- 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
re: Non-Compete agreements are now illegal nationwide!
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:30 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:30 pm to Indefatigable
I can see both sides of NCs. You bring in business under a company’s umbrella and on their dime and resources to support you.
On the other hand, if said business wants to work with you and only you there’s not a lot of teeth to them legally.
On the other hand, if said business wants to work with you and only you there’s not a lot of teeth to them legally.
0
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:30 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
Because non competes are against individuals and totally one sided for the business.
Imagine the audacity of a business to protect their investment and operations.
I'm guessing it's probably all a wash in the end, or do you envision particular industries where this will have a discernable negative effect on their ability to operate effectively?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:30 pm to auwaterfowler
quote:
What if I sell my business to someone and then go right out and start another business just like the one I just sold?
The market will determine who gets future business?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:31 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Noncompetes are absurd aside from very specific provisions and circumstances. Also, the vast majority go unenforced so let's all cool the feigned indignation.
I’m not a fan of the federal government intervening in contracts between consenting adults, regardless of subject matter.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:31 pm to Shexter
quote:
Is not signing it really an option if you want the job?
I guess I lean toward the free market fixing this? People would presumably gravitate towards positions that don't force it.
Again, I see the bad, just not sure government interference is needed.
I also fricking hate Lina Khan.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:32 pm to dallastigers
quote:
This seems like an over reach by the FTC.
This is the most antagonistic FTC in our lifetimes. They are burning the candle at both ends going after all sectors. Some I agree with, most I don't.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:32 pm to CatfishJohn
Signed one 10/2007 and left on 8/2022, back in business 4/2024. It never met the qualifications in La and now I have been served. It just paper for the time being but this ruling just makes it easier to continue being my clients back to the fold.
FTSC’s
FTSC’s
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:33 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
you envision particular industries where this will have a discernable negative effect on their ability to operate effectively?
It will certainly make people more wary of their sales staff, for instance. Their inherent knowledge of the business, its pricing and customers, etc can now walk out the door and across the street to undercut them on a whim.
I don’t see how that’s a positive for businesses.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:34 pm to Indefatigable
You don't lose cool libertarian cred by recognizing the absurdity of a corporation telling a single individual what kind of work they can pursue after that relationship ends.
I had a NCC when I was a simple grunt. I told my boss I had no intention of following it and he said "good, you shouldn't."
You're simping for organizations. Not even small businesses.
I had a NCC when I was a simple grunt. I told my boss I had no intention of following it and he said "good, you shouldn't."
You're simping for organizations. Not even small businesses.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:34 pm to Indefatigable
So, you are fine with unlawful business combinations that suppress competition?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Imagine the audacity of a business to protect their investment and operations.
How selfish of them.
Should this not apply to the individual as well? Why does the business get to control things and the individual just gets to play along?
Maybe a company makes a ton of money because of an individual.
A company can still patent products and even owns patents that were due to an individual. They shouldn't be able to hold the individual's knowledge/ability hostage.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:34 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
I guess I lean toward the free market fixing this? People would presumably gravitate towards positions that don't force it.
Wouldn't the free market reign supreme if non-competes weren't a thing? Non-competes are inherently anti-free market. Especially in small markets, where options are limited.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because non competes are against individuals and totally one sided for the business.
Imagine the audacity of a business to protect their investment and operations.
How selfish of them.
It's a device to keep employees without paying them their value.
If an employee is so valuable that if they left they could use all their knowledge and hurt your business, well you may want to consider paying them what they are worth to keep them.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:36 pm to GRTiger
quote:
You don't lose cool libertarian cred by recognizing the absurdity of a corporation telling a single individual what kind of work they can pursue after that relationship ends.
I’m not a libertarian, at all.
I am anti-federal government overreach though.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
So you did consent. Just as you consented to your salary, job duties, other policies, etc.
I understand what you're saying and I agree to an extent. Problem is in Louisiana, non-competes are between an employee and an employer. If you are forced to sign it before you become an employee BUT as condition of employment, it's a bit of a grey area. It was always best practice for employers to wait until the employee's first day and then make them sign it as condition of continued employment.
None of that matters now, though, thankfully. frick a non-compete.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It will certainly make people more wary of their sales staff, for instance. Their inherent knowledge of the business, its pricing and customers, etc can now walk out the door and across the street to undercut them on a whim.
Right. So effectively everyone is dealing with the same thing (as they were when everyone could enforce such agreements), hence I'm guessing at the end of the day (and maybe after a bit of initial shakeup) it will be a wash.
I'm making no comment on whether they should or shouldn't be allowed, btw. I'm just not sure that it is actually going to change the playing field anywhere really as you seem to fear.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:37 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
Are they going to void clauses in professional sports contracts that state players can't be traded to division foes, etc.?
That's a collectively bargained union contract. Completely different situation.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:37 pm to Motorboat
quote:
Because non competes are against individuals and totally one sided for the business. Plus there is a difference in means and sophistication of the parties. Why do want business to frick people so badly.
Are they forced to sign it or to take the specific job?
The FTC banning these unilaterally seems off especially if ban includes non-competes that don’t cross state lines.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:38 pm to Steadyhands
quote:
Why does the business get to control things and the individual just gets to play along?
For starters, the individual has to be made aware of the clause and consent to it. You want the job? Those are the terms.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 2:39 pm
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News