The Federal Trade Commission narrowly voted Tuesday to ban nearly all noncompetes, employment agreements that typically prevent workers from joining competing businesses or launching ones of their own.

  • crispyflagstones@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    6 months ago

    What gets me is how controversial things like this are in the US. Non-competes are antisocial, because they blunt one of the few mechanisms capitalism has to keep employers in check – labor market mobility. One of the things that’s supposed to make capitalism kind of okay is the fact that “if you don’t like it, you can go elsewhere.” Well, if you’re not allowed to start a business or get another job in your line of work, how the hell are you supposed to actually do that?

    Way I see it, a non-compete is just an employer’s way of telling you they’d keep you trapped in a box in your off-hours if they could.

    • ours@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      My country has non-competes in the most sensible way: if you don’t want the employee to go to a competitor, you must pay him what he could earn at the competitor during the duration of the non-compete. Employee quits? He can either join the competitor or you can pay him as long as you want him away from the competitor.

      Will employers still put non-applicable non-competes? They sure do and I smile when I see those baseless clauses. Have they tried enforcing them at the “work tribunals” (free for the employee), yes they have and they’ve been laughed off by the judges.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      Is it controversial? The only support I’ve heard for them comes from corps, sleazy executives looking to control their employees. Everyone else is like”meh, clearly unfair and should be illegal but I can’t do anything about it and still have a job”

    • Zink@programming.dev
      0·
      6 months ago

      Unfortunately, there is a strong implication in American culture that your worth as a human being scales directly with your productivity + net worth. Rich people are intelligent and to be admired

      Now take all that stuff that you pointed out as bad, and add on the fact that your healthcare typically comes from your employer too!

      You probably don’t even need me to tell you that the right wing media in this country would immediately kick into gear and start programming their base to hate the idea of labor market mobility and the market routing around bad employers. Those people ARE the bad employers!

      • crispyflagstones@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        6 months ago

        Before long they’re going to start floating some modern version of an indenture contract for service workers and arguing for the reinstatement of serfdom.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          0·
          6 months ago

          Oh yeah, and they would be going for it right now if they thought they could get away with it.

          I mean, how could you not appreciate your employer-provided housing and convenience stores? They’re right next to where you work. You don’t even need a car!

  • uis@lemm.ee
    0·
    6 months ago

    “nearly”? What the fuck, America, they ALL should be banned.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      0·
      6 months ago

      Only exception seems to be preexisting agreements for top execs making more than ~150k yearly and having decisionmaking power.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      The ban, which will take effect later this year, carves out an exception for existing noncompetes that companies have given their senior executives, on the grounds that these agreements are more likely to have been negotiated. The FTC says employers should not enforce other existing noncompete agreements.

    • ShunkW@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      Don’t worry. The supreme Court will find a reason that their existence is unconstitutional soon

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            0·
            6 months ago

            I mean they haven’t just dismantled entire agencies yet. The closest they’ve done is lean on a pretty basic idea - the rule making power those agencies have is power that belongs to Congress and is narrowly delegated to the agencies by Congress.

            This means that such agencies cannot make rules that contradict legislation passed by Congress and can only make rules within the span of things delegated to them and no further (because Congress only delegated the power that Congress actually delegated and nothing more, even if it is related or feels like it should fall under their remit based on the name of the agency). Hence why the FCC can place controls on the content of radio or broadcast TV but has no say over the content of cable TV or streaming services - their power over the former is tied to their control and licensing of the use of the airwaves as a public commons (which they were delegated pretty broad authority over) which simply doesn’t apply to cable or streaming.

  • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
    0·
    6 months ago

    This sounds awesome, but I will say that I’m a bit concerned about whether or not the Supreme Court will let this stand. I’m speculating that the Supreme Court may strike it down and say that the FTC doesn’t have jurisdiction and that non-compete clauses should be handled by the Department of Labor or something like that. Imo it could fall under either department because the FTC is meant to tackle anti-trust measures, and non-compete clauses could be seen as a form of monopolistic behavior (restricting competition).

    At the same time, however, non-competes have to do with labor practices, which is why I could see the Supreme Court saying that it’s something the DoL should enforce, and because (afaik at least) the DoL only has the power to enforce legislative regulation, we’d end up back where we started: waiting for Congress to get their shit together and actually do something instead of sitting around and picking fights or virtue signalling.

    I hope I’m wrong though. I’d like it if our Supreme Court would let us have nice things every now and then.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      0·
      6 months ago

      It would come down to exactly what authority has been granted to the FTC by Congress and whether or not this falls under that. And not a broad strokes description, but just what power Congress actually delegated to them and no further. The recent EPA cases are examples of that in action.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      Wouldn’t Department of Labour ban ALL of them instead “almost all”?

      • frezik@midwest.social
        0·
        6 months ago

        The one’s that aren’t banned are for senior executives. Which is the one place where non-competes make sense. It’s not anything that really matters.

        This is covered in the article, which is probably why you’re getting downvoted.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      What you are talking about is colloquially called Chevron Deference. And yes, it is on the kill list after Roe, Obergefell, and I can only assume Brown v Board ffs.

      • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Not after, before (well maybe after Roe since that’s already gone).

        Chevron deference is already on the chopping block, and very well might be gone by the end of the current SCOTUS term. And nobody seems to know or care.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          0·
          6 months ago

          I wonder if they might hesitate on it. Getting rid of Chevron Deference cuts both ways. Conservative justices can shoot down agency decisions, but so can liberal justices. It only makes sense for conservatives to do it if they think they can control the justice system at every level indefinitely.

          They might have been feeling that way under Trump, but they might not be feeling that way anymore, and definitely won’t if Trump misses reelection.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    NDA is different than noncompete. Two companies sign an NDA so they can work together for example without fear the one or the other will disclose secrete information. Same between two regular folks. Like if I’m working on some plastic gizmo and I need to have a part made, I don’t just send it out to any machine shop. I first ask them to sign my NDA so they don’t just figure out my part and start selling it under a different name. 99% of the time there’s no need, but that 1%, that’s when you could be sitting on a goldmine and you end up giving it away for nothing.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    the fact that non competes and NDAs are a thing upon leaving a company is fucking insane to me, seems like blackmail at best and straight illegal at worst.

    But what do i know, i just like having rights.

    • chetradley@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      Worker: “Well, I got laid off from the job I’ve been working for the last 20 years, but at least I have the skills I picked up along the way!”

      Company: “Actually, those belong to us too.”

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        companies: we need workers to specialize so that we can produce things of high quality.

        also companies: What you specialized? Sounds like your problem dumbass.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      the fact that non competes and NDAs are a thing upon leaving a company is fucking insane

      Non-competes are completely evil. Especially so in fields requiring very specialized skillets. And even more so when the company insisting on the non-compete lays off people.

      How the fuck is someone supposed to keep a roof over their head in a situation like that?

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        learn a different skill dumbass L.

        Or just be a C suite, and be able to coast for 10 years because you john roth’d your way to having millions of dollars.

  • Ejh3k@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    I always thought non-competes were total bullshit anyways. Like a scare tactic or something. And unenforceable.

    Didn’t matter and sure doesn’t now.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      They are illegal in sane countries. Sadly, my country(Russia) is not very sane, so they are only unenforcable here. At least as far as I know.

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      I had a non-compete handed to me when I lived in California. I laughed my ass off and signed it. When I left the dumbass VP of HR threatened me with it.

      My response was “Could you pretty please try to enforce it? My lawyer would absolutely love to represent me in court. FYI you know my lawyer. He was the paralegal that told you the non-compete contract wasn’t legal. You then screwed him over and got him laid him off. Guess who passed the bar exam 6 months ago!”

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        For those not familiar and missing context, California prohibited noncompetes prior to the federal prohibition.

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      They probably were, but to find out you’d have to go to court, and your average person doesn’t want to do that.

      • TwentySeven@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 months ago

        It’s doesn’t matter if you want to go to court. Your future employer doesn’t want to go to court on behalf of a new hire, so they won’t hire you in the first place.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    Wow that’s actually good. So who did this, where’d they put the original people, and how can we replicate the results with every other regulatory body?

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      100%. These non-competes essentially lock employees in to their existing employer, unless they want to find a job in a completely unrelated sector (and likely take a massive payout, which, especially these days, is near financial suicide). This will have enormous ramifications for companies with toxic culture, as now people don’t have to put up with their crap. This allows for freedom of economic mobility, and more control of one’s own life.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        I disagree. If you’re in a place in life to take a position requiring a non-compete, you probably already knew it was unenforceable. We’re not talking teens with their first jobs here.

        OTOH, I strongly agree that this is a great thing for workers. Really can’t believe it happened!

        • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
          0·
          6 months ago

          It was my understanding is that non-competes are a grey area and depended on the context. For an example, an indefinite non-compete clause isn’t enforceable, but a 6 month clause might be. A non-compete clause for someone working in a highly-specialized position where they’re working with trade secrets, confidential information or patented technology might be enforceable, but a non-compete clause for a normal web developer probably isn’t. If you’re in Texas then it’s more likely to be enforceable, but if you’re in California then it might not. If you’re trying to work 2 jobs for competing companies then it would probably be enforceable, but if you get fired and immediately go work for another company then it’s unlikely they could enforce it.

          That was my understanding anyway.

          • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
            0·
            6 months ago

            A non compete clause should be justified, limited in time, limited geographically AND be compensated.

            This is the regulation in France. A person who has a non compete clause should receive a financial compensation for the duration of the clause, usually between 25% and 50% of their salary.

            This way to do seem fair to me

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          0·
          6 months ago

          Eh, I don’t know if everyone actually knows that they’re unenforceable. I’ve never dealt with one of these, so I’ll admit that I’m shooting from the hip, but I’d guess that usually a non-compete comes with what I’d imagine to be a pretty decent salary and benefit package, so I could see it being a tradeoff people will take despite not knowing what the company is like as they’re pretty jazzed on the money aspect. Plus, if a former employer were to take you to court, you probably would still want legal representation even if a judge throws it out, which will still cost you a pretty penny. But again, I don’t have any first-hand experience in this regard.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 months ago

        I’ve had places try to make me sign a non-compete agreement as a chef. I straight up told them that their agreement wasn’t even useful as toilet paper. Signed anyway, and worked for them for a few months, then moved on to a better paying job.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          0·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, even hotel housekeepers sign papers saying they cannot quit and go to work for competitors these days.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            0·
            6 months ago

            How recent is this? I’m asking because about 10 years ago, I worked for a local TV station owned by a massive media company and not only did I not sign a non-compete, I left them for a better paying job at the other local TV station owned by a different massive media company and they didn’t make me sign one either.

            Both jobs were utter shit, by the way. I’m not defending them or the shitty stations or the shitty companies. I’m just surprised.

    • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyzEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      I’m going to go against the crowd and say that while I think it’s a good move to make it official non competes were effectively already declared unenforceable via the court system. It’s rarely used for the average worker unless something truly fucky was going on and the courts would usually side with the employee no matter what unless something truly fucky was going on.

      • Fermion@mander.xyz
        0·
        6 months ago

        The threat of lawsuit is usually enough to get an employment offer rescinded. It’s rare for a company to want to take on a legal defense just to hire someone new. Even though they weren’t actually legally binding, non-competes still limited options for a lot of people.

        Overall I agree with you that this isn’t as big of a deal as people make it sound, but it’s easy underestimate their influence if only looking at the result of cases that go to trial. In many situations, the damage is done well before a case can go to trial.

      • PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 months ago

        Even if unenforceable, they likely had a huge chilling effect. Most people understandably prefer not risking going to court, even if they’re in the right.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          Right, I can’t afford to take a corp to court, even if I would win.

          I can’t afford to have my new employer balk at hiring me if they don’t want to risk defending themselves, even if it doesn’t happen often

    • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      Is this a big deal in terms of allowing people to more easily quit their jobs and take new ones? Yes.

      Is this a big deal in terms of boosting innovation and economic productivity by allowing ideas to move more freely between businesses? Maybe.

      Yes is this a big deal in terms of harming businesses or causing radical shakeups at businesses? No. States like California already ban non competes as do most western countries, companies just keep on going.

      • charles@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Is this a big deal in terms of allowing people to more easily quit their jobs and take new ones?

        Now do healthcare.

    • Savaran@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      When places talk about how they’ll be “the next Silicon Valley” this is one of the reasons none of them have actually managed it. In CA people in many cases can take a good idea that their employer doesn’t want and do something with it themselves. In most other places it will get so tied up in non competes that it’s not worth the effort to even try.

      And it’s not just tech, here in Colorado we recently had a restaurant try and shut down another restaurant simply because the newer place’s chef had worked at the older place. They settled but it’s so entirely ridiculous that it could have even started court proceedings in the first place.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 months ago

        Forget ideas, just normal worker mobility. A couple of years ago I switched jobs.

        The old company had gotten bought by a conglomerate and they were milking the product line by stopping development, stopping raises, and letting attrition do its thing. Time to leave. One of my peers found a great company still investing in their products and jumped ship. Me too. However we both had noncompetes specifically prohibiting “poaching”, so could we even talk to co-workers? Everyone lost because of this noncompete. New company missed out on potential new hires, co-workers missed a potential opportunity, and even old company attrited slower than otherwise so less profit

        This is a classic case of noncompetes blocking worker mobility, hurting everyone

  • _sideffect@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    Is this what they make you sign that says

    “You can’t join any company that is in the same industry or has the same customers for 2 years after leaving the present company”

    ?

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      0·
      6 months ago

      Or sometimes, like mine, that you can’t quit your contract early to apply for a full colleague position at the company you’re being contracted out to.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      Lol what. That doesn’t make any sense. Are you supposed to just sit for 2 years doing nothing unless you’re trained on two completely different fields?

    • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      IMO that should be legal, but only if they pay you your full wages for that period of time after you quit or are fired.

      Let’s see how eager they are to really protect those precious company secrets.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        0·
        6 months ago

        Why not both? Full wages as damages + EU-style fine of maximum between some amount and some % of global turnover. Or fixed amount + % of global turnover.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          Full wages only makes the victim whole and only in financial terms. Like any other controls on the market, the financial penalty needs to exceed any benefit the corp might get out of it, then let the free market do its thing

      • ours@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        And by full wage, it’s either the wage you had or the one you could get at the competitor. Otherwise, it’s too easy to lock people in at non-competitive salaries.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    I remember my last job had a Non compete. I was a handy man. Non competes for NBA players and wealthy CEOs, fine. But non compete for just regular people doing regular jobs is crazy. Once I leave my current job, my ex employer should have no say in where I work afterwards.

    • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
      0·
      6 months ago

      That’s just so they can treat you like crap and under pay you, so that you can’t just go be a handy many somewhere else. If you lived in California it would have already been unenforceable anyway though.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      Non competes for NBA players

      This sounds so stupid. Big sport is dead. Go play chess.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          0·
          6 months ago

          Offended? Why? I’m just saying that if this is true, then “big sport” is more broken than I imagined. And that chess is good sport that does not have such bullshit.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      0·
      6 months ago

      Canadian here. I had one for working in a call centre ffs. And afaik we don’t have laws against it. :(

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      6 months ago

      Why is good for athletes and ceos? And is that the specific line that you would draw? NC seems like it benefits corporations and organizations but almost never individuals. Seems better to eliminate all together to me.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 months ago

        It’s fine for them because they’re being paid tens and hundreds of millions. And they can easily reject the contract and not sign. Don’t act like a cleaning lady and an NBA player are in the same boat

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      Executives make some sense because they made deciding the direction of companies, and can take “unfair advantage”.

      Athletes, no. They bring mostly their own talent and effort, and that’s also what they bring to a new team. They are only employable by doing the same thing for someone else, and likely in the same league: literally competing . Non-competes don’t make any more sense for athletes than they do for baristas