- 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 3:14 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:14 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
They generally aren't enforceable anyway because businesses don't do their homework before drafting them.
it is not that they don't do their homework. It is that they don't care. The threat is all they need
0
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Its about overreach in an area the federal government has no place interfering in.
Election year. Just like there has already been some overreach and legislating done by the executive branch like with student loan forgiveness and redefining “sex” in Title IX decrees there will be more before November.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:17 pm to 0x15E
quote:
Pretty fricking stupid to waste legal resources on one disgruntled employee
Exactly. There are other agreements you could sign, NDAs, etc etc... but to restrict someone's ability to earn is just low. My previous company did this ALL THE TIME to former employees. Nobody wants to battle corporate attorneys, so they just roll over.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:19 pm to TigerBlood17
quote:
quote:
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?
If I’m the one buying the business, I would pay a lot less if I knew the seller could turn around and start the same business in the same area.
So the free market would dictate the value of the business?
Is this even the same type of NC? I don't know enough about NCs to get into all that, but it seems like it would be drastically different than between an employer and employee.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:20 pm to kingbob
quote:
I agree with banning non-competes
So if you bought a dry cleaning business from a single individual owner and part of the transaction the former owner agreed to a 15 mile non-compete, you think that shouldn't be legal? And now you think former non-competes, which caused a pricing premium, should be void and that former owner should be able to open a dry cleaning business next door?
ETA:
I'm just playing devils' advocate here.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:21 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
I'm on the fence on these
#1, A federal agency shouldn't be changing law on its own without congress passing a law.
#1a, the Federal government shouldn't get in the middle of a contract between two parties.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Well it is my point, and the reason I oppose the rule.
That's very fair
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:22 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why is that for you, or the federal government to decide, as opposed to the employer and employee who entered into the contract?
Can you run down the list of labor laws and let us know which are okay and which aren't?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:23 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?
In California, where non-competes have always been illegal, there is a carveout allowing non-competes in this specific situation (along with a couple others - partners in a partnership, etc).
I would imagine the FTC has something similar in there but who knows. It may be as simple as saying that people selling a business interest aren't "employees" - which is true - so they aren't covered here.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:23 pm to TigerBlood17
quote:
If I’m the one buying the business, I would pay a lot less if I knew the seller could turn around and start the same business in the same area.
Okay, then take that into consideration when you are buying the business
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:26 pm to nitwit
quote:
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.
Right, and I could see them being somewhat fair if there was a time limit on them, say if you leave the company in the first 3 years then it's enforceable, but signing a non-compete because your options are limited and then still having it in effect 5+ years down the road is BS.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:26 pm to CatfishJohn
I should have been more specific. This ruling bans non-competes as a condition of employment. That is what I support banning. A non-compete as a condition of a land or business sale seems like the valid usage of a non-compete.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:27 pm to TDsngumbo
I get the purpose of an employer wanting a non-compete for certain situations. Can't have a sales guy run off with all your customers or have employees taking trade secrets to a competitor.
But I have seen them way overused. I know people with certifications from a national board and their employers want to say they can't leave and go practice at a competitor with their own certification. Of course, they have never tried to sue though.
But I have seen them way overused. I know people with certifications from a national board and their employers want to say they can't leave and go practice at a competitor with their own certification. Of course, they have never tried to sue though.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:29 pm to Tridentds
quote:
Most lawyers will advise you to just just sit out the 1-year non-compete.
Incorrect, hire a better attorney. I've beat two non-competes in Louisiana.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:29 pm to dallastigers
quote:
This seems like an over reach by the FTC.
Yeah, seems like this is not a decision that can or should be made by FTC bureaucrats.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:29 pm to jcaz
That’s a do-not-solicit, not a non-compete
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:30 pm to DeathValley85
quote:
Can you run down the list of labor laws and let us know which are okay and which aren't?
Laws, you mean as those passed by a legislature?
Because that isn't what this thread is about. Granted, if you are aware of an act of congress authorizing the FTC to do this, I am all ears.
Plenty of states heavily regulate or outright prohibit non-competes. I have no issue with that.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
How is it "completely different" than a negotiated employment contract?
You don't understand the difference between collectively bargained union contracts and unilateral single employee contracts?
The entire purpose of a union is to negotiate a contract for all of its members. Then, their individual employment contracts have to meet the guidelines set by the union and have to be approved by the union.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:37 pm to dallastigers
quote:
quote:
If they weren't gaining something from it, they would have people sign them. What they are gaining is control at the individual's expense.
Did the individual gain anything?
From the NC, doubful.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:43 pm to dallastigers
quote:
Did the individual gain anything?
Depends on when it's signed.
They are more enforceable when something is also gained by the employee, such as when they are hired and the employee gains a job. That is when one should be signed. Or when he receives a promotion or a raise, and the non-compete is a required component.
"sign or you are fired" is often not enforceable.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News