- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- workreform@lemmy.world
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
But that’s not true. They were potentially enforceable (outside California), and even finding out risked a high cost of legal assistance. It was too risky to simply ignore, even if they shouldn’t be enforceable. The corporation claiming it, making you sign it, and employing a legal team to back it up does mean sometimes people won’t risk it
Read above. Hotels are currently making housekeeping staff sign noncompetes. That is not a “place in life you know it’s unenforceable”, especially considering the number of housekeeping staff that are immigrants.
You want to keep your employees? Make their job more attractive.