re: Non-Compete agreements are now illegal nationwide!

quote:

---

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.

---

Did you sign an agreement not to do that?

quote:

---

Small government would tell the employer from 2 years ago to go frick themselves.

---

Small government wouldn't tell the employer anything at all.

quote:

---

you're defending unions

---

You'll never find me supporting unions in any post I've ever made.

quote:

---

Also, what law gives the FTC this power to limit contracts like this now?

---

This seems like a valid question here as well.

I’m looking at it from personal experience. My wife works in healthcare in a small specialty, she treats cases in an even smaller subset of that specialty. When she got out of school, if she wanted to work in our current market doing what she currently does, she had two options. Work for a specific clinic and sign a non-compete or start her own business with zero practical experience.

It’s horseshite.

quote:

---

The only way to combat fully enforced non-compete is with worker's unions. Literally the only way. You as an individual standing on principle won't do shite. You are supporting he collection of workers to battle the power of the organization. That's a union, my friend.

---

Again, this makes no sense.

I live in a right to work state.

Prior to today, a non-compete was enforceable in Louisiana if it met certain relatively strict requirements. Not even a union would save you from an enforceable non-compete.

quote:

---

For starters, the individual has to be made aware of the clause and consent to it. You want the job? Those are the terms.

---

Right, so business gets to bully the individual.
Now it's you want to keep the employee, pay them their worth or someone else will. The market will balance things out for the value of people.

Pretty fricking stupid to waste legal resources on one disgruntled employee

quote:

---

Not even a union would save you from an enforceable non-compete.

---

Any non-compete would 100% be a "term and condition" and therefore subject to mandatory bargaining. The NLRB would love to nail company who unilaterally asked a unionized employee to sign a noncompete


edit - LINK

quote:

---

At some point the one who says this about everything they disagree with sounds like an idiot or a child. What I'm saying makes sense.

You agree that 1 million people turning down jobs because of something is better than 1 person or 100 people doing it right?

---

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Its a valid question, like some others raised here.
The litigation will focus on this issue .
Truth is, prospective employees rarely have any real bargaining position, much less equal bargaining leverage to negotiate terms like this.
And, many years after the first agreement on compensation is reached, the existence of this clause (and its ability to keep you unemployed or underemployed for two years) gives the employer no incentive to pay what your services are now worth.
And for the same reason the employer can scrimp or even deny other work place benefits (like paying you on time in some instances).
You are free to quit in response.
And be unemployed in your same community, where you have a house and family...
These agreements can be and are abused.

quote:

---

Why is the federal government involved in consensual employment contracts?

---

Because employers, especially in narrow fields... are dickheads and torture employees that dare choose to leave.

edited to add....

I'd be okay with non-competes, I guess, if employers weren't allowed to recruit from competitors. It's amazing how companies LOVE to pluck people from other companies, but will be excessively punitive should they leave one day.