Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you support free enterprise for employers, you need to support free enterprise for employees.At most they should only restrict non-compensated non-competes, as well as open ended ones. I'd say 2-3 years is a solid limit.
And compensated means the salary of the person from before, not a $1 token compensation.
That's regulation, not "BAN BAN BAN" like progressives want.
At most they should only restrict non-compensated non-competes,
You don’t own your employees skills and you don’t own who your customers choose to do business with
This customer patronizes your business because I am there.
If I choose to work elsewhere, a customer should be free to follow
That is why noncompete clauses should be illegal
How about the government? Do they own their employee's skills?
If someone is working for CIA, example given, should they be allowed to quit and start working for KGB or another competing firm?
For sure a business that takes the time to train an employee and trust him/her with their own innovations and concepts and processes etc. that make that company unique and successful do not want their secrets shared with competitors or for those employees to use that confidential information to go into business for themselves as competitors. A reasonable non compete clause in the employee contract should certainly be allowed.
A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday barred a U.S. Federal Trade Commission rule from taking effect that would ban agreements commonly signed by workers not to join their employers’ rivals or launch competing businesses.
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas said the FTC, which enforces federal antitrust laws, does not have the authority to ban practices it deems unfair methods of competition by adopting broad rules.
Brown had temporarily blocked the rule in July while she considered a bid by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobby, and tax service firm Ryan to strike it down entirely. The rule was set to take effect Sept. 4.
Brown in her ruling said that even if the FTC had the power to adopt the rule, the agency had not justified banning virtually all noncompete agreements.
“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” wrote Brown, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump.
FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said the agency was disappointed with the ruling and is “seriously considering a potential appeal.”
Well now, it looks like killing Chevron is bearing fruit!
The question isn't whether non-competes are bad or not. The question is whether a Democrat controlled federal agency made a ruling way out of their purview for strictly political reasons. And I think we all know the answer to that one.
Don't like non-competes? Lobby your Congress-critter. Make them do their job.
CIA works with classified information
Divulging that information is a crime
If you support free enterprise for employers, you need to support free enterprise for employees.
A person with certain desirable skills should not be restricted from selling those skills elsewhere
What would be the result if noncompete agreements are banned?
Employees would make more money
If an employer says…..I will pay you $10,000 for you to sign this non-compete clause
If the employee moves to a competitor he pays back the $10,000
No, I mean "if I don't want you to work for 2 years, I pay you for two years your normal salary"
Works for me
The irony in that is, rulings from the federal judiciary, especially the 9 un-elected judges who sit at the top of the food chain.Congress needs to do the job you hired them for, not some nameless and unelected bureaucrat.
