- 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 3:01 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:01 pm to Y.A. Tittle
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've always thought non-competes are obvious violations of the Sherman Act but the Courts have apparently held otherwise. A non-compete is, quite literally, a "contract ... in restraint of trade."
I struggle to think of any meaningful interpretation of these words that doesn't encompass a non-compete, but I'm not wearing a black robe.
0
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:02 pm to TDsngumbo
The link you posted says, if I'm reading it correctly, that "senior executives" of a company are not included in the retroactive non-compete agreement ban.
quote:
Companies will also have to throw out existing noncompete agreements for most employees, although in a change from the original proposal, the agreements may remain in effect for senior executives.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:03 pm to CatfishJohn
The problem is even if they aren’t enforceable, new employers don’t want the hassle. That’s market interference.
By default they say, wait it out. It causes a whole host of problems and should be done anyway with in nearly all situations.
By default they say, wait it out. It causes a whole host of problems and should be done anyway with in nearly all situations.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:04 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?
Or bought one last month paying extra for the non-compete clause.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:04 pm to LSURussian
That makes sense. Those are the only imaginable potential threats.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:04 pm to dallastigers
Non compete and non solicit are totally different things.
Does this ban non solicits too ?
Does this ban non solicits too ?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:04 pm to TDsngumbo
I agree with banning non-competes, but I don’t think the FTC has the authority to do this themselves.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:05 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Those are the only imaginable potential threats.
Why is that for you, or the federal government to decide, as opposed to the employer and employee who entered into the contract?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:06 pm to Indefatigable
Idk who the fed is talking to, but I know because of experience as an executive level employee.
What is your experience?
What is your experience?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:07 pm to GRTiger
quote:
What is your experience?
In the basic principles of contracts?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:07 pm to LSURussian
LINK
You can read it all here although it's 570 pages long
"Senior executive" is limited to people who both qualify as "a worker who was in a policy-making position" and who make at least $151,164. Where they came with this bizarrely specific number I have no idea, it's probably in those 570 pages
You can read it all here although it's 570 pages long
"Senior executive" is limited to people who both qualify as "a worker who was in a policy-making position" and who make at least $151,164. Where they came with this bizarrely specific number I have no idea, it's probably in those 570 pages
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:07 pm to Indefatigable
Or life in general if you prefer
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why is the federal government involved in consensual employment contracts?
Because they benefit corps, not individuals/society. They're ridiculous. Corps already have enough power.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:10 pm to GRTiger
I've been on both sides of NC's fairly often. They generally aren't enforceable anyway because businesses don't do their homework before drafting them.
But you're missing the entire point in any event. It isn't about what you think about how other businesses operate, or what value you abstractly place on other businesses employees. Its about overreach in an area the federal government has no place interfering in.
But you're missing the entire point in any event. It isn't about what you think about how other businesses operate, or what value you abstractly place on other businesses employees. Its about overreach in an area the federal government has no place interfering in.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:10 pm to Steadyhands
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?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:12 pm to TDsngumbo
As of right now, the government has just impaired millions of contracts, not even as the result of a fricking law passed by Congress.
Unconstitutional on its face.
Expect an injunction very soon.
Unconstitutional on its face.
Expect an injunction very soon.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:12 pm to Indefatigable
No that isn't the point at all.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:13 pm to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
"Senior executive" is limited to people who both qualify as "a worker who was in a policy-making position" and who make at least $151,164.
Lot of mid-level folks in a lot of industries fixing to get a bit of a raise and a new important sounding :wink-wink: job title, I'd imagine.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:14 pm to PGAOLDBawNeVaBroke
quote:
The problem is even if they aren’t enforceable, new employers don’t want the hassle. By default they say, wait it out. It causes a whole host of problems and should be done anyway with in nearly all situations.
exactly
I have had a lawyer look at every NC I've signed and they have all been glorified toilet paper in terms of enforceability but will cost tens of thousands to fight. That might be realistic for some c-suite guy to front but your working man with two kids is not liquid enough to fight them.
you don't want to lose employees? pay them more and/or treat them better
Posted on 4/23/24 at 3:14 pm to GRTiger
quote:
No that isn't the point at all.
Well it is my point, and the reason I oppose the rule.
Page 5 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News