BREAKING: The Biden administration's ban on noncompete clauses has been upheld in court, per MorePerfectUnion.

As of now, virtually all noncompete agreements with bosses will be banned and voided beginning September 4.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) July 23, 2024

Cant say this is a bad thing, need more of this on both sides

I'm not taking my legal analysis from a cartoon whale

jagvocate said:

---

I'm not taking my legal analysis from a cartoon whale

---

That would be unusual

Biden gets his stuff through court at lighting speed.

Long way to go before it is final. There will be an appeal, especially given the recent Supreme Court decisions.

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

Bingo

And that decision was made via executive fiat - not through our legislature.

Bad Biden.

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

This is far from settled. I do not expect the wholesale ban to survive in its current form.

Biden? Pretty sure you meant "Biden's Handlers."

A Texas federal judge has previously held the rule unenforceable.

Today, a Pennsylvania federal judge held to the contrary, but also held that the company trying to enforce the agreement could not show imminent irreparable harm, one of the standard requirements for injunctive relief.

I wouldn't go popping champagne corks just yet if you are counting on this FTC ruling nixing your non-compete.

If Biden is doing it, then it's almost certainly bad. This case included.

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

I wonder how this will affect Jeff Banks' non-compete marriage to Danielle Thomas

I work in product development. This would be devastating to tech development.

Stupid ass hair brained decision.

Oh and it will also frustrate and hurt entry level people.

So congrats. Everyone is screwed.

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

Great point Komrade! These capitalist pig corporations must be reigned in for the good of the workers! Garbage to say we don't need more government help!

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

Protecting IP isn't anti capitalist.

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

There are circumstances where they are unwarranted but there are also ones where they're critical to the business and eliminating them would pose a major threat to those businesses. Unfortunately nobody in the Democrat Party has any business experience so they don't really know what they're doing when they make these blanket changes to employment law. Like most everything else we see from the Democrats this was almost certainly designed by big corporations as a way of lowering the barriers to hiring away talent from their smaller rivals.

hedge said:

---

BREAKING: The Biden administration's ban on noncompete clauses has been upheld in court, per MorePerfectUnion.

As of now, virtually all noncompete agreements with bosses will be banned and voided beginning September 4.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) July 23, 2024

Cant say this is a bad thing, need more of this on both sides

---

Bad Biden.

People need to quit supporting big gov meddling in private affairs such as what relationship an employer wants to have with it's employee provided it does not violate their rights.

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

So you have no issue with an engineer or software programmer at Lockheed Martin taking intellectual property over to Boeing, Northrop- Grumman, or heaven forbid a foreign-owned company?

Tramp96 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

So you have no issue with an engineer or software programmer at Lockheed Martin taking intellectual property over to Boeing, Northrop- Grumman, or heaven forbid a foreign-owned company?

---

Totally different ballpark homeslice

Brother Shamus said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

So you have no issue with an engineer or software programmer at Lockheed Martin taking intellectual property over to Boeing, Northrop- Grumman, or heaven forbid a foreign-owned company?

---

Totally different ballpark homeslice

---

But is it really?

Tramp96 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Whether I agree with non-compete clauses or not is irrelevant to the fact I don't like the government telling an employer and an employee what they can and cannot agree to.

---

At the same time, an employer basically threatening an employee with a non compete is anti-capitalist. Non competes give significant leverage to the employer and stifle movement within an industry.

And the whole "just go get another job" or "switch industries" is a garbage response, so refrain from going down that road.

---

So you have no issue with an engineer or software programmer at Lockheed Martin taking intellectual property over to Boeing, Northrop- Grumman, or heaven forbid a foreign-owned company?

---

I don't think I've seen non-competes at that level...Engineers and code monkeys jump between those companies all the time. Now, I think there are agreements not to release proprietary data (and DEFINITELY not classified data).

Now, you might get them at the director level and up, but even then I've seen jumps like that all the time.

HOWEVER, I understand the concept of not taking clientele, etc because that could be damaging.

jagvocate said:

---

I'm not taking my legal analysis from a cartoon whale

---

This is his bio.

Where I see it is in O&G service companies with their salesmen. If they want these guys taking their customers, pay them appropriately. Big Red and Evil Blue are two of the worst with this.