Started By
Message

re: FTC just announces facially unconstitutional action

Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:42 pm to
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67568 posts
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:42 pm to
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.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
29951 posts
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:46 pm to
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
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram