eric76 said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

JW said:

---

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

---

Even with a non-compete agreement, it doesn't mean that the agreement would ever be held up in court.

---

A doctor does not have the means to fight a wall street private equity or a major healthcare corporation in court, they will bleed you dry and draw it out

---

That's an excellent point.

Like one very expensive lawyer told me about one issue years ago (not a non-compete) -- that if I ever went to court, I would almost surely win, but it would be very expensive. My thought was that it would equally expensive for the other side. In the end, I paid the lawyer for the work he did and never did give in and the other side never went after me for it.

---

The thing is they will and do go after docs. An internal medicine doc will get paid roughly 250k from a hospital, but the hospital will bring in over 3 million in revenue from that one doc, They're not gonna let their revenue generator leave because how else are they going to charge a patient a grand for breathing hospital oxygen? Non competes are a tool used by monopolies to underpay and trap employees

---

That may explain why medical specialists I have known who switched jobs took jobs in other cities.

Does it work for general practitioners, too? I guess if the general practitioner has his own practice, he is free to do what he wants.

---

It is specialty dependent. A field like radiology is fluid and docs can basically roam free bouncing around due to their high demand, reimbursement, and nature of the practice, while general hospitalists and general surgeons are tied to a hospital, as they take care of sick patients who are admitted. If you have your own capital and start a practice you break free from it, but only certain specialties can realistically do this (General practice outpatient, urology, ent, dermatology, plastic surgery, gastroenterology, allergists, orthopedics and a couple others)

This is a nonsense position as courts already have established what is fair and not fair in non-compete agreements. I.e. NCAs without fair compensation rarely hold up. Texas is a very worker friendly state for example and NCAs aren't routinely challenged in courts because companies don't want to have every NCA they have ruled invalid. This is a solution in search of a problem

Funny, on wall street when a trader pr sales person moves, its expected that certain portion of your client will move with you. the poaching of the client is part of business for both sides.

Aggie95 said:

---

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

---

This literally has absolutely nothing to do with right to work.

I have a noncompete cause in my partner agreement for a partner owned practice (no hospital involved). I have been told it would not hold up in court because there has not been any "confidential industry information" exchanged.

Mine restricts me for a several mile radius for several years *or* I can part with some money to nullify it. I would probably just see if they even took me to court as they would spend more pursuing it than they would get if they won.

I think non competes in medicine are pretty dumb. The employers don't train the docs and the docs shoulder the liability. Paired with the legal obligations against patient abandonment and the fact that I must notify my patients if I move or retire so they can find me or arrange other care the whole thing seems silly.

jt16 said:

---

This is a nonsense position as courts already have established what is fair and not fair in non-compete agreements. I.e. NCAs without fair compensation rarely hold up. Texas is a very worker friendly state for example and NCAs aren't routinely challenged in courts because companies don't want to have every NCA they have ruled invalid. This is a solution in search of a problem

---

You were missing the entire point here. Biden is trying to make these agreements illegal on the federal level. Therefore, it would not matter what state courts had previously decided on their own laws on the legality of such contract.

Also, as an aside, noncompete agreements are challenged in Texas all the time. Not sure where you were getting your information from.

Panama Red said:

---

jt16 said:

---

This is a nonsense position as courts already have established what is fair and not fair in non-compete agreements. I.e. NCAs without fair compensation rarely hold up. Texas is a very worker friendly state for example and NCAs aren't routinely challenged in courts because companies don't want to have every NCA they have ruled invalid. This is a solution in search of a problem

---

You were missing the entire point here. Biden is trying to make these agreements illegal on the federal level. Therefore, it would not matter what state courts had previously decided on their own laws on the legality of such contract.

Also, as an aside, noncompete agreements are challenged in Texas all the time. Not sure where you were getting your information from.

---

You miss my point that this move by the admin isn't needed because the courts have established precedent to protect workers. And I can tell you I've unfortunately had some experience dealing with employment lawyers on this very issue. They were at least of the opinion that NCs aren't as challenged as you think in a court. They're threatened all the time. I'm on the private equity side, and PE firms are reluctant to challenge NCs in court unless they really have a strong case. The fear is that losing a court challenge could lead to invalidating a slew of NCs in place with every other executive. In other words the law already protects entrepreneurs (which this move is claiming to aim to protect).

Quote:

---

You miss my point that this move by the admin isn't needed because the courts have established precedent to protect workers.

---

If this your point, then you misunderstand what's happening here.

Example: New York law protects workers and puts in very stringent rules on non-compete agreements. Wyoming law more lax, allows non-,competes to be broad.

Biden FTC says "it does not matter what Wyoming or New York say, non competes are forbidden. "

Quote:

---

In other words the law already protects entrepreneurs (which this move is claiming to aim to protect).

---

It's currently a state law issue. This FTC rule wouid change that and hurt business.

Not my area of knowledge but seems likely to have interstate commerce implications, which could be the basis of federal action.

In any case, as an employee in a private firm who is not under a NC, I can see no benefit to being made to sign one. If it were a requirement of a new firm I was considering for employment change then I guess I would have to weigh that as a economic liability on future income against whatever positive paycheck or equity difference there may be…but unless I'm getting compensated for the full loss of my salary for the term of the NC over the duration of my employment there then it's just a loss of income and me paying the employer for the privilege of working there.

Glad to not be in that BS.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

You miss my point that this move by the admin isn't needed because the courts have established precedent to protect workers.

---

If this your point, then you misunderstand what's happening here.

Example: New York law protects workers and puts in very stringent rules on non-compete agreements. Wyoming law more lax, allows non-,competes to be broad.

Biden FTC says "it does not matter what Wyoming or New York say, non competes are forbidden. "

Quote:

---

In other words the law already protects entrepreneurs (which this move is claiming to aim to protect).

---

It's currently a state law issue. This FTC rule wouid change that and hurt business.

---

Exactly. I understand exactly what's going on. My argument is that this move isn't needed to protect workers and entrepreneurs as the admin claims because courts already do that job. I'd actually take it one step further and say this move would ultimately hurt workers as it would be yet one more example of this admin making moves that hurt investment.

agracer said:

---

twk said:

---

agracer said:

---

cajunaggie08 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 was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel 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. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.

---

Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.

No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.

---

In some jurisdictions (like Oklahoma), that's true. But, it's not in Texas. Non-compete means just what it says: not competing with your prior employer. Now, it is supposed to only apply where the employer has either paid your for the non-compete, or provided you with specialized training, or access to confidential information, but once you check one of those boxes, then yes, it will bar you from working for a competitor, or setting up your own competing business within the time and place restrictions.

---

And yet engineers I know, who signed "non-competes", switch companies all the time in Texas.

---

First off, just because you sign a non-compete doesn't mean its enforceable. I frequently have to tell prospective clients that the non-compete that they had their employee sign cannot be enforced, usually because they do not provide any consideration (whether that's money paid for signing the agreement, or specialized training or access to confidential information provided only after signing the agreement). Second, not all non-competes are as broad as the law allows -- some may be more narrow and only focused on preventing the employee from stealing existing clients or confidential information. Third, just because a non-compete is in place doesn't mean the employer will find it worthwhile to go to court to enforce it.

I'm neutral on non-competes. They have their place, particularly in the sale of a business, or in the case of equity partners in a business. There is no justification for the feds to get involved.

I had to sign one or get fired after being with a company for 10 years. I got some cash considerations out of it but also got it review by attorney to determine what I could and could not do. Many are just scare tactics because a $600 bucks in hour the lawyer fees to enforce them rack up quickly and if they aren't written correctly they are hard to enforce.

I agree the employer shouldnt be able to force them without some type of cash consideration/golden parachute from their side.

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?

---

Every single industry I've been in, or discussed with engineering friends about are under noncompetes. They are ubiquitous. The only group on technical staffs that aren't under noncompetes are those who are old enough to have not had to sign them as part of being hired on. Or are in states that can't enforce them.

If you're lucky, you're the superstar that the company can't live without and wont get fired for not signing. But I don't know if you've been paying attention the last 20 years of corporate world, but they've ruthlessly trying to get rid of the superstar that can throw their weight around. I've seen corporate withhold salary raises saying 'sign the noncompete you've been avoiding and you'll get your raise.'

They are industry wide, enforceable in Texas, and absolute bull***** I spend my career learning deep technical knowledge specific to an industry, and I can't go somewhere else do to similar work that I want to do? I gotta go burn a year doing jack all? Move my whole family?

I've got no problem with nondisclosures and going after trade secret theft but noncompetes are too much.

Also cajunaggie would probably win a lawsuit about signing under duress. But what company wants to spend the time and risk hiring you to go fight a lawsuit?

Want me to sign a non-compete? Then I need to see extra added to my pay.

twk said:

---

agracer said:

---

twk said:

---

agracer said:

---

cajunaggie08 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 was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel 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. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.

---

Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.

No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.

---

In some jurisdictions (like Oklahoma), that's true. But, it's not in Texas. Non-compete means just what it says: not competing with your prior employer. Now, it is supposed to only apply where the employer has either paid your for the non-compete, or provided you with specialized training, or access to confidential information, but once you check one of those boxes, then yes, it will bar you from working for a competitor, or setting up your own competing business within the time and place restrictions.

---

And yet engineers I know, who signed "non-competes", switch companies all the time in Texas.

---

First off, just because you sign a non-compete doesn't mean its enforceable. I frequently have to tell prospective clients that the non-compete that they had their employee sign cannot be enforced, usually because they do not provide any consideration (whether that's money paid for signing the agreement, or specialized training or access to confidential information provided only after signing the agreement). Second, not all non-competes are as broad as the law allows -- some may be more narrow and only focused on preventing the employee from stealing existing clients or confidential information. Third, just because a non-compete is in place doesn't mean the employer will find it worthwhile to go to court to enforce it.

I'm neutral on non-competes. They have their place, particularly in the sale of a business, or in the case of equity partners in a business. There is no justification for the feds to get involved.

---

I'm an engineering peon in the corporate world. The standard starting employment noncompete is absolutely enforceable. General counsel at these companies aren't idiots. They know the same guidelines you just spouted off. If a noncompete is required upon starting, then their salary already includes the consideration for the noncompete. Every F500 company has specialized training and information that is either truly confidential or nearly impossible to learn outside of the company. The noncompete has the proper restrictions: 1 year in length. Cannot go to a competitor who provides the same services. Limited to the geographical radius I work in.

I work in an industry that is extremely consolidated down to houston. The geographical radius basically excludes all major players. Everything that is important to the company can be captured and restricted under a nondisclosure agreement (that I also signed). The noncompete is just anti-competitive.

fixer said:

---

Want me to sign a non-compete? Then I need to see extra added to my pay.

---

Its never worth it. How much extra pay do you think you could extract negotiating your noncompete versus just going to a competitor? Even if they gave you 10% now. Five years on down the road your experience level would probably get you a 30% raise and level promotion elsewhere. But you can't have that now.

My wife has worked at a company for over 15 years with no non-compete. She is pretty awesome at client relationships so they wanted to give her some stock options for a non-compete. We turned it down after reading the details.

Can't work for a competitor or in a role where you decide on said products which would mean no customers. Was not worth it.

Quote:

---

If a noncompete is required upon starting, then their salary already includes the consideration for the noncompete. Every F500 company has specialized training and information that is either truly confidential or nearly impossible to learn outside of the company.

---

Getting down in the weeds here on the legal aspects, but, your salary cannot be the consideration since you earn that for working. However, you have identified precisely why courts will find these agreements are supported by consideration when they are signed at the inception of employment, because, once you sign, you get specialized training and exposed to confidential information, two things which are deemed sufficient consideration.

Now, as to the policy argument of should we have them or should we not, that is a separate matter. I think there is a place for them, although it should be narrow in scope. However, the feds rarely make things better, so I hope they just butt out (or the courts tell them to, which is a likely result if the go ahead).

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

If a noncompete is required upon starting, then their salary already includes the consideration for the noncompete. Every F500 company has specialized training and information that is either truly confidential or nearly impossible to learn outside of the company.

---

Getting down in the weeds here on the legal aspects, but, your salary cannot be the consideration since you earn that for working. However, you have identified precisely why courts will find these agreements are supported by consideration when they are signed at the inception of employment, because, once you sign, you get specialized training and exposed to confidential information, two things which are deemed sufficient consideration.

Now, as to the policy argument of should we have them or should we not, that is a separate matter. I think there is a place for them, although it should be narrow in scope. However, the feds rarely make things better, so I hope they just butt out (or the courts tell them to, which is a likely result if the go ahead).

---

Meh. I don't see any downsides to banning noncompetes. Even all the way up to the executive level. Everything that protects a company from leaking information is within a nondisclosure. The company I work for (and other companies) have successfully sued engineers who left, and then all of a sudden the company they joined developed the exact same product. The nondisclosure was violated, a noncompete is only tangentially related.

Their primary aim is wage suppression. Go look at the emails between Steve Jobs, Google, and HP all forming a truce to not pick off each other's talent.

I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them for executives. They have enough money to usually ride out a year off without skipping a beat. But the low level peon getting crushed by middle class woes? Get outta town with thinking noncompete are good or neutral.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

If a noncompete is required upon starting, then their salary already includes the consideration for the noncompete. Every F500 company has specialized training and information that is either truly confidential or nearly impossible to learn outside of the company.

---

Getting down in the weeds here on the legal aspects, but, your salary cannot be the consideration since you earn that for working. However, you have identified precisely why courts will find these agreements are supported by consideration when they are signed at the inception of employment, because, once you sign, you get specialized training and exposed to confidential information, two things which are deemed sufficient consideration.

Now, as to the policy argument of should we have them or should we not, that is a separate matter. I think there is a place for them, although it should be narrow in scope. However, the feds rarely make things better, so I hope they just butt out (or the courts tell them to, which is a likely result if the go ahead).

---

Meh. I don't see any downsides to banning noncompetes. Even all the way up to the executive level. Everything that protects a company from leaking information is within a nondisclosure. The company I work for (and other companies) have successfully sued engineers who left, and then all of a sudden the company they joined developed the exact same product. The nondisclosure was violated, a noncompete is only tangentially related.

Their primary aim is wage suppression. Go look at the emails between Steve Jobs, Google, and HP all forming a truce to not pick off each other's talent.

I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them for executives. They have enough money to usually ride out a year off without skipping a beat. But the low level peon getting crushed by middle class woes? Get outta town with thinking noncompete are good or neutral.

---

What about in a sale of business scenario? Key employees who also have an equity stake in the company should not be able to go out and form a competing business immediately upon selling the existing one.

twk said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

If a noncompete is required upon starting, then their salary already includes the consideration for the noncompete. Every F500 company has specialized training and information that is either truly confidential or nearly impossible to learn outside of the company.

---

Getting down in the weeds here on the legal aspects, but, your salary cannot be the consideration since you earn that for working. However, you have identified precisely why courts will find these agreements are supported by consideration when they are signed at the inception of employment, because, once you sign, you get specialized training and exposed to confidential information, two things which are deemed sufficient consideration.

Now, as to the policy argument of should we have them or should we not, that is a separate matter. I think there is a place for them, although it should be narrow in scope. However, the feds rarely make things better, so I hope they just butt out (or the courts tell them to, which is a likely result if the go ahead).

---

Meh. I don't see any downsides to banning noncompetes. Even all the way up to the executive level. Everything that protects a company from leaking information is within a nondisclosure. The company I work for (and other companies) have successfully sued engineers who left, and then all of a sudden the company they joined developed the exact same product. The nondisclosure was violated, a noncompete is only tangentially related.

Their primary aim is wage suppression. Go look at the emails between Steve Jobs, Google, and HP all forming a truce to not pick off each other's talent.

I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them for executives. They have enough money to usually ride out a year off without skipping a beat. But the low level peon getting crushed by middle class woes? Get outta town with thinking noncompete are good or neutral.

---

What about in a sale of business scenario? Key employees who also have an equity stake in the company should not be able to go out and form a competing business immediately upon selling the existing one.

---

Yes, they should be able to do that, shows that they have talent and skills. It's fine to rip off workers but when workers rip off business executives people get all worried lol

Quote:

---

Meh. I don't see any downsides to banning noncompetes. Even all the way up to the executive level. Everything that protects a company from leaking information is within a nondisclosure

---

Nope. This proposed Rule includes language that would also nullify an NDA if it was written so broadly that you could be kept from working in the industry, then its a non-compete agreement and illegal.

This proposed Rule is hot garbage.

whytho987654 said:

---

twk said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

If a noncompete is required upon starting, then their salary already includes the consideration for the noncompete. Every F500 company has specialized training and information that is either truly confidential or nearly impossible to learn outside of the company.

---

Getting down in the weeds here on the legal aspects, but, your salary cannot be the consideration since you earn that for working. However, you have identified precisely why courts will find these agreements are supported by consideration when they are signed at the inception of employment, because, once you sign, you get specialized training and exposed to confidential information, two things which are deemed sufficient consideration.

Now, as to the policy argument of should we have them or should we not, that is a separate matter. I think there is a place for them, although it should be narrow in scope. However, the feds rarely make things better, so I hope they just butt out (or the courts tell them to, which is a likely result if the go ahead).

---

Meh. I don't see any downsides to banning noncompetes. Even all the way up to the executive level. Everything that protects a company from leaking information is within a nondisclosure. The company I work for (and other companies) have successfully sued engineers who left, and then all of a sudden the company they joined developed the exact same product. The nondisclosure was violated, a noncompete is only tangentially related.

Their primary aim is wage suppression. Go look at the emails between Steve Jobs, Google, and HP all forming a truce to not pick off each other's talent.

I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them for executives. They have enough money to usually ride out a year off without skipping a beat. But the low level peon getting crushed by middle class woes? Get outta town with thinking noncompete are good or neutral.

---

What about in a sale of business scenario? Key employees who also have an equity stake in the company should not be able to go out and form a competing business immediately upon selling the existing one.

---

Yes, they should be able to do that, shows that they have talent and skills. It's fine to rip off workers but when workers rip off business executives people get all worried lol

---

He is referring to equity owners screwing over other equity owners, not a field worker with no equity stake in the company screwing over the owner.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

do you realize how insanely difficult that would be to pull off in today's age? someone can't even look at their secretary's butt without getting nailed for it

---

Nope. This proposed Rule includes language that would also nullify an NDA if it was written so broadly that you could be kept from working in the industry, then its a non-compete agreement and illegal.

This proposed Rule is hot garbage.

---

How did you quote me on this? I've said nothing about secretaries rear ends.

But to you reply, I don't think NDAs should prevent you from working in industry.

If I worked for HP making servers and then decided to take a pay raise to work for Dell, as long as I don't talk about the confidential parts of HP then yeah there isn't anything wrong with this.

And this is partially why I think the 1 year waiting period is stupid. If I wait a year, I still know everything from that previous job and how the secret sauce is made. Making me wait up to 2-3 years is punitive because now I'm forgetting huge swaths of knowledge or even getting passed up by the field.

Sorry about that! Was going to respond to something on another thread, that was last thing I copied.