- 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: Our small Gov telling businesses what they cant do Noncompete clauses in crosshairs
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:38 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:38 pm to Indefatigable
That’s a distinction without a difference.
1
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:39 pm to Floyd Dawg
No it isn’t. No one has a right to just work where they want doing what they want to do.
If you want that, start your own business.
If you want that, start your own business.
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You hate liberty and/or think the average person is too stupid to understand their employment agreement. I do not.
I have no clue what that even means. There was absolutely no indirect insinuation to my facetious quip. No meaning beyond the mere words. Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Not what I said at all.
In an at-will employment state, the vast majority of employees do not have an employment agreement that spells out liquidated damages for the employee (severance or buyout) should the employer choose to terminate the contract without cause. What I am saying is that if an employer wishes to have me agree to a NCA, they should also be bound on their end to pay me if they decide to end my employment. And the worst are the ones who release employees without cause, yet still enforce a NCA.
In an at-will employment state, the vast majority of employees do not have an employment agreement that spells out liquidated damages for the employee (severance or buyout) should the employer choose to terminate the contract without cause. What I am saying is that if an employer wishes to have me agree to a NCA, they should also be bound on their end to pay me if they decide to end my employment. And the worst are the ones who release employees without cause, yet still enforce a NCA.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:46 pm to davyjones
quote:
have no clue what that even means
Yes you do. Before you started on the Rush deflection, you were all for supporting the FTC’s action.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:47 pm to Floyd Dawg
quote:
What I am saying is that if an employer wishes to have me agree to a NCA, they should also be bound on their end to pay me if they decide to end my employment.
In the absence of a written agreement to that effect? If so, why?
quote:
And the worst are the ones who release employees without cause, yet still enforce a NCA.
Those employees shouldn’t have signed an NCA allowing that.
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:47 pm to deeprig9
I will choose what others fear, I will choose..
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:48 pm to stout
FTC is right in this circumstance, frick off.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 5:55 pm to stout
quote:
I didn't say they were.
What was the problem then?
Posted on 1/8/23 at 6:16 pm to diat150
In Louisiana even if you don't have a non-compete, if The client list is considered a trade secret then you can't take it and solicit customers or your potentially breaking trade secrets laws, which are not good to be on the other end of
Posted on 1/8/23 at 6:42 pm to stout
I'm on the fence here. Our commie gubment doing this makes me wonder why it's being done. Ie...if it has a little to do with Trump saying feds should have to take a break from govt work before becoming lobbyists.
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 6:43 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 8:17 pm to blueridgeTiger
quote:
Yea. Such clauses have always been legal if limited in duration and area.
Not true. They are sometimes enforceable and sometimes not. The rules are different state by state. I deal with this about a dozen times per year over about 15 states.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 8:37 pm to Indefatigable
Not in the absence of a written agreement. I’m saying the written agreement should be a requirement if the employee is to be subjected to a NCA. That is my standard answer to any prospective employer who wanted me to sign a NCA; I want an employment contract in return. The guaranteed compensation is my consideration for agreeing to limit my future earnings potential if I leave.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 8:40 pm to Floyd Dawg
quote:same here. The issue is that my contract is this, “F U Get Out”. If my company wants to sign me up on a five-year guaranteed contract, I will be more than happy to sign any legally binding noncompete clause. Until the day that happens, frick you..
If a NCA is part of an employment contract, then I have zero issue with it.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 11:55 pm to stout
C
Competition is a part of life.
I recently had an employee leave. Of course they called my clients but my relationships and reputation has served me well.
Are employees supposed to go hungry once they leave?
quote:
Why should he be exposed to losing his business just to "protect employees" as you called it?
Competition is a part of life.
I recently had an employee leave. Of course they called my clients but my relationships and reputation has served me well.
Are employees supposed to go hungry once they leave?
Posted on 1/8/23 at 11:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And yet there always is a choice. You do NOT have any right whatsoever to be employed wherever you want in whatever field you want.
Someone hates freedom....
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:46 pm to novabill
quote:
Someone hates freedom....
The freedom to contract is one of our most fundamental freedoms
Posted on 1/12/23 at 5:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The freedom to contract is one of our most fundamental freedoms
Is it a contract or coercion in most cases.
Is there a negotiation or simply if you want to work here you must sign this.
I get it you like trapping employees so they can't leave and earn a living to somehow protect a business. I lean more towards protecting the individual
We will have to agree to disagree
Posted on 1/12/23 at 6:45 am to stout
I do understand that viewpoint but companies should do more to retain those employees. Most noncompete agreements carry on throughout the employment. At some point, the company has recouped their investment which in many cases is very little and the noncompete portion of that agreement should end.
Posted on 1/12/23 at 7:10 am to novabill
quote:
or simply if you want to work here you must sign this.
That is the negotiation. Employment is optional and negotiable by all parties involved.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News