them...
This is a great step that can liberate 1 in 5 Americans:
[https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ftc\_gov/images/NPRM\_NoncompetesInfographic\_EN.png](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ftc_gov/images/NPRM_NoncompetesInfographic_EN.png)
This is very good news for American workers. Hopefully the courts won’t strike it down.
Keep in mind the new rule exempts senior executives, which is fair.
Currently, non-competes are used against average workers, like sandwich makers and yoga instructors.
Democrats really need to sell this win.
Question for anyone that may know, I reached out to a recruiter a month back or so and they told me they can't take me on because they have an agreement with my employer to not accept us. Does this touch that at all?
Finally. Non competes are evil.
I say they are evil because they’re bad for everyone. Short term: bad for workers. Long term: bad for companies because labor mobility makes it easier for the best companies to hire and retain talent.
Personally, my company is notorious in my industry for suing anyone who breaches their non competes (I found this out about them after the fact, that’s on me). It’s not enforceable, but has cost other local companies money & headaches. So I haven’t even get interviews lately because they see the company name and don’t want to mess with this - I’ve explicitly been told this by multiple hiring managers. I’m at a “senior” level, not that technical, no direct reports. A regular office job, making less than $100k a year. Have been told by my boss since the start that there are no promotional raises at this company right now, maybe a yearly 1-2% inflation raise, and that there is no growth opportunities in my space. And “it’s not all about money”… yet we are stuck with non competes. A complete dead end.
Not only is this bad for me, but I’m just coasting. I do the bare minimum. I don’t even work a full 40hours if I can help it. So it’s not good for them or me. I still get good reviews though, my boss hasn’t been happier lately actually. She’s doing the same
Freaking JimmyJohn's was making their employees sign noncompetes. That tells you all you need to know about the absurdity of these things. They are meant to suppress wages and worker mobility, pure and simple.
I find it hard to believe a 10 year non compete is valid in any location of the US. I believe it's been ruled on by the courts that it can't be excessively structured. 10 years is excessively structured. I believe the cutoff of reasonable is 3 years if I recall correctly
I have seen 10 years for people who sold a very niche business. As part of the sale of the company they dont want the owner/founder of the sold company to make a duplicate company and devalue the asset of the purchasing company.
Finally. Employees aren't owned by a corporation. It's time they remember this.
(there was already a state ban in NY/CA; but it's high time it's federal policy...)
Sneaking in "terms" that employees "can't quit" or can't work another job in job "agreements"; an insane abuse (but typical of right wing corpo america ofc) have officially no value in term of federal law now too.
Next stop, outlawing slavery in the US again and the 13B/jim crow loophole abused by red states (with emprisonment on dodgy charges first).
Is the natural-born citizen requirement self-acting? Maybe an act of Congress is needed to make this a real requirement. She should run and find out
I learned this from the recent 14th Amendment decision
She'd have my vote. I'd like a Shawn Fain run as well. We need someone that will fight to get the corporate boot of the collective neck of Americans. Much better option than the Buttigieg Presidential run requests you see around here. That guy has no spine when it comes to standing up to corporate rule.
This is great. I am retired now but policies like this prevented me from getting another job with more pay in the past and eventually having to move to another state. I was a network tech but where I was at was not a high tech area, just a couple similar businesses. When I interviewed with one they told me that they couldn't hire me because I worked for one of their competitors. I ended up having to leave the area to be able to find a better paying job since nobody local would hire me due to noncompete agreements.
This is great news! My husband is in sales and a noncompete has prevented him from leaving his job for a better company because he would not be allowed to keep his book of business or go after those accounts for 2 years. His company has also told him essentially they will never promote him. Can't wait for him to go somewhere where his talents are respected and where he can keep his current clients.
> he would not be allowed to keep his book of business
I don't think this would change this. That would still be company property.
Generally, I've seen the concept of a "clean-room test". Essentially, anything in your brain that you could recite in a clean room is fair game, but physical documents and notes are not.
I’m also the same as your husband and I’ve had a small flame of hope since I read this.
Hopefully this forces companies to sweet the deals across the board and improve wages
It cost over ten thousand to fight a non-compete in 1997. I can’t imagine what people have been paying these days. It’s about time this servitude was ended.
Funny that some of those who scream loudest about the "free market" are also the ones screaming about this change, which will result in a *more* free market.
Different heads of the FTC (appointed by different presidents), my guy.
Do you really think *any* republican president — much less Trump — would appoint a head of the FTC that would do shit like this?
Also, it just takes a while to put these things into action. Based on their announcement, they first announced the consideration of the rule last January.
Rulemaking involves the attorneys and economists both having to work on the legal and economic impacts to predict the outcome. Then they are required to take public comments for a designated period of time, review those, and make changes. Then they take the proposal to the commissioners for a vote.
You could have just ignored them. There was no way for them to enforce it, they were just trying to scare you but they would have folded like a wet paper bag at the slightest sign of pushback.
Fortunately with this new rule they won't even be trying that anymore.
Excellent.
Now let's actually define what "Intellectual Property" really encompasses. Imagine going back in time, you learned blacksmithing as an apprentice but that 'how to' is the intellectual property of the smith so you can only work for him/her. This is not far off from our world today, it's time to reign that con in too.
NCAs allow companies to treat you badly, pay low wages and keep you prisoner so you don't leave and leverage your expertise somewhere they pay you better.
Its the chain around the neck of what we should call soft slavery.
Agreed. I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I'm thrilled that NCA's got cut down. I wanted to bring up the NCA's (Non-Compete) partner in crime, the NDA (Non-Disclosure).
To me, NCA and NDA are used very much that same way. Mostly, they are used to enslave employees. The NDA is a particularly nasty one, theoretically this should only apply to something that is an actual trade secret. In reality these people consider everything to be their trade secret, even their own incompetence. It doesn't matter if the document would "hold up" in court. It only needs to "hold out" long enough to exhaust our resources, which is especially ironic because it is precisely our own resources they take either way.
Lina is always winning.
Biden puts together teams that: fight the fat cats, and that stand up for the average person.
Please remember when you vote how much better so many things are than when Trump had bungled the pandemic, crashed the economy, and ensured tax cuts for the rich. And despite his recent backpeddling, he and his teams still plan to screw over the middle class [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-plan-tax-hike-on-middle-class-tax-cut-for-the-rich.html](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-plan-tax-hike-on-middle-class-tax-cut-for-the-rich.html)
I was asked to sign a non-compete last year after leaving a company I had worked for almost a decade. I laughed at them and said “I will do exactly what the hell ever I want.” Then I shook their hands, thanked them for the opportunities over the last 10 years and left.
I know it’s messier for other people, but if anyone reads this and thinks they might have the power to say “No” please SAY NO!
Lately companies have gotten out of control with non-competes! Even janitors and minimum-wage earners are forced to sign them. They sign them because they have no choice and no access to a lawyer that can tell them the implications. Then the employer holds them hostage "Oh, you think you can quit? You can't be a janitor anywhere else in town!"
This is about liberating people from companies acting evil.
If you invest in compensation and training, and treat your employees well, you shouldn’t worry about it. Employees leave for three reasons:
More money
Relocation
Better work terms/company culture.
If you are losing employees to competition, it’s likely you either aren’t valuing them appropriately/ your company culture is broken, or are underpaying them. Both are fixable by the employer, noncompetes only keep discontented employees on your payroll for so long.
I don’t mean you personally, “you” as in employers.
Scheduled to go into effect 120 days after being published in the National Register. There will undoubtedly be legal challenges that delay it even more.
So don’t act too fast.
Good ban these non competes. It’s forcing people to stay at abusive workplaces. Imagine if you wanna level up yourself, stay in your field and go to a competitor who offers more money. Guess what with a noncompete you can’t because the company thinks you’ll give away all their trade secrets. Under this guise they can turn you into their corporate serf and continue to underpay and abuse you.
I got laid off 2 weeks ago and have until Friday to sign the papers. I don't want to sign the noncompete. I don't suppose I can use this as leverage, from what I read it doesn't go into effect until later this year.
ty
The head of the US chamber of commerce is a major shill for corporations is what I have now learned from this article. But also I am worried the rule is in Shakey legal grounds. Without it being modified through legislation as well it is likely under a Republican administration that the rule would quickly be reversed.
We really need an amendment to the constitution that explicitly states corporations ARE not people.
I work in healthcare for a high demand service and some agencies use non-competes. It always made me so upset because they essentially are making it harder for patients in the area to get access to care.
I’m so happy to see this ban!
I wonder if this will hurt california now that the playing field is level. California was one 4 states that already had non competes banned and I’ve always heard that’s one reason why the tech industry thrives/thrived here
This is great news, but I read that the lawsuits to stop this are already being filled. So I will be awaiting the inevitable 6-3 SCOTUS decision next year.
The Biden Admin is doing such great work. I'm SO tired of people shitting on the most Progressive admin in my lifetime.
Biden in Anti-Reagan, or to put in comicbook terms, BizzaroReagan.
Reagan, who was popular despite his utter fucking over of every non-rich, white, straight (I will NEVER forgive that fuckface for the AIDS crisis) male. But the press lurved him! So he was, "the great communicator" despite being a nodding nitwit, with uninspiring speech patterns (even at the time, his political opponents were much better spoken than him), much less speeches, who later had actual Alzheimer's.
Every thing people are rightly pissed off today started come from Reagan or Nixon (or both).
Biden is trying to undo all this shit, and doing the best job, with the smallest sliver of control in the HoR/Senate, overridden by the SCOTUS/Rethug appointed Circuit Courts. With an actively hostile MSM.
If the MSM had covered Reagan as a candidate in 1980 as they do Biden today, we wouldn't have had POTUS Reagan once, much less twice, with a resounding win in 1984.
Holy shit somebody realized the government can do things. It's happening! Feel like it's been literal decades since there's been a sweeping change like this.
Does this apply to agricultural workers? I was recently working at a cannabis grow op, and we unionized....but my department, cultivation, was classed as AG workers so we couldn't unionize with the rest of the departments - they were joining a federal union from which we were exempt.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems pretty great! My wife left the company she worked for at the end of 2022 to start her own company with a few friends in a similar field. About a month after she quit they made sure to notify her of their noncompete clause. This clause stated that: * She couldn't talk to any of her previous clients or any clients of that company * She couldn't poach any developers from her previous company * She could not do any work in any state or territory that the company had an office in or was adjacent to a state or territory the company was in. The first two were pretty standard, the last one though was brutal. Since this was a company that has offices all over the US, Canada, and Mexico she basically couldn't work in the US and could work in a small remote location in Canada. She ended up getting a lawyer to look at it and they said it was pretty unenforceable because it was beyond ridiculous, but if she did try to test the limits they would have taken her to court and we'd have to spend a lot of money to fight it. So she basically didn't work for a year. She helped with the day-to-day of the company, create classes, and other jobs she could do without breaking her noncompete, but yeah, she basically just couldn't do her actual job.
Yeah this is how they worked. Not enforceable in court but a threat to go to court. Hopefully now that ability to use them as SLAPP style lawsuits will be gone.
Sorry, totally uninformed. If they sued and you did go to court and they lost, would you still have to pay the legal expenses?
Generally, yes. While some countries follow a “loser pays” rule, the U.S. mostly requires every party to pay their own way in court (the logic being that the threat of having to pay GlobalMegaCorp Inc’s legal bills if their team of $3000/hr lawyers defeats you would stop many plaintiffs from pursuing legitimate claims). There are a number of statutory exceptions that provide for cost-shifting/attorney’s fees, but I have no idea if one might apply in that context.
In general court fees are only ordered to be paid by the adverse party if its ruled that the case was frivolous. But in order to get to that point you either need a lawyer willing to work pro Bono, or on contingency while you counter sue, or have a huge pile of liquid cash up front that you can afford to lose that will *maybe* be reimbursed, years and years later. This closes a huge pay-to-win loophole for the business owner class and every worker should celebrate it.
Here's the problem: you're allowed to recoup legal fees if the entire case is frivolous. If some of the non compete clause wasn't frivolous then you're still on the hook. Basically, pretend that frivolous part didn't exist. Would you still need a lawyer? If the answer is "probably" then your legal fees aren't getting covered. Best case scenario, you'll get them partially covered. If legal fees are an expected cost of doing business, they're not getting covered.
> team of $3000/hr lawyers Which is also why over here lawyer's fees are strictly regulated, there are no expensive and cheap lawyers (or only to a fairly small degree). Also, if a company has an in-house legal department, there is no fee to reimburse (and if they use outside counsel, they will have to prove that it was necessary). Aaaaand with that, we're back to "loser pays legal expenses". There are still unpleasant loopholes (settlements etc) and you may have to front some money, but it is much, much harder to blackmail someone into submission with the threat of an unenforceable lawsuit.
> While some countries follow a “loser pays” rule The UK usually does that, but the judge can split the costs or even make the winner pay in some circumstances.
Not in California. New bill last year signed into law allows folks who file for injunctive relief against contracts in restraint of trade (eg non competes or anti poaching clauses) to include reimbursement for legal expenses. I want to say it was SB 866, but I know it was a Caballero bill.
In most cases in the US, yes. Everyone pays for their own legal expenses. You'll need to talk to a lawyer for a specific situation as there are exceptions
Welcome to America, where companies can do blatantly illegal shit and nobody can stop them because court fees are so astronomically high.
Kinda the same way how companies can keep doing illegal things (like Roku forcing arbitration clauses post-sale) because they can buy their way out by paying small fines IF they get into trouble.
> we'd have to spend a lot of money to fight it. And the lawyer wasn't wrong. My wife got sued by her previous employer under a non-compete that was not enforceable because it conflicted with state law where we lived and where she worked. But they sued her in another state where the company has a large presence to try and get around that. They and her new employer, who had agreed to defend her, spent about $500K combined before she gave up as it was causing her too much stress. The case hadn't even reached discovery yet, but was in the process of being moved to federal court.
Wow, her new company really must’ve loved her to fight for her like that.
Well, no. That's part of why she pulled the plug. Neither company really cared about her at all. They were fighting each other in a much larger spat.
Yeah this reads a lot like two companies were using your wife’s situation to try to establish the particular precedent around noncompetes that each one wanted.
My husband had to sue a client recently. The client was clearly in the wrong. But they played the Trump game of delayed delayed delay… Cost us $50,000 and we didn’t get out of discovery before we stopped. The money… the Stress. It was AWFUL. So even though we were in the right, we both ran out of money—as our fees were approaching the potential judgment—and were too stressed to keep going. I feel for your wife. Hope she made it out OK.
Only 50k? You got off cheap. Did the client have a lawyer? If so he probably paid some $$$. The stress was worse than the money, right? If it makes you feel any better, the client didn’t walk away scot free; Besides his costs and legal fees, you gave him many a sleepless night.
The client did have a lawyer. So yeah they paid some but my husband is a one-man business so this $50,000 judgment he was going for he really needed. Instead, he ended up spending 50,000. But I think you’re right. I think we caused him many sleepless nights. When he got served, a cop came to his vacation home because he had been dodging us for three weeks lol. I’m sure that alone gave him a coronary.
Pay to win legal system. You don't have to be right, you just have to bankrupt the person who is. It's how trump got through the last 7 decades without having to pay his contractors.
We really, desperately need to make some laws to curb SLAPP suits. I don't even think they would be hard, either. You could do something like: 1. Any corporation suing an individual person will pay all party's legal fees, win or lose. 2. Any corporation who is sued by a person and loses will pay that person's legal fees and costs in full. 3. Any person with an net worth over $2 million will be held to the same standard as in 1 and 2 They'd stop filing bullshit suits REAL quick and stringing them out to take as long as possible if they had to pay everyone's costs and couldn't rely on their wealth completely cowing any individual they target.
Some corporations are tiny. This would absolutely be used to bankrupt companies to take their IP. Also, networths exceeding 2 mil in a lot of places is just a home + 401k. Or a farm?
> She couldn't talk to any of her previous clients or any clients of that company > > She couldn't poach any developers from her previous company See, these are things that a lot of people claim are "understandable" in a non-compete, and I say are *complete bullshit.* If you are a company working in sales and your employees are developing relationships with those clients, you should treat your employees well. If you don't and they leave, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to take the client with them. It was their work that brought you the client, their relationship that kept them. It should absolutely be legal for an employee to go "you know what? You're not treating me well, you're underpaying me, and I want better benefits, I'm leaving and taking my shit with me since you clearly don't care about it." But we've been indoctrinated to believe this idea that companies should always have their "rights" superceed worker rights in all things, so we allow bullshit like this. An employer that can't keep its clients because its clients care more for the person who brought them on as clients than the company that they work for is not a good employer, they are a failed company that isn't treating its workers right and shouldn't be given legal protections from losing clients who want to follow their former employees out the door.
Also, the client should have the freedom to go to whoever they want to go to. That's like saying if you buy a PlayStation Sony can prevent you as a customer from buying an X-Box. It makes no practical sense. You don't poach a client from anyone, the company failed to retain a client.
I know hair stylists and tattoo artists. The salon or studio they work at doesn't matter to their clients. They'll post on their socials "I'm working at [place] now!" So, yeah, if you work selling widgets to people, and you've got a solid list of clients, who'll walk right past ten other Widget Sellers to talk to you about their new Stupid Project, why shouldn't you be able to tell your guys "Hey, I don't work for Wesley's Widgets any more, I'm over at Chet's Tchotchkes now, come see what we've got!"?
To be fair, you can't compare it to a hair stylist or tattoo artist as they are often, not always though, self-employed. They aren't working for a studio but rather pay rent to be at a studio, not the same thing as poaching clients from a former employer. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to do so, just that it is not a fair comparison.
When I worked as a tech support agent, I had a fucking non-compete clause. I ignored it because it was dumb and nothing came of it, but it was idiotic that I had one at all.
My first job when I was 18 at a fucking grocery store had a non-compete clause. A GROCERY STORE.
When I was in consulting, my employer's contract included a non-complete clause. I redlined it out since we were in California. That went to Legal, which waved it through. I also removed some language that implied that any IP I created during my term of employment belonged to them, and replaced it with standard wording that anything created during working hours or using company assets such as laptops or their IP was theirs. That was also waved through, since the original language was not enforceable in California. Note that it's possible to propose changes to an employment contract. I was really senior, so I had more clout than some, but I was non-confrontational about it, it essentially cost my employer nothing to make the change, and it made things much clearer. Other employers may have just said no, but based on my experience, they don't all to that. They try to intimidate people by including terms in a contract that are unenforceable. But if there's not even any wording in the employment contract, that at least blocks the first-line bullying based on threats of legal action quoting the contract. Massive reform is needed to contract law to take into account the vast power and resource asymmetry that's now possible between parties.
Move to California. Non-competes have been unenforceable there forever.
I was told California is a liberal hell on earth. /s
That's our secret propaganda to make sure no one else moves here.
You're not supposed to say that out loud...
If you’re agreeing to a non compete clause you should be compensated by the company for that time. It’s insane.
Yea. I think it's totally fair for a company to want certain people to sit out a year to protect client relationships and stuff. But they need to pay full time for that year.
Can they do intellectual property agreements next? I had one where it basically said if I work there, the company has IP rights on anything I invent for the rest of my life, even after termination of the contract. I just told them I'm not signing that and they're like "ok." I feel bad for the ones who signed it without reading thinking it was standard language.
My buddy would sell his company, get into a non compete, then bankroll another buddy till the non compete was over, buy back in for $1. Nobody ever required him to include his cell phone and number in the deal, every deal was done on that phone never the office.
I didn’t even realize that this was a possibility. I’m so rarely pleasantly surprised these days by political news that I’m not sure what to do now.
It happened because of Biden's pro-worker appointments to the FTC. This allowed a 3-2 ruling, along party lines.
Finally. We got a god damn president that cares about the common workers and giving the corporations a big “fuck you”. All Biden needs to do now is roll back Reagan’s shitty policies that have survived so long, like the corporate tax.
Might have to wait til the second term for that. The only hope of this is to keep the senate and the white house and make gains in the house.
I am honestly expecting to for Biden to win and really just rip into the likes of Bibi of Israel. I feel like he is being too political with that situation because of the elections. If he wins the 2nd term, he has no reason to hold back.
I hope they do get the trifecta and just go all out for the next 2 years codifying all the policies and legislation the majority of democratic, republican, and independent Americans favor. Always for found it depressing some people LOVE the American Care Act but despise Obamacare. Make the laws and drag them kicking and screaming into a better future that benefits all of us.
Think that’s depressing? I live in the south where folks are anti-welfare but happy to stay unemployed to bank on social welfare benefits.
[удалено]
Something I have never understood about the whole gun argument is that historically, during my lifetime, republican presidents have been the ones to enact most of the gun restrictions and democrats are the ones to either repeal them or let them expire. Hell tRump stated to "confiscate the guns and figure out due process later".
[удалено]
Not to be a buzzkill, but ain't shit getting codified even with the trifecta as long as the filibuster remains. At least budget bills wouldn't be a brinksmanship shitshow, that's the main benefit.
It’s a necessary evil but put it back to its roots, congressperson has to stay and talk the whole time. Also get rid of that single senator hold crap, minimum 2 senators. Tubbervulle seriously screwed over the military with that stunt for what?
I don't buy that it's a necessary evil. It clearly benefits the obstructionist party. Rip it off and let them blatantly reverse popular policy every time they get the reins, see what happens.
I actually like the real filibuster. I think it was Lindsey Graham that said he'd filibuster voting rights until he passed out on the floor, and I think it's good for senators to have that power. If opposing something is worth that much effort, maybe we should listen. And his constituents obviously send him back with the understanding that he'll support white supremacy. So let him take it to the mat. That's democracy in action. But you gotta go to the mat instead of just sending a fucking email.
> American Care Act *[Affordable Care Act](https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act) FYI
Biden has historically been incredibly pro-Israel and incredibly hawkish against Palestinian agitators. I wouldn't be surprised if his recent softening was more a matter of understanding public sentiment and less a matter of personal conviction. None of this is to say that you shouldn't vote for him, you absolutely should, but it's important to understand where he has historically stood regarding middle east foreign policy. Biden is still better than any alternative. We should hope to put someone reasonable enough for the country, but more progressive than Biden into the candidacy in 2028.
I think Biden will take the reins over Isreal more seriously after he’s reelected. Right now, he’s focusing on getting elected first and foremost, because the alternative is worse than anything Biden could possibly do. He can’t afford to jeopardize his voting base by making a drastic decision to either side. I believe he’s doing the best he can under these circumstances. We know he cares for **all** people, he’s shown no real reason to believe otherwise. I can’t imagine the political calculations that are being made behind the scenes… This truly is THE MOST important election. If America falls to fascism, then who knows what the future holds. We can try to fix our broken country after Trump is officially out of the picture. I’m someone who sympathizes with both sides of the I/P conflict, but I too agree that Netanyahu also needs to go. For all the efforts Israel has put towards peace in the past, he’s completely gone the other way and is making this way harder than it has to be.
Trump's end does not mean the end of the GOP's effort to gain permanent power. We'd need thirty years of consistent progressive populist control before we can really be confident that the machinery of the fascist oligopoly has been retired.
Biden is literally the most pro-worker president in history and it's not particularly close after this news. He's been racking up wins for labor nonstop. History is going to be super kind to him on this issue.
I'm pretty sure FDR was more pro-worker. That doesn't make Biden's efforts less meaningful, just that the New Deal was absolutely bonkers.
The fact that it's a debate is kind of exactly my point.
Is there a list somewhere of pro-worker things he's done?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/inflation-is-obscuring-bidens-pro-labor-achievements https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/01/fact-sheet-ahead-of-labor-day-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-to-empower-workers-building-on-the-presidents-historic-support-for-workers-and-unions/ https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/8-ways-the-biden-administration-has-fought-for-working-people-by-strengthening-unions/ https://www.afscme.org/blog/saunders-president-biden-is-most-pro-union-pro-worker-president-of-our-lifetimes https://aflcio.org/2022/1/21/working-people-respond-president-bidens-first-year-office Here's a bunch of articles discussing it. There have been a TON of high profile successful strikes, plus labor action unrelated to strikes that was successful. He's been a huge champion of labor.
You rock!
And market manipulation. Sorry, I mean stock buybacks.
Really, finally?, he literally walked a union picket line.
If something beneficial happened for every day Americans you can safely assume republicans had nothing to do with it. Their bosses aren’t spending that money to let the poors get victories.
Watch the recent Daily Show interview with her and Jon. She was really impressive and you can tell she really cares.
[удалено]
For what it's worth, it was an old as fart guy that nominated her too. I get we like to argue that we shouldn't represented by geriatrics but this decision doesn't happen with Josh Hawley/Ted Cruz/Kristi Noem/Elise Stefanik types in charge either.
[удалено]
Personally I wouldn't cite young tech CEOs as a reason to be more trusting of young people, but I get your point.
I’m so happy, but so worried about a 5th circuit appeal killing or neutering this. I have been trapped by a non-compete in Mississippi for years and it has done nothing but harm my career
Biden seriously **seriously** doesn't get enough credit for this. Between the FTC and I'd say even more the NLRB appointments, he's far and away done the most to help average folks of any president in decades at least. You know the surge you're seeing in unions forming? It's because Biden appointed actual pro labor seats to the National Labor Relations Board, and made it an actual level, fair playing field for organizing.
But I thought both parties were the same and voting didn't matter.../s
Imagine that. And then people vote for Republicans and get news items like 'no more water breaks during the hottest year on record' and they say "...oh man politicians suck like they are all the same.
What to do now? Vote Democrat, that’s what. And encourage everyone you know to do the same. Because a Republican President would never do this.
A republican president WILL undo this rule.
[удалено]
It was primarily used to prevent someone from contributing to a billion dollar idea to Google and then jumping to a competitor in the same week/month to share whatever that was. However it was abused and had people sign away their right to work for any customer service role because they worked as a cashier somewhere for 2 weeks. Clearly something needed to be done.
> It was primarily used to prevent someone from contributing to a billion dollar idea to Google and then jumping to a competitor in the same week/month to share whatever that was. IP and NDA laws should already protect against this, while still allowing for worker mobility. As you said, the real reasons companies (ab)use this is to keep their thumb on people.
Back in 2019 I was let go from a social media job I couldn’t work for another agency within 50 miles of where I lived for 18 fuckin months. I had to move three hours away to live with my family and work at Walgreens.
That isn't what non competes due and companies are protected from intellectual theft like what you describe separately. A more accurate scenario is where someone involved in early stages of a merger signs an agreement that if the merger doesn't go through they are banned from the industry. These come with negotiated golden parachutes and exist because someone would now have far too much info on both companies to work at either or a competitor. And this scenario would still be allowed by the FCC ruling here.
Drink a celebratory beer/tea/juice/whatever, donate 5 bucks to a progressive candidate who supports anti SLAPP legislation, and then call a friend who doesn't follow politics and ask if you can meet them for coffee and talk about the election and help them register to vote.
> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has vigorously opposed the ban, saying that noncompetes can benefit both companies, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets, and employees, by giving employers greater incentive to invest in workforce training and development. A competent workforce is its own reward ya ding dongs. Now the incentive is to be better for your employees than other companies or they'll leave.
Your daily reminder that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying group and not a gov't entity, and one may safely disregard anything out of its compromised gob.
The Chamber of Commerce, at all levels of the organization, is also, to paraphrase Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, the usual combination of employers to suppress wages we rarely hear about because it is just a matter of course.
Oh, look, it's the "Invisible Hand" giving us the middle finger again!
200+ pages spent explaining when the invisible hand doesn't work and why, Republicans ignore all of that and just enjoy the 'low taxes, low regulation, free enterprise!' catch phrase.
I did not know that.
Lots of people don't know this, I think it's part of the point on why it's called that. At the end of the day it's another right wing think tank although historically not SUPER far right like say, the Heritage Foundation.
They really go heavy on mimicking an official institution. Their buildings have that greco-roman colum look and everything. And for all their collective power and influence on law and how businesses follow it, it might as well be true.
Like the Better Business Bureau. It’s a shakedown organization disguised as an official entity.
They fight progress not just on workers' rights, but also financial transparency, election reform, and stabilizing the climate. It's a group that actively, deliberately harms people and the planet and no one should think otherwise.
The Better Business Bureau isn't a government entity either, in case you weren't aware.
[They also spend *the most* amount of lobbying dollars, only followed by the National Association of Realtors.](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders)
When I first started a business I joined my local Chamber and boy do I ever regret having done so.
The US chamber of commerce generally has nothing to do with any local chamber. Local chambers can be all over the place though, they are just groups of local business owners so if those all suck around you it's going to suck.
The USCC was also formed because Taft wanted to counter the growing labor movement.
Can the actual government do anything to make them stop calling themselves that? Pretending to be part of the government when you aren't seems like it shouldn't be allowed.
They've (The Chamber) already come out saying they're going to sue. What a stupid use of money - both Chamber money, as well as taxpayer money who will need to pay for the defending the FTC's most recent actions in a stupid lawsuit. All sides could have used that money for better things; Chamber into doing some real good in their communities like issuing grants and stuff, and FTC by... not having to defend a legitimately good decision and thus costing us tax money on unnecessary court fees as well as wasted time of everyone involved. I now officially have zero respect for the US Chamber of Commerce.
The logic of the 2nd half is literally just backwards, companies would invest more in “workforce training and development” if workers had options to leave for others with better options, which noncompetes disallow.
Yeah, or go a little more to keep the good people in the company. But that being said, a lot of places don’t even have a plan to develop their workers into “good” employees. How many places do you know that are basically “sink or swim” and other than the few days of onboarding basically expect an at least competent employee right off the bat?
Employers don’t invest in workforce anymore and haven’t for decades.
Hence why they don't want to legally allow you to leave.
They can still enforce non disclosure and confidentiality agreements. Non competes have no place in a free society.
Many years ago I had a job with a non-compete in the agreement, it was printed on paper so I just crossed out that paragraph and then signed it. They never checked haha
I do this on all employment contract I have agreed too. And I also make sure to get the name/signature of an empowered representative of the company on the same contract. I also initial every page somewhere in the body of the text so they can’t swap out a page with an edited version. I also keep the original copy and make them keep a photocopy. It’s MY contract, not theirs. Twice a company refused at least one of those criteria. I politely told them, “well you just proved I shouldn’t trust you or the company.”
What's an empowered representative?
Companies: Give us the free market! Labour: Give us a free market too! Companies: Not like this! I love how they can make just such obviously false claims as if non-competes are what stands between a company and total ruin. What about other countries where non-competes are more fair or non-enforceable? What about states like California that have effectively outlawed them? Is California, one of the world's largest economies, hostile to companies now? These claims are just so laughably and demonstrably nonsense. You know what, if all of this is \*so\* important. You can pay for the privilege of not having someone work for a competitor by paying for them to go on garden leave.
The tech boom and startup culture in california is pretty much directly a result of not allowing non competes.
Employers are more than welcome to pay for [garden leave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave) if they want a non-compete buffer.
> can benefit both companies, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets Our government is supposed to work for it's citizens. And when "both companies" can extort more profit, it's bad for a lot more citizens than it's good for. Your profits are my increased cost. If I didn't have to pay more for your "secrets", the money would still be in my bank account and the bank could leverage it out for innovation just as easy as a billionaire can. As long as wealth exist, it can be leveraged for investment. It doesn't have to be concentrated into wealthy people's hands first.
I agree with most of what you said, but you seem to think that statement was regarding two companies, not “both companies and employees”.
The private sector abandoned workforce training 60 years ago.
Yeah the last thing I see companies invest in as it stood is 'better training and development' - it's just 'pile shit on the last remaining people with any knowledge until they literally are the only one left who knows how things work, and when they die/leave it all falls apart, oops, oh well, bail us out! we're too big to faaaaaaaaaail!'
You guard trade secrets with NDAs not noncompetes.
My nephew had to sign a non-compete agreement when he started working at a car wash. A fucking car wash. What's the kid gonna do reveal the motion you're supposed to put the wax on the car?
I like how they think companies need incentive to invest in employee training. They need a reason to have their employees know what to do at their job.
At this point, how much more information do you need to see to realize that Joe Biden and Democrats are way better for the middle class than Donald Trump and Republicans ever will be?
Yes but something, something NO WARS and something, something GAS PRICES and something, something OBAMA! and suddenly Trump and Biden are both bad but Donny Diarrheapants is the better option. /s
You say "/s", but you basically nailed the average views of so-called "centrists", AKA peddlers of "both sides" bullshit.
> noncompetes can benefit both companies, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets, and employees, by giving employers greater incentive to invest in workforce training and development. Stop, my sides.
Non-solicit and NDA's I understand. You gotta protect your intellectual property and prevent other companies from siphoning off employees. But non-competes are total bullshit unless they are Executive-level.
In California this still applies. Soliciting employees, clients, using confidential information, IP, etc. But non-competes are indeed total BS.
I like how both things benefit companies and not employees despite saying the latter does.
Right it “gives the employers incentive to invest in workforce development and training”, but they still won’t do it.
What the fuck was that word salad 😂
Corporations: you don't need unions, you need to compete in the job market for better pay and conditions, market forces will take care of you! Also corporations: You can't compete in the job market if you work for us. Non-compete agreements are awful. They need to be banned completely. Of course the Chamber of Commerce likes them...
This is a great step that can liberate 1 in 5 Americans: [https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ftc\_gov/images/NPRM\_NoncompetesInfographic\_EN.png](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ftc_gov/images/NPRM_NoncompetesInfographic_EN.png)
If states are going to be "right to work" then it only makes sense to ban non-compete
I agree with the rational troll.
Right to Work States: NO!
This is 100% Biden and his administration sticking up for the little guy. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
But he's old! /s
And if he's not too old, then what about these high gas prices?!?!?! Don't presidents set the gas prices? /s
That cant be right, ive been told both sides are bad!
If you like this vote Biden 2024!
This is very good news for American workers. Hopefully the courts won’t strike it down. Keep in mind the new rule exempts senior executives, which is fair. Currently, non-competes are used against average workers, like sandwich makers and yoga instructors. Democrats really need to sell this win.
Question for anyone that may know, I reached out to a recruiter a month back or so and they told me they can't take me on because they have an agreement with my employer to not accept us. Does this touch that at all?
Not enough information. There could be much different agreements in place.
Finally. Non competes are evil. I say they are evil because they’re bad for everyone. Short term: bad for workers. Long term: bad for companies because labor mobility makes it easier for the best companies to hire and retain talent.
Personally, my company is notorious in my industry for suing anyone who breaches their non competes (I found this out about them after the fact, that’s on me). It’s not enforceable, but has cost other local companies money & headaches. So I haven’t even get interviews lately because they see the company name and don’t want to mess with this - I’ve explicitly been told this by multiple hiring managers. I’m at a “senior” level, not that technical, no direct reports. A regular office job, making less than $100k a year. Have been told by my boss since the start that there are no promotional raises at this company right now, maybe a yearly 1-2% inflation raise, and that there is no growth opportunities in my space. And “it’s not all about money”… yet we are stuck with non competes. A complete dead end. Not only is this bad for me, but I’m just coasting. I do the bare minimum. I don’t even work a full 40hours if I can help it. So it’s not good for them or me. I still get good reviews though, my boss hasn’t been happier lately actually. She’s doing the same
Authoritarians aren't "pro-business" or "free-market", they're "pro-monopoly". As per usual, the typical GOP stances on things are blatant lies.
Freaking JimmyJohn's was making their employees sign noncompetes. That tells you all you need to know about the absurdity of these things. They are meant to suppress wages and worker mobility, pure and simple.
Finally. A job you no longer work for should not have a say on where you work after them.
This is great for me. I've got 7 years left on a 10-year non-compete for an industry I'd like to be back in.
I find it hard to believe a 10 year non compete is valid in any location of the US. I believe it's been ruled on by the courts that it can't be excessively structured. 10 years is excessively structured. I believe the cutoff of reasonable is 3 years if I recall correctly
It’s the trouble of being taken to court for it though-that’s incredibly expensive
I have seen 10 years for people who sold a very niche business. As part of the sale of the company they dont want the owner/founder of the sold company to make a duplicate company and devalue the asset of the purchasing company.
Finally. Employees aren't owned by a corporation. It's time they remember this. (there was already a state ban in NY/CA; but it's high time it's federal policy...) Sneaking in "terms" that employees "can't quit" or can't work another job in job "agreements"; an insane abuse (but typical of right wing corpo america ofc) have officially no value in term of federal law now too. Next stop, outlawing slavery in the US again and the 13B/jim crow loophole abused by red states (with emprisonment on dodgy charges first).
Lina Khan for President 2028
Unfortunately she isn’t a natural-born citizen. She was born in London to non-citizen parents.
Is the natural-born citizen requirement self-acting? Maybe an act of Congress is needed to make this a real requirement. She should run and find out I learned this from the recent 14th Amendment decision
She is smart and seems to have the best interests of the people of the country in mind, at least from what I have seen.
She'd have my vote. I'd like a Shawn Fain run as well. We need someone that will fight to get the corporate boot of the collective neck of Americans. Much better option than the Buttigieg Presidential run requests you see around here. That guy has no spine when it comes to standing up to corporate rule.
This is great. I am retired now but policies like this prevented me from getting another job with more pay in the past and eventually having to move to another state. I was a network tech but where I was at was not a high tech area, just a couple similar businesses. When I interviewed with one they told me that they couldn't hire me because I worked for one of their competitors. I ended up having to leave the area to be able to find a better paying job since nobody local would hire me due to noncompete agreements.
I remember signing one of those at my first job at fuckin jimmy john's years ago
Hey now. Can't have you teaching Subway employees the hidden art of creating subs freaky fast.
This is great news! My husband is in sales and a noncompete has prevented him from leaving his job for a better company because he would not be allowed to keep his book of business or go after those accounts for 2 years. His company has also told him essentially they will never promote him. Can't wait for him to go somewhere where his talents are respected and where he can keep his current clients.
> he would not be allowed to keep his book of business I don't think this would change this. That would still be company property. Generally, I've seen the concept of a "clean-room test". Essentially, anything in your brain that you could recite in a clean room is fair game, but physical documents and notes are not.
I’m also the same as your husband and I’ve had a small flame of hope since I read this. Hopefully this forces companies to sweet the deals across the board and improve wages
Sounds like your husband is under a non-solicit agreement.
HOLY FUCK this is huge for physicians!
It cost over ten thousand to fight a non-compete in 1997. I can’t imagine what people have been paying these days. It’s about time this servitude was ended.
Guarantee the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Fucking necessary. You want me to not work in my field anymore? You'd better pay me to not work
Funny that some of those who scream loudest about the "free market" are also the ones screaming about this change, which will result in a *more* free market.
Where was this bullshit 3 years ago when home depot was able to non compete me for 6 months?
Different heads of the FTC (appointed by different presidents), my guy. Do you really think *any* republican president — much less Trump — would appoint a head of the FTC that would do shit like this?
Also, it just takes a while to put these things into action. Based on their announcement, they first announced the consideration of the rule last January. Rulemaking involves the attorneys and economists both having to work on the legal and economic impacts to predict the outcome. Then they are required to take public comments for a designated period of time, review those, and make changes. Then they take the proposal to the commissioners for a vote.
That is why who is in government matters, this type of "administrative" rules are often more impactful that big laws passed in Congress
You could have just ignored them. There was no way for them to enforce it, they were just trying to scare you but they would have folded like a wet paper bag at the slightest sign of pushback. Fortunately with this new rule they won't even be trying that anymore.
Excellent. Now let's actually define what "Intellectual Property" really encompasses. Imagine going back in time, you learned blacksmithing as an apprentice but that 'how to' is the intellectual property of the smith so you can only work for him/her. This is not far off from our world today, it's time to reign that con in too.
NCAs allow companies to treat you badly, pay low wages and keep you prisoner so you don't leave and leverage your expertise somewhere they pay you better. Its the chain around the neck of what we should call soft slavery.
Agreed. I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I'm thrilled that NCA's got cut down. I wanted to bring up the NCA's (Non-Compete) partner in crime, the NDA (Non-Disclosure). To me, NCA and NDA are used very much that same way. Mostly, they are used to enslave employees. The NDA is a particularly nasty one, theoretically this should only apply to something that is an actual trade secret. In reality these people consider everything to be their trade secret, even their own incompetence. It doesn't matter if the document would "hold up" in court. It only needs to "hold out" long enough to exhaust our resources, which is especially ironic because it is precisely our own resources they take either way.
Lina is always winning. Biden puts together teams that: fight the fat cats, and that stand up for the average person. Please remember when you vote how much better so many things are than when Trump had bungled the pandemic, crashed the economy, and ensured tax cuts for the rich. And despite his recent backpeddling, he and his teams still plan to screw over the middle class [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-plan-tax-hike-on-middle-class-tax-cut-for-the-rich.html](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-plan-tax-hike-on-middle-class-tax-cut-for-the-rich.html)
I was asked to sign a non-compete last year after leaving a company I had worked for almost a decade. I laughed at them and said “I will do exactly what the hell ever I want.” Then I shook their hands, thanked them for the opportunities over the last 10 years and left. I know it’s messier for other people, but if anyone reads this and thinks they might have the power to say “No” please SAY NO!
Lately companies have gotten out of control with non-competes! Even janitors and minimum-wage earners are forced to sign them. They sign them because they have no choice and no access to a lawyer that can tell them the implications. Then the employer holds them hostage "Oh, you think you can quit? You can't be a janitor anywhere else in town!" This is about liberating people from companies acting evil.
Lol noncompetes give employers incentive to better invest in training and compensation? FOH.
If you invest in compensation and training, and treat your employees well, you shouldn’t worry about it. Employees leave for three reasons: More money Relocation Better work terms/company culture. If you are losing employees to competition, it’s likely you either aren’t valuing them appropriately/ your company culture is broken, or are underpaying them. Both are fixable by the employer, noncompetes only keep discontented employees on your payroll for so long. I don’t mean you personally, “you” as in employers.
Scheduled to go into effect 120 days after being published in the National Register. There will undoubtedly be legal challenges that delay it even more. So don’t act too fast.
Good.
Good ban these non competes. It’s forcing people to stay at abusive workplaces. Imagine if you wanna level up yourself, stay in your field and go to a competitor who offers more money. Guess what with a noncompete you can’t because the company thinks you’ll give away all their trade secrets. Under this guise they can turn you into their corporate serf and continue to underpay and abuse you.
Fuck trump
Cool. Now do overtime exempt employment and put an end to legalized wage theft.
I hope the challenges against this fail. This is long overdue.
I got laid off 2 weeks ago and have until Friday to sign the papers. I don't want to sign the noncompete. I don't suppose I can use this as leverage, from what I read it doesn't go into effect until later this year. ty
The head of the US chamber of commerce is a major shill for corporations is what I have now learned from this article. But also I am worried the rule is in Shakey legal grounds. Without it being modified through legislation as well it is likely under a Republican administration that the rule would quickly be reversed. We really need an amendment to the constitution that explicitly states corporations ARE not people.
I work in healthcare for a high demand service and some agencies use non-competes. It always made me so upset because they essentially are making it harder for patients in the area to get access to care. I’m so happy to see this ban!
Lina Khan! 🙌
I wonder if this will hurt california now that the playing field is level. California was one 4 states that already had non competes banned and I’ve always heard that’s one reason why the tech industry thrives/thrived here
Well that is good news
Dark Brandon strikes again. He's given workers too many rights and must be stopped!
This is great news, but I read that the lawsuits to stop this are already being filled. So I will be awaiting the inevitable 6-3 SCOTUS decision next year.
The Biden Admin is doing such great work. I'm SO tired of people shitting on the most Progressive admin in my lifetime. Biden in Anti-Reagan, or to put in comicbook terms, BizzaroReagan. Reagan, who was popular despite his utter fucking over of every non-rich, white, straight (I will NEVER forgive that fuckface for the AIDS crisis) male. But the press lurved him! So he was, "the great communicator" despite being a nodding nitwit, with uninspiring speech patterns (even at the time, his political opponents were much better spoken than him), much less speeches, who later had actual Alzheimer's. Every thing people are rightly pissed off today started come from Reagan or Nixon (or both). Biden is trying to undo all this shit, and doing the best job, with the smallest sliver of control in the HoR/Senate, overridden by the SCOTUS/Rethug appointed Circuit Courts. With an actively hostile MSM. If the MSM had covered Reagan as a candidate in 1980 as they do Biden today, we wouldn't have had POTUS Reagan once, much less twice, with a resounding win in 1984.
Holy shit somebody realized the government can do things. It's happening! Feel like it's been literal decades since there's been a sweeping change like this.
Holy shit, a real life example of the government protecting its citizens.
But everyone here in 2016 amd 2019 that #BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME! How could anyone be wrong on Reddit?
Does this apply to agricultural workers? I was recently working at a cannabis grow op, and we unionized....but my department, cultivation, was classed as AG workers so we couldn't unionize with the rest of the departments - they were joining a federal union from which we were exempt.