Jump to content

FTC proposes rule to ban noncompetes


Recommended Posts

1232440194.jpg
WWW.VOX.COM

Lina Khan’s FTC wants to change how we think about anti-competitive behavior.

 


If this happens, it’ll definitely go through litigation:

 

46666508-us-chamber-of-commerce-200.jpg?
WWW.CNBC.COM

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has curried the favor of Republican lawmakers, said it will sue the FTC if it pursues a ban on noncompete clauses.

 

Even more reason why voting matters, and 2024 matters.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

What the fuck is a noncompete clause

 

You cannot work for another organization (or start your own) that would be in competition with the employer you worked at who had you sign one. Some are for X amount of time, some are for within a certain distance/region, others are indefinite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

For 99% of people noncompetes are absolutely stupid. Executives and some sales related people yeah it should apply but the company enforcing the clause needs to pay. 

 

It's bullshit even for the 1%. What they're trying to keep from happening with a noncompete can be better enforced with agreements not to poach customers or share company secrets and/or strategies.

  • True 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I always enjoyed that Subway would force their minimum wage employees to sign noncompetes. "YOU WILL NOT TAKE THESE SANDWICH MAKING SECRETS ELSEWHERE"

 

Maybe if Quiznos had their employees sign non-competes, Subway couldn’t have poached their trade secret… an oven.

  • Shocked 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

It's bullshit even for the 1%. What they're trying to keep from happening with a noncompete can be better enforced with agreements not to poach customers or share company secrets and/or strategies.

A lot of places have those in the contract as well. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chakoo said:

A lot of places have those in the contract as well. :/

 

Yeah, they'll throw everything they can in there to tie down employees and suppress wages. At least in the case of corporate strategies and customers, that's a pretty reasonable. Stopping you from working in an industry you're familiar with is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SuperSpreader said:

Great!! When I was poor I had to do secret freelance to pay the bills and was technically in violation of my contract, but they weren't paying me enough and they were holding something important to my career if I didn't stay long enough. 

 

Thanks for reminding me. A big fuck you to companies that have provisions to disallow employees from working second jobs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MarSolo said:

Vince McMahon is having a stroke as we speak.

 

Just now, stepee said:

 

In addition he is also upset by this news.

 

Technically what the WWE does isn't a non-compete. Their contracts are structured that they can terminate them with 90-days notice. So the wrestlers are still employed, still getting paid, just not working shows. Then there's all the other shitty stuff on top, like extending contracts due to injury and such. They are undoubtedly a shitty company with shitty contracts, but probably wouldn't be affected by this new rule. I think they previously had non-competes in their contracts, but when Brock Lesnar actually threatened to sue over it they dropped it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ThreePi said:

 

 

Technically what the WWE does isn't a non-compete. Their contracts are structured that they can terminate them with 90-days notice. So the wrestlers are still employed, still getting paid, just not working shows. Then there's all the other shitty stuff on top, like extending contracts due to injury and such. They are undoubtedly a shitty company with shitty contracts, but probably wouldn't be affected by this new rule. I think they previously had non-competes in their contracts, but when Brock Lesnar actually threatened to sue over it they dropped it.


There are still non-compete clauses in the contracts for WWE performers. The biggest issue is that they’re not employees of WWE as WWE uses an independent contractor loophole, so it’s doubly as shitty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:


There are still non-compete clauses in the contracts for WWE performers. The biggest issue is that they’re not employees of WWE as WWE uses an independent contractor loophole, so it’s doubly as shitty.


Remember that weird period where they forced the crew to wear suits AT ALL TIMES outside of work? So these guys are traveling, walking through airports and they’re forced to be dressed to the nines… with the obvious exception of John Cena and the Undertaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...