- 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 2:39 pm to Epic Cajun
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:39 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
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.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Are non-competes anti-free market or a result of it that would eventually disappear as a part of it?
1
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:39 pm to KemoSabe65
quote:
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
Your two-year hiatus should have fulfilled any obligations. Why were you served?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:39 pm to OvertheDwayneBowe
Non competes can suppress fair compensation for the talents of the employee.
And it can create a trap in bad work environments that the employee cannot effectively escape.
Folks are all in favor of competition until it comes to competition for labor and talent....
And it can create a trap in bad work environments that the employee cannot effectively escape.
Folks are all in favor of competition until it comes to competition for labor and talent....
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:39 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
That's a collectively bargained union contract. Completely different situation.
Ah, you make a good point sir.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
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.
Exactly, the business is using the NC to hold people hostage while they make more money. I'm all for the business making money, but it shouldn't be because it's forced upon someone. The market will balance out personnel leaving for another company.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:41 pm to nitwit
quote:
Non competes can suppress fair compensation for the talents of the employee.
True. But in this hypothetical they agreed to these things.
quote:
And it can create a trap in bad work environments that the employee cannot effectively escape.
This is something I hadn't really given thought to. Interesting.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:42 pm to TDsngumbo
quote:
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.
exactly what my old company did.
I was dumb not to ask ahead of time but live and learn
My old company went after several paper pushers to scare off people from leaving. Non-competes can get fricked.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:42 pm to Steadyhands
quote:
it shouldn't be because it's forced upon someone.
quote:
forced
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:43 pm to TDsngumbo
Oh yay. The govt is here to help us again.
Do we like this?
Do we like this?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:44 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I'm just not sure that it is actually going to change the playing field anywhere really as you seem to fear.
My opposition has less to do with the particular impacts on any given industry---my field doesn't even allow them to begin with.
My problem with the new rule is that I believe it is blatant overreach in an area the federal government has no business meddling in.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:44 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
4/2023, sorry for fat fingers.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I am anti-federal government overreach though.
The fact that a thing called "non competition clause" is legal and what you're defending, I'm going to go ahead and say you don't know what you are for or against.
The government forces people to not pursue certain things based on previous employment. You're not for that. You just think being for that makes you small government.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:45 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
That's a collectively bargained union contract. Completely different situation.
How is it "completely different" than a negotiated employment contract?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:46 pm to GRTiger
quote:
The fact that a thing called "non competition clause" is legal and what you're defending, I'm going to go ahead and say you don't know what you are for or against.
This makes absolutely zero sense.
quote:
You just think being for that makes you small government.
No, my desire for the federal government to not be involved in consensual contracts between adults is what makes me pro-small government.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:46 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I am anti-federal government overreach though.
yet, you are in favor of companies abusing the government's legal system to suppress employee mobility?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:46 pm to TDsngumbo
LOL. Screw you Oschner!
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:47 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
you are in favor of companies abusing the government's legal system to suppress employee mobility?
What?
I am in favor of two people being able to contract the terms of their relationship as they see fit.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:48 pm to Indefatigable
So if I sign a noncompete today to get a job, then 2 years from now go work elsewhere in the same field, you think it's right to deny me or sue me for that.
Small government would tell the employer from 2 years ago to go frick themselves. In fact, many do and win because of the absurdity.
You're arguing for absurdity. And on the right timeline, you're defending unions. Small government my ball bag.
Small government would tell the employer from 2 years ago to go frick themselves. In fact, many do and win because of the absurdity.
You're arguing for absurdity. And on the right timeline, you're defending unions. Small government my ball bag.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:49 pm to TDsngumbo
quote:I have never signed one, but I understand why a company would want one. A former employer of mine spent considerable time, money, and resources to get another employee educated and credentialed. He then quit and went to work for a competitor.
I have never willingly consented to signing one in my career. I've always needed to sign it if I wanted the job. My balls were in a rope and I was hanging from it.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 2:49 pm to TDsngumbo
Non competes are a total prisoners' dilemma. We'd all be better off if no one had them, but the first company to impose them gets an immediate advantage - it can poach employees but other ones can't.
So you end up with this shitty situation where bigger sophisticated entities with lawyers (O___r) are extremely aggressive because they have the savvy and money to enforce them, while smaller companies either don't have them because they don't know wtf they are, or have these patently unenforceable DIY agreements that would never hold up in court. Of course the ALEC types have sway in the leg, while workers don't, so the status quo stays.
I'm not really a constitution guy but the FTC doing a nationwide ban as part of a regulation seems like absurd overreach which will get stayed and eventually overturned by SCOTUS. Maybe the vehicle they need to axe Chevron?
So you end up with this shitty situation where bigger sophisticated entities with lawyers (O___r) are extremely aggressive because they have the savvy and money to enforce them, while smaller companies either don't have them because they don't know wtf they are, or have these patently unenforceable DIY agreements that would never hold up in court. Of course the ALEC types have sway in the leg, while workers don't, so the status quo stays.
I'm not really a constitution guy but the FTC doing a nationwide ban as part of a regulation seems like absurd overreach which will get stayed and eventually overturned by SCOTUS. Maybe the vehicle they need to axe Chevron?
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News