- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
FTC just announces facially unconstitutional action
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:14 pm
Declares non-competition clauses/agreements illegal. As of right now, the government has just impaired millions of contracts, not even as the result of a fricking law passed by Congress.
Unconstitutional on its face.
Expect an injunction very soon.
Unconstitutional on its face.
Expect an injunction very soon.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 3:15 pm
9
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:17 pm to udtiger
The overreaching administrative state marches on.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:25 pm to udtiger
How are private equity groups going to structure their deals with owners now? Or any buyouts for that matter.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:27 pm to udtiger
quote:
Declares non-competition clauses/agreements illegal. As of right now, the government has just impaired millions of contracts, not even as the result of a fricking law passed by Congress.
This is a state law issue. The states will just ignore this silliness.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:29 pm to udtiger
quote:
Declares non-competition clauses/agreements illegal.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:29 pm to udtiger
quote:
Unconstitutional on its face.
I missed the part where this is in the Constitution.
Lawsuits will have to be filed for an injunction, right?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:33 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
This is a state law issue. The states will just ignore this silliness.
The state I live in (Washington) made non-compete clauses illegal in 2023 if the compensation of the individual involved is less than $100,000/year.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:34 pm to udtiger
quote:
Declares non-competition clauses/agreements illegal.
So now I can moonlight doing the same service with personal customers that I provide my employer with no consequences?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:35 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
The state I live in (Washington) made non-compete clauses illegal in 2023 if the compensation of the individual involved is less than $100,000/year.
I have no problem with that. At all. The issue is the over reach of a federal agency. They don’t have that power.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:35 pm to YumYum Sauce
quote:
How are private equity groups going to structure their deals with owners now? Or any buyouts for that matter.
quote:
The final rule does not apply to non-competes entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:36 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
compensation of the individual involved is less than $100,000/year.
So it really impacts very few people.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:38 pm to udtiger
I've refused every no-compete clause shoved in my face since 2005.
However,
The pussies that signed em should be forced to live by them, just like all you student-loan-ridden-tranny-studies-degree-genderfroot-grads.
FTC,
However,
The pussies that signed em should be forced to live by them, just like all you student-loan-ridden-tranny-studies-degree-genderfroot-grads.
FTC,
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:52 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I have no problem with that. At all. The issue is the over reach of a federal agency. They don’t have that power.
This is literally nothing more than an election year campaign ploy. The FTC knows they don't have this power and it will be struck down by the courts. They don't care. They just want to create the optic of the "bad red states", who will challenge the "law" as anti-employee and pro corporation.
I guess the good news is the USSC can use this to further erode the "lawmaking" ability of these government bureaucracies. The executive branch got a taste during 2020-2021 of what could be when allowed to make "laws" without actually going to the legislative process, which is the foundation of our system of government, and they want to keep testing the boundaries to see how much power they can actually get away with.
And I say this as someone who believes anti-compete clauses should be significantly restricted.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:20 pm to GumboPot
Sure, why not? Sounds like you already are.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:28 pm to jcaz
quote:
Unconstitutional on its face.
quote:
I missed the part where this is in the Constitution.
It's in Article I. Congress makes the laws. Not the FTC.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:34 pm to udtiger
We can not get CHEVRON over-turned soon enough.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:36 pm to YumYum Sauce
quote:
How are private equity groups going to structure their deals with owners now? Or any buyouts for that matter.
The same way they do in states that don't allow them or they're largely unenforceable. Work it into the economics of the sale price or en employment contract with early term penalties.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:42 pm to udtiger
I have a few takes on this:
1. This is a clear overreach of the FTC’s authority. With that said, it could be argued that non-compete clauses which extend across state lines could be interpreted as impediments to interstate commerce. In which case, Congress could potentially legislate rules governing them.
2. The enforceability of a non-compete clause which is signed by an employee as a condition of employment should be zero, but this should be regulated at the state level.
3. Business owners should be allowed to negotiate enforceable non-compete clauses in agreements to sell land or businesses.
4. Businesses should be permitted to enforce contracts which bar former employees from soliciting clients with whom they worked at said business, but only for a designated time period. Personally, I would say no longer than 2 years, but I would leave it up to states to decide that.
5. Such a ban should not include agreements reached via collective bargaining.
6. This is nothing but a campaign hail mary to try and give Biden some pro-workers bulletin board material.
1. This is a clear overreach of the FTC’s authority. With that said, it could be argued that non-compete clauses which extend across state lines could be interpreted as impediments to interstate commerce. In which case, Congress could potentially legislate rules governing them.
2. The enforceability of a non-compete clause which is signed by an employee as a condition of employment should be zero, but this should be regulated at the state level.
3. Business owners should be allowed to negotiate enforceable non-compete clauses in agreements to sell land or businesses.
4. Businesses should be permitted to enforce contracts which bar former employees from soliciting clients with whom they worked at said business, but only for a designated time period. Personally, I would say no longer than 2 years, but I would leave it up to states to decide that.
5. Such a ban should not include agreements reached via collective bargaining.
6. This is nothing but a campaign hail mary to try and give Biden some pro-workers bulletin board material.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:46 pm to kingbob
quote:
With that said, it could be argued that non-compete clauses which extend across state lines could be interpreted as impediments to interstate commerce.
"Everything you can possibly imagine is interstate commerce."
--the United States Supreme Court, approx. 1930-1980
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News