Quote:

---

The Federal Trade Commission proposed a new rule Thursday to ban the use of noncompete clauses in worker contracts, a change that would significantly boost the negotiating power of employees.

The proposal is based on the FTC's finding that noncompete clauses violate its fair trade laws, with the agency calling them a "widespread and often exploitative practice that suppresses wages, hampers innovation and blocks entrepreneurs from starting new businesses."

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna64445

No way this holds up.

Aren't those effectively voluntary contracts between workers and employers? Why should they not hold up in civil court?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Aren't those effectively voluntary contracts between workers and employers? Why should they not hold up in civil court?

---

Well, they wouldn't ever hold up in civil court, if they are banned by the FTC, so I'm not sure I follow your question here.

I think there should be arbitration for SOME people to be able to get out of non-competes.

If you are involuntarily laid off and you were not a disciplinary issue at your previous employer, you should be released from non-compete clause.

However... why is this a federal issue at all except on Federal Territories and Districts? Isn't this an issue that should reside within the states perview?

Agfencer98 said:

---

I don't mind non-competes normally, but I do when it was not mentioned during any pre-employment conversations.

My current position has a non-compete that I was informed of, and made to sign, several months after I started. That type of act is predatory and if there isn't already outlawed, should be. It also should have been a red flag for me, but I ignored it.

Lesson kiddos, always pay attention to the red flags.

AF98

---

My software company was acquired 7 years ago by big giant german accounting software company. To continue my employment, I had to sign an updated non-compete agreement.

This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.

Help_needed said:

---

Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?

---

I felt the same way until I found out doctors have to deal with this. A practice shouldn't be able to own a doctor after I (Medicare) pay for their residency.

Doctor didn't have to choose to work at that practice. Everything is choices and consequences.

Your example reminds me of the poster who got a worthless degree, worked in a field that didn't provide health insurance and then cried that he should be able to continue to work where he wants and how dare us tell him to find another field.

milosh said:

---

Help_needed said:

---

Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?

---

I felt the same way until I found out doctors have to deal with this. A practice shouldn't be able to own a doctor after I (Medicare) pay for their residency.

---

Is there not a geographic area restriction that you could leave? For example, the non compete covers a 3 county area or a 50 mile radius around the office?

Seems to favor Right to work states that generally vote more red.
The Michigan based company I work for requires us to sign them.

Noncompetition agreements in Texas have gone from virtually unenforceable in the '90s, to enforceable as long as they complied with statutory requirements in the '00s, to a point, now, where they are enforced even if they don't comply with the law. But, the last thing we need is the feds jumping in on this subject. If they try to, it won't take too long for the Supreme Court to slap it down as there is absolutely no Act of Congress legislating on the subject. Just another bureaucratic power grab.

From your post

" I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. "

So you had a choice.

JW said:

---

some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.

---

And for good reason.

Goose06 said:

---

milosh said:

---

Help_needed said:

---

Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?

---

I felt the same way until I found out doctors have to deal with this. A practice shouldn't be able to own a doctor after I (Medicare) pay for their residency.

---

Is there not a geographic area restriction that you could leave? For example, the non compete covers a 3 county area or a 50 mile radius around the office?

---

That's typically how it works in medicine, and we wonder why healthcare is the way it is now. We have MBAs telling MDs what they can and cannot do lol

Agfencer98 said:

---

I don't mind non-competes normally, but I do when it was not mentioned during any pre-employment conversations.

My current position has a non-compete that I was informed of, and made to sign, several months after I started. That type of act is predatory and if there isn't already outlawed, should be. It also should have been a red flag for me, but I ignored it.

Lesson kiddos, always pay attention to the red flags.

AF98

---

I would never abide by a non-compete that didn't include a severance to cover lost wages while the non-compete was active.

Sue me and I'll take my chances finding a sympathetic jury.

Goose06 said:

---

This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.

---

If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.

Help_needed said:

---

JW said:

---

some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.

---

It's a choice to work in that industry.

---

Many people (myself included) pursue medicine and 10 years of post-grad training only to have your only employment options be PE firms and giant healthcare corps wanting to hire you and each has a non-compete of 3 years. With 250k+ of med school loans new docs are essentially trapped, and these firms and giant hospitals now use docs to overcharge patients while at the same time under pay docs as they have zero negotiating power

Irish 2.0 said:

---

I am fine with non-competes as long as it is done prior to employment. Not hire you and then threaten to fire you if you don't sign one as they spring it on you after you've quit your other job. Not make you sign a new one if your company is bought. There should be protections to prevent corporations from strong arming people after the fact.

---

They are supposed to provide you with consideration when signed, and continued employment is not, as a matter of law, sufficient consideration to enforce such an agreement. However, the Texas courts have bent over backwards to find other consideration to support such agreements, even when the agreements themselves state that the consideration is continued employment and not specialized training or access to (new) confidential information.

whytho987654 said:

---

Goose06 said:

---

This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.

---

If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.

---

If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).

Irish 2.0 said:

---

I am fine with non-competes as long as it is done prior to employment. Not hire you and then threaten to fire you if you don't sign one as they spring it on you after you've quit your other job. Not make you sign a new one if your company is bought. There should be protections to prevent corporations from strong arming people after the fact.

---

In Texas there is no way its enforceable if done the way you describe. You have to receive consideration for signing it (and $10 don't count) and there have to be reasonable limitations on it (geographic, types of business/services it restricts you from doing, etc).

In Texas. But this isn't just a Texas matter

Most non-compete clauses I've encountered are pretty neutered around not stealing clients, copyright items, processes for work, etc. and taking it to a new company. It does not prevent people from switching jobs, it just prevents them from stealing from their current employer.

Help_needed said:

---

Doctor didn't have to choose to work at that practice. Everything is choices and consequences.

Your example reminds me of the poster who got a worthless degree, worked in a field that didn't provide health insurance and then cried that he should be able to continue to work where he wants and how dare us tell him to find another field.

---

Except that the industry has pretty much conspired to make them standard and you cannot find an employment contract without one.

It's just another example of how grossly hospitals have corporatized Healthcare.

Goose06 said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Goose06 said:

---

This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.

---

If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.

---

If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).

---

Why should a company be able to restrict an employee's services outside of poaching clients? You claim that the contract is voluntary but when an industry conspires to force all employees to do so it's basically the same enforced duress that a company puts on consumers when they have a monopoly.

The best thing to do would be for the seller and buyer to work out an employee retention bonus after the sale

Identify critical employees and offer them retention bonuses to stay on for X amount of time after the sale. Split the cost between buyer and seller.

Other than poaching clients and selling business secrets, non-compete clauses are not necessary to protect a company, hurt an employee's ability to negotiate for raises, promotions, etc, and should be illegal.

Goose06 said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Goose06 said:

---

This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.

---

If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.

---

If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).

---

On the flip side if you have no equity in a company as an employee, a non compete is nothing short of a restriction