Posted on 04/24/2024 5:16:43 AM PDT by CodeToad
You do? When, where, how? I do not know you.
Does this mean Snowden is free and clear? All he did was change jobs. From working for the US to working for Russia. The Chinese will be ecstatic over this rule. Spying is now legal.
We crossed paths in a professional circle. I just happened upon a little business ad of yours. You weave a fine tale on FR, but your trolling is easy to spot.
Reno, you have been outed as a troll by someone who knows you personally. Begone.
Such as when "workers" (isn't that a Marxist word for them?) photocopy or phone-swipe reams of stats and trade secrets and bring them to a new company or venture for bonus compensation?
I always have found non-compete clauses an annoying idea to my personal self-interest. But so what? This decision is plainly unconstitutional over-reach. If you don't like that clause in the contract, your choice is to negotiate it away--or work somewhere else. There's no gun to your head.
Yep.
5.56mm
There is a bit of a gun to people’s heads. When the entire industry demands them you end up with little to no choice. I never signed a non-compete that I couldn’t live with, and I did walk away from a few positions because of it. Sadly, they have become commonplace now when 30 years ago I only ran into a few.
The old case law had limits that had to be for a few years, 5 at most typically, and within a geographic location, although some companies were national or global. Now, companies want permanent bans and global. I’ve even seen some that stated not working for an entire industry like engineering. “Can’t be an engineer for anyone, anyplace, and forever.”
This is unfair to businesses, and done by fiat. It needs to be reversed by SCOTUS.
Noncompetes are a widespread and often exploitative practice imposing contractual conditions that prevent workers from taking a new job.
Isn’t that how D.C. operates now the nation has to lower it’s standards pure liberalism in action.
Illegals have now options too they can bring a weed eater to the office.
“Massive change to law through regulation and not legislation.”
Progressivism has been this for over 120 years now.
A noncompete agreement between a business and its managing partners is absolutely essential to the existence of the business.
This action by the FTC demonstrates why ALL federal regulations should not arise under the sole authority of the federal agencies. Every regulation should begin as no more than a proposal to Congress, and as a proposal that it should require the entire House and Senate legislative process (put before appropriate committees, voted up or down in the committees, offered from the committees to the full House and/or Senate body, with amendments accepted and needing an up or down vote by the full House and Senate) in order to become law, not a Congreessional rubber stamp over an agencies new entry in a federal register.
SCOTUS is unlikely to uphold noncompete agreements because they’re usually one sided agreements that provide no benefit to separated employees.
Going forward if a company really wants to have a non-compete agreement in place then what they need to do is say, for instance, that after you leave the company you cannot work in that industry for twelve months.
The benefit to the employee then has to be twelve months of compensation.
That would arguably pass muster because both parties benefit and not just one.
What does not pass muster here is when an employer separates an employee and then says that for a period of time or perhaps indefinitely the employee is still subject to the rules of the employer.
That is employment without compensation...also know as slavery, a 13th Amendment violation.
SCOTUS would not rule on the merits of noncompete agreements.
SCOTUS would rule on the constitutionality of having a Federal agency impose its will on matters of law that are reserved to the states. And contract law is absolutely a state matter, not a Federal one.
That is a false premise (bolded). Non-competes are never for involuntary separation (layoffs). Only for voluntary separation.
Let me amend my previous statement. Non-competes can be for accepting an involuntary separation package. But they can never be for involuntary separation without a separation package. So the separation package is compensation.
Even Congress cannot impair private contracts without Due Process. I predict reversal by the SCOTUS.
The question is whether the worker was hired because they already had a unique skill set that the company desired, or if the worker was new and the company invested in them by training them to do the job?
Nobody wants a newly trained worker to leave the company after 9-12 months and take their newly-gained knowledge to a competitor.
-PJ
“SCOTUS would rule on the constitutionality of having a Federal agency impose its will on matters of law that are reserved to the states. And contract law is absolutely a state matter, not a Federal one.”
1. SCOTUS and any other Federal court will generally rule on whatever the hell they want to.
2. SCOTUS might not rule directly on contract law but where contract law violates established civil rights then they will.
“That is a false premise (bolded). Non-competes are never for involuntary separation (layoffs). Only for voluntary separation.”
Up until this ruling the state of Texas allowed noncompete agreements (NCA) even if an employee was terminated.
https://bergplummer.com/blog/non-competes/what-happens/
“Non-competes are still valid even if you’re fired from your job. The agreement is more focused on what happens after you leave an employer, regardless of the circumstances, so it still applies. Whether you were let go for legally invalid reasons is another matter, such as if you were discriminated against or retaliated against.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.