- 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
Our small Gov telling businesses what they cant do Noncompete clauses in crosshairs
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:06 pm
FTC files first suits to stop companies from making workers sign noncompete restrictions
quote:
For the first time ever, the Federal Trade Commission has sued multiple companies and individuals claiming they imposed illegal noncompete restrictions on workers.
Included in the complaints are Prudential Security Inc. and Prudential Command Inc., as well as their owners, Greg Wier and Matthew Keywell. Also named are glass and packaging companies O-I Glass Inc. and Ardagh Group S.A.
The FTC said in a news release that the companies and individuals illegally imposed noncompete restrictions on workers, including low-wage security guards, manufacturing workers, engineers and glass plant employees.
A representative for O-I declined to comment and a representative for Titan Security Group, of which the Prudential companies are subsidiaries, denied imposing the restrictions on security officers.
The FTC said the restrictions prohibited the workers from looking for or accepting jobs with competing companies after leaving.
9
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:10 pm to stout
quote:
The FTC said the restrictions prohibited the workers from looking for or accepting jobs with competing companies after leaving.
Yea. Such clauses have always been legal if limited in duration and area.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:11 pm to stout
I'll echo comments from the last thread on this: eliminating NCAs is a destruction of individual liberty.
Doing it via federal-bureaucratic fiat is tyranny.
Doing it via federal-bureaucratic fiat is tyranny.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Disregarding the question of whether the government should get involved in this or not (sure, it probably shouldn’t), I’m of the opinion that these types of clauses are mostly pointless and little harm would occur to anyone (or any industry) if they were all magically deemed invalid tomorrow.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:21 pm to stout
Is banning non-compete as a condition of employment really that much more anti-freedom than banning union membership as a condition of employment?
Both increase freedom of the individual worker. It's difficult to say you support one and then not the other because of small government principles.
Both increase freedom of the individual worker. It's difficult to say you support one and then not the other because of small government principles.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:27 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I’m of the opinion that these types of clauses are mostly pointless and little harm would occur to anyone (or any industry) if they were all magically deemed invalid tomorrow.
It's estimated to increase salaries by $300 billion in the first year of being banned. Retention costs, training, etc all will go up. Companies invest thousands into training people only to lose them to a competitor having zero assurances their investment will be worth it.
A company and individual should be able to make the decision without Government involvement.
Don't want to sign one? Don't take the job.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
A NCA as a condition of employment in an at-will employment jurisdiction smacks of restraint of trade and should be illegal. No way any minimum wage position should ever be forced to sign a NCA.
If a NCA is part of an employment contract, then I have zero issue with it.
If a NCA is part of an employment contract, then I have zero issue with it.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Doing it via federal-bureaucratic fiat is tyranny.
Welcome to the Biden administration.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:31 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Welcome to the Federal Bureaucracy
FIFY
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:33 pm to stout
quote:
It's estimated to increase salaries by $300 billion in the first year of being banned. Retention costs, training, etc all will go up. Companies invest thousands into training people only to lose them to a competitor having zero assurances their investment will be worth it.
I’m of the belief that this stuff would sort itself out.
There will always be people who appreciate the benefit of staying with some place long term. Just like there will always people who will grow resentful (and often less productive) at the feeling of being held captive.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:34 pm to stout
I can't wait to also hear that non-competes are especially damaged to POC....that is coming!
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:35 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I’m of the opinion that these types of clauses are mostly pointless and little harm would occur to anyone (or any industry) if they were all magically deemed invalid tomorrow.
Are there any other contractual provisions you deem useless such that the government should ban them?
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:35 pm to BeepNode
quote:
Is banning non-compete as a condition of employment really that much more anti-freedom than banning union membership as a condition of employment?
No. Both should be allowed freely, or regulated at the state level.
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:36 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I’m of the belief that this stuff would sort itself out.
Perhaps but it's just more cost inducing Gov involvement IMO
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:36 pm to Floyd Dawg
quote:
A NCA as a condition of employment in an at-will employment jurisdiction smacks of restraint of trade and should be illegal. No way any minimum wage position should ever be forced to sign a NCA.
No one in the United States has ever been forced to sign a binding NCA.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Are there any other contractual provisions you deem useless such that the government should ban them?
A shite ton. But I’m not suggesting the government ban any.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:38 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
But I’m not suggesting the government ban any.
Of course not. You’re just ok with it.
Outside of freedom to contract, what other areas are you ok with the government intrusions on individual Liberty?
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:39 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Of course not. You’re just ok with it.
That doesn’t even make sense.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:39 pm to Floyd Dawg
quote:
A NCA as a condition of employment in an at-will employment jurisdiction smacks of restraint of trade
Are you under the impression that you cannot have contractual employment agreements in an at-will state?
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:40 pm to Y.A. Tittle
You stated that you would be ok with all NCA’s being ruled invalid.
How is that not “being ok” with federal infringement on an individual’s liberty to contract?
How is that not “being ok” with federal infringement on an individual’s liberty to contract?
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 3:41 pm
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News