FTC bans noncompete agreements (2 Viewers)

[bigbottom]

They were a huge deal in a whole lot of industries and jurisdictions. And the argument on keeping wages low is that they impacted employment mobility. Now, if you want to keep a key employee from leaving for a competitor, you have to pay them to stay rather than rely on enforcing a contractual obligation. But there are unintended consequences as well in that companies will be more hesitant to invest in training employees and giving them access to key proprietary information if they can just leave and go to your competitor across the street. This could negatively impact employee development.

I'm going to disagree a bit here. Companies that are smart enough to attract employees they want and smart enough to go through all the internal steps to craft non-compete agreements aren't going to suddenly become stupid and helplessly lose employees to other companies. They'll figure out quite quickly how to train and retain employees within the bounds of what's now allowed. Companies don't train employees as a gift to employees. They do it to benefit their own company.

There is indeed truth to what you say. But I also think you might be overestimating how “smart” many companies are.

 

[bigbottom]

It cuts both ways though. There are situations where a company brought on a new guy, only to have him leave less than a year later to start his own company, having acquired all the know-how and vendor/customer relationships necessary to re-create the same business for himself. This is hard to accept when the owner has put decades of sweat and lean years into developing his process and relationships, etc.

Precisely what happens in my industry. I wouldn't hire anyone unwilling to sign one. They have access to key intellectual property as soon as they're brought in. Something must be in place to prevent them from learning my business and then replicating the next day.

Isnt there some sort of middle ground where employees arent locked into ridiculous contracts saying they wont jump ship, but at the same protecting the intellectual property of the business is someone steals and replicates it?

there are, and prohibitions against using propiertary information aren't affected by this ruling

Agreed. But it is often difficult to enforce those prohibitions practically, even when they are assuredly being violated.

 

[bigbottom]

I don't want to say too much since some people know where I work, but this has been something I've been on a task force for at work for a year. It was wholly expected that the FTC was going to end up exactly where they proposed over a year ago, despite all the comments. Surprisingly they actually expanded the exemption relating to individuals who have sold a business to the company putting the non-compete in place, which was a minor win for employers such as mine.

If I’m understanding the rule correctly, if an owner of 24% of the business sells out to his partners, he cannot be asked to sign a non-compete that will be enforceable. That seems bonkers to me. That’s going to affect the economics of a whole bunch of corporate deals.

 

[culdeus]

Any legal guys know how this affects contract workers being hired off temp agencies?

 

[bigbottom]

I am certainly not saying that the rule isn’t a net benefit for individual employees, or even businesses for that matter. But I also don’t think it’s the slam dunk some people think it is. It’s not as simple as just saying “well companies need to just focus on retaining employees.” This rule, if it goes into effect, will impact decision-making when it comes to investing in employees. If a company spends significant resources, in both time and dollars, to provide specialized training and access to the company’s proprietary information to newly hired employees, there is lost productivity in that endeavor (both for the employee being trained, and the company resources doing the training). That investment only makes sense if the company is able to gain a return on that investment through future productivity. Well, if I’m a company in a jurisdiction and industry where noncompetes previously existed, but now no longer do, I may choose not to invest in newly hired employees. Instead, what I might do is poach employees who have had access to specialized and proprietary training from my competitors in the industry by paying say 10 to 20% over market. For an individual company, that may very well be a completely rational approach. On a macro level, however, this may result in a reduction of investment in employees in those industries affected, which in turn could have long-term negative effects. Are those concerns outweighed by the benefits of increased employee mobility? Likely so in most instances. But there are nevertheless issues that shouldn’t be cavalierly disregarded.

 

[jwb]

It cuts both ways though. There are situations where a company brought on a new guy, only to have him leave less than a year later to start his own company, having acquired all the know-how and vendor/customer relationships necessary to re-create the same business for himself. This is hard to accept when the owner has put decades of sweat and lean years into developing his process and relationships, etc.

Precisely what happens in my industry. I wouldn't hire anyone unwilling to sign one. They have access to key intellectual property as soon as they're brought in. Something must be in place to prevent them from learning my business and then replicating the next day.

If it's a truly secret IP invented by the company, I get it (but there are already things in place to protect those). But if its easy to learn and replicate... how secret and unique can it really be? Can the IP be patented / copyrighted? Or is it more like a recipe?

I've also known business owners who had non-competes to protect things like "oh, that's who they buy their materials from", or "oh, they advertise there... that's clever". While I'm sure the owner doesn't want that stuff to get out, those really aren't secret IP's that the company owns, and should not be used to prevent someone from working at another company.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I don't want to say too much since some people know where I work, but this has been something I've been on a task force for at work for a year. It was wholly expected that the FTC was going to end up exactly where they proposed over a year ago, despite all the comments. Surprisingly they actually expanded the exemption relating to individuals who have sold a business to the company putting the non-compete in place, which was a minor win for employers such as mine.

If I’m understanding the rule correctly, if an owner of 24% of the business sells out to his partners, he cannot be asked to sign a non-compete that will be enforceable. That seems bonkers to me. That’s going to affect the economics of a whole bunch of corporate deals.

It looks like the sale of a business is exempt from this rule, I don't see anything mentioning 24% or any other %.

§ 910.3 Exceptions.(a) Bona fide sales of business. The requirements of this part 910 shall not apply to a noncompete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity,of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a businessentity’s operating assets.

Final Rule from FTC

 

[bigbottom]

I don't want to say too much since some people know where I work, but this has been something I've been on a task force for at work for a year. It was wholly expected that the FTC was going to end up exactly where they proposed over a year ago, despite all the comments. Surprisingly they actually expanded the exemption relating to individuals who have sold a business to the company putting the non-compete in place, which was a minor win for employers such as mine.

If I’m understanding the rule correctly, if an owner of 24% of the business sells out to his partners, he cannot be asked to sign a non-compete that will be enforceable. That seems bonkers to me. That’s going to affect the economics of a whole bunch of corporate deals.

It looks like the of a business is exempt from this rule, I don't see anything mentioning 24% or any other %.

§ 910.3 Exceptions.(a) Bona fide sales of business. The requirements of this part 910 shall not apply to a noncompete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity,of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a businessentity’s operating assets.

Final Rule from FTC

There was talk of a 25% substantial ownership threshold, but perhaps that got removed from the final rule. I hope so!

In hindsight, I’m guessing that is precisely what Krista was talking about.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

They were a huge deal in a whole lot of industries and jurisdictions. And the argument on keeping wages low is that they impacted employment mobility. Now, if you want to keep a key employee from leaving for a competitor, you have to pay them to stay rather than rely on enforcing a contractual obligation. But there are unintended consequences as well in that companies will be more hesitant to invest in training employees and giving them access to key proprietary information if they can just leave and go to your competitor across the street. This could negatively impact employee development.

I'm going to disagree a bit here. Companies that are smart enough to attract employees they want and smart enough to go through all the internal steps to craft non-compete agreements aren't going to suddenly become stupid and helplessly lose employees to other companies. They'll figure out quite quickly how to train and retain employees within the bounds of what's now allowed. Companies don't train employees as a gift to employees. They do it to benefit their own company.

Sure, employers will probably figure out some second-best way to provide OJT. But we just removed the first-best way, so I think it's reasonable to ask what the cost of this policy change is. Maybe it's good on net, but the drawback here seems obvious.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I saw this earlier, and I wish I had been paying attention to the issue. I know this is a huge deal, but I'm not well-versed enough on non-compete agreements to have an opinion.

I’m pretty familiar with them. What I’m not well-versed enough in is the FTC’s organic statute and the question of whether they have the authority to make a change this sweeping.

I do think non-competes are greatly overused. But I understand the cases where they make sense. Such as when an employer invests a lot of resources to train an employee in a specific skill and then risks having the trained employee poached by a competitor.

 

[krista4]

I don't want to say too much since some people know where I work, but this has been something I've been on a task force for at work for a year. It was wholly expected that the FTC was going to end up exactly where they proposed over a year ago, despite all the comments. Surprisingly they actually expanded the exemption relating to individuals who have sold a business to the company putting the non-compete in place, which was a minor win for employers such as mine.

If I’m understanding the rule correctly, if an owner of 24% of the business sells out to his partners, he cannot be asked to sign a non-compete that will be enforceable. That seems bonkers to me. That’s going to affect the economics of a whole bunch of corporate deals.

It looks like the of a business is exempt from this rule, I don't see anything mentioning 24% or any other %.

§ 910.3 Exceptions.(a) Bona fide sales of business. The requirements of this part 910 shall not apply to a noncompete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity,of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a businessentity’s operating assets.

Final Rule from FTC

There was talk of a 25% substantial ownership threshold, but perhaps that got removed from the final rule. I hope so!

In hindsight, I’m guessing that is precisely what Krista was talking about.

That’s exactly right. The 25% threshold and “substantial owner” language were removed from the final rule and were what I was alluding to.

 

[massraider]

Well, if I’m a company in a jurisdiction and industry where noncompetes previously existed, but now no longer do, I may choose not to invest in newly hired employees. Instead, what I might do is poach employees who have had access to specialized and proprietary training from my competitors in the industry by paying say 10 to 20% over market. For an individual company, that may very well be a completely rational approach. On a macro level, however, this may result in a reduction of investment in employees in those industries affected, which in turn could have long-term negative effects.

I think there are individual companies that may be harmed, if an IP is stolen. Of course.

There's a super interesting story regarding Jane Street, and a couple former employees who maybe left the company, and brought their secret trade strategy to another company. Audio link

 

[Dr_Zaius]

I saw this earlier, and I wish I had been paying attention to the issue. I know this is a huge deal, but I'm not well-versed enough on non-compete agreements to have an opinion.

I’m pretty familiar with them. What I’m not well-versed enough in is the FTC’s organic statute and the question of whether they have the authority to make a change this sweeping.

I do think non-competes are greatly overused. But I understand the cases where they make sense. Such as when an employer invests a lot of resources to train an employee in a specific skill and then risks having the trained employee poached by a competitor.

I don't have an issue with this in theory, but my past few employers have all made engineers sign non-competes as a condition of employment, even in instances where the person coming in needs basically no training at all because they have a ton of experience. In practice I've never seen them really go after a low to mid level employee who left for a competitor, so that makes it sting a little less, but it's still off-putting to have to worry about them doing so even if it's unlikely. What will get their ire in my experience is to actively try to poach other former coworkers after you leave, which I think is a fair thing for a company to get upset about.

 

[gianmarco]

Non-competes in healthcare are just awful. So glad they are getting done away with.

Ruling could save $194 billion in healthcare costs?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Any legal guys know how this affects contract workers being hired off temp agencies?

Not legal opinion but I believe they are included
in the guideline. The guideline states employers need to advise everyone covered they will not be enforced. NDA's protecting confidential info, I assume still are valid but may need to be separated out if included in a non-compete agreement.

 

[The Z Machine]

Are those concerns outweighed by the benefits of increased employee mobility? Likely so in most instances. But there are nevertheless issues that shouldn’t be cavalierly disregarded.

I'm not overly concerned with the downside accrued to employers here. The pendulum is already very much in their favor, so giving individual employees not covered by collective bargaining more power is a good thing IMO.

 

[beer 30]

Have always been torn on these. I get the intent with intellectual property but like most things, employers went way too far with some of them making it difficult for an average Joe type person to get work in their fields of endeavor. I am pretty much 100% that I don't want the FTC involved in this though but leave it at that 'cause politics and such.

 

[bigbottom]

Are those concerns outweighed by the benefits of increased employee mobility? Likely so in most instances. But there are nevertheless issues that shouldn’t be cavalierly disregarded.

I'm not overly concerned with the downside accrued to employers here. The pendulum is already very much in their favor, so giving individual employees not covered by collective bargaining more power is a good thing IMO.

The concerns I raised in my overly lengthy post are (or should be) concerns of employees, not employers.

 

[The Z Machine]

On a macro level, however, this may result in a reduction of investment in employees in those industries affected, which in turn could have long-term negative effects.

I see what you're saying now. As am employee, I would gladly trade a reduction in investment in my on the job training vs. the ability to seek better employment elsewhere. Certainly in my career there's very little specialized training that an employer has given me vs. the experience that I've brought to my employer from my previous work.

 

[massraider]

I'm not overly concerned with the downside accrued to employers here. The pendulum is already very much in their favor, so giving individual employees not covered by collective bargaining more power is a good thing IMO.

They adjust. The smart ones adjust first, and the dumb ones follow suit.

If a company REALLY wants to protect secrets, there will be workarounds.

Hopefully this eliminates the crappy blanket ones that companies threw around, just because.

 

[bigbottom]

On a macro level, however, this may result in a reduction of investment in employees in those industries affected, which in turn could have long-term negative effects.

I see what you're saying now. As am employee, I would gladly trade a reduction in investment in my on the job training vs. the ability to seek better employment elsewhere. Certainly in my career there's very little specialized training that an employer has given me vs. the experience that I've brought to my employer from my previous work.

That’s because you’re a seasoned professional with an advanced skill set. But what about entry level engineers entering the workforce today? And what ripple effect will a reduction in investment have on that population over the next 10+ years? Again, I concede that increased employee mobility likely outweighs that concern, but it’s still a concern nonetheless.

 

[psychobillies]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

 

[The Z Machine]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

There are plenty of contracts between two consenting parties that are not legal. #notalawyer

 

[The Z Machine]

On a macro level, however, this may result in a reduction of investment in employees in those industries affected, which in turn could have long-term negative effects.

I see what you're saying now. As am employee, I would gladly trade a reduction in investment in my on the job training vs. the ability to seek better employment elsewhere. Certainly in my career there's very little specialized training that an employer has given me vs. the experience that I've brought to my employer from my previous work.

That’s because you’re a seasoned professional with an advanced skill set. But what about entry level engineers entering the workforce today? And what ripple effect will a reduction in investment have on that population over the next 10+ years? Again, I concede that increased employee mobility likely outweighs that concern, but it’s still a concern nonetheless.

Do you think that employers are simply not going to train those entry level engineers? Like they will accept substandard work or purposefully include inefficiency because they fear that those entry level workers will walk and take that training elsewhere?

 

[psychobillies]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

There are plenty of contracts between two consenting parties that are not legal. #notalawyer

Like what?

 

[The Z Machine]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

There are plenty of contracts between two consenting parties that are not legal. #notalawyer

Like what?

Anything involving criminal activity for one. Violations of labor regulations for another.

 

[bigbottom]

On a macro level, however, this may result in a reduction of investment in employees in those industries affected, which in turn could have long-term negative effects.

I see what you're saying now. As am employee, I would gladly trade a reduction in investment in my on the job training vs. the ability to seek better employment elsewhere. Certainly in my career there's very little specialized training that an employer has given me vs. the experience that I've brought to my employer from my previous work.

That’s because you’re a seasoned professional with an advanced skill set. But what about entry level engineers entering the workforce today? And what ripple effect will a reduction in investment have on that population over the next 10+ years? Again, I concede that increased employee mobility likely outweighs that concern, but it’s still a concern nonetheless.

Do you think that employers are simply not going to train those entry level engineers? Like they will accept substandard work or purposefully include inefficiency because they fear that those entry level workers will walk and take that training elsewhere?

Well, they may not hire them to begin with (particularly if they can now poach employees from other companies that have already paid for that investment). But assuming they do, sure they will train them. But will that investment be reduced? Will companies be more selective on which employees benefit from those resources when there is less assurance of a return on that investment? On a macro level, will this end up reducing development opportunities for employees? I think the obvious answer is yes, but again the degree to which this happens is certainly up for debate and likely is outweighed by the benefits to the employee of increased mobility.

 

[psychobillies]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

There are plenty of contracts between two consenting parties that are not legal. #notalawyer

Like what?

Anything involving criminal activity for one. Violations of labor regulations for another.

Are there contracts involving criminal activity? How are contracts involving criminal activity enforced? Take them to civil court and complain to the judge that someone didn't deliver their cocaine as promised? Same with labor laws. If it's a law, then a contract that includes it would not be a legally binding contract, right? Either way, non competes are neither of those things.

 

[massraider]

From Morning Brew:

Why ban noncompetes? The FTC says that noncompetes limit worker mobility, suppress pay, and undermine competition by preventing workers from seeking other jobs. Noncompetes used to be only for highly paid execs to stop them from taking insider secrets to another company, but in recent years, they’ve been used in lower-paying jobs, too. Before yesterday, 1-in-5 employees, including C-suite execs, fast-food workers, and yoga instructors, fell under these agreements

Read that last line again

 

[Joe Schmo]

Downward doggy can be accomplished in oh so many ways and mine is proprietary.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

Sure its "voluntary" but the decision isn't whether or not to sign the non-compete. The decision is whether or not you want the job (or the promotion, etc.)

 

[psychobillies]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

Sure its "voluntary" but the decision isn't whether or not to sign the non-compete. The decision is whether or not you want the job (or the promotion, etc.)

Correct

 

[psychobillies]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

Sure its "voluntary" but the decision isn't whether or not to sign the non-compete. The decision is whether or not you want the job (or the promotion, etc.)

Why did you need to put voluntary in quotes?

 

[Sand]

Non-competes in healthcare are just awful. So glad they are getting done away with.

Ruling could save $194 billion in healthcare costs?

I am struggling mightily to see how a non-compete makes any sense at all for a nurse, pediatrician, x-ray tech., etc.

For some reason this reminds me of this case (the restraining order on at will employees was an abomination - that judge should have been removed from the bench.)

 

[The Z Machine]

If an entire industry in a state or region all has a standard practice of non-competes for all employees, then the collusive effect means that one cannot practice their chosen profession in that area without signing a non-compete.

 

[Zow]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

Sure its "voluntary" but the decision isn't whether or not to sign the non-compete. The decision is whether or not you want the job (or the promotion, etc.)

Why did you need to put voluntary in quotes?

Because it's arguably* a contract of adhesion - where basically to sign the overall contract you must agree to all terms contained therein and if you contest one term you contest all other terms (which you may otherwise just be fine with). So, while this doesn't really meet a strict legal definition on an involuntary contract, to the potential employee it probably very much "feels" like they are not agreeing to a non-compete voluntarily as they have no other choice if they want a job in that industry in that area.


*This is outside my general areas of practice so I'll defer to any clarifications made by the Kristas and Bigbottoms of the board on this issue.

 

[massraider]

Downward doggy can be accomplished in oh so many ways and mine is proprietary.

Seinfeld effed up by sharing The Move with Puddy without a noncompete

 

[Thorn]

Having litigated these (albeit many years ago), I would just point out that non-compete is different than non-disclosure, though often both restrictions are written in the same agreement. Unfortunately, people often refer to an agreement that includes both clauses as "a non-compete." My state's case law made it very difficult to enforce non-compete clauses, but very possible to enforce non-disclosure.

Many of my cases were settled by striking or severely paring down the non-compete, but leaving the non-disclosure in effect.

 

[bigbottom]

Non-competes in healthcare are just awful. So glad they are getting done away with.

Ruling could save $194 billion in healthcare costs?

I am struggling mightily to see how a non-compete makes any sense at all for a nurse, pediatrician, x-ray tech., etc.

For some reason this reminds me of this case (the restraining order on at will employees was an abomination - that judge should have been removed from the bench.)

At least in the jurisdiction where I practiced law, for jobs where it didn’t make sense, I was generally able to bust the non-compete in court (if not before). But where there is a truly legitimate interest, I was able to enforce them on the regular.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Non-competes in healthcare are just awful. So glad they are getting done away with.

Ruling could save $194 billion in healthcare costs?

I am struggling mightily to see how a non-compete makes any sense at all for a nurse, pediatrician, x-ray tech., etc.

For some reason this reminds me of this case (the restraining order on at will employees was an abomination - that judge should have been removed from the bench.)

It's a (lame in my opinion) advantage for the business.

I have a friend who's a Physician's Assistant and he works for a practice of doctors. Probably 4 MDs and 6 or so Physician Assistants. Before they'd hire him, they made him sign a non compete that barred him for working for another practice within like 15 mile radius for a year or so if he left.

But outside of that, the job was a great for him so he signed it. Super lame.

 

[bigbottom]

If an entire industry in a state or region all has a standard practice of non-competes for all employees, then the collusive effect means that one cannot practice their chosen profession in that area without signing a non-compete.

Yes, this is the anti-competitive issue that the FTC is largely hanging its hat on I believe.

 

[psychobillies]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

Sure its "voluntary" but the decision isn't whether or not to sign the non-compete. The decision is whether or not you want the job (or the promotion, etc.)

Why did you need to put voluntary in quotes?

Because it's arguably* a contract of adhesion - where basically to sign the overall contract you must agree to all terms contained therein and if you contest one term you contest all other terms (which you may otherwise just be fine with). So, while this doesn't really meet a strict legal definition on an involuntary contract, to the potential employee it probably very much "feels" like they are not agreeing to a non-compete voluntarily as they have no other choice if they want a job in that industry in that area.


*This is outside my general areas of practice so I'll defer to any clarifications made by the Kristas and Bigbottoms of the board on this issue.

I see where you're coming from, but we've had people in this very thread say they chose not to sign one. One guy even laughed at it. If enough talented/skilled employees did the same, they would go away on their own.

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone does something voluntarily, can they just later say it didn't "feel" voluntary to get out of it? People need to read their own contracts and decide if the positives of the job outweigh the negatives of the non compete. Why do we need to have a government bureaucracy hold their hand? That never ends well, especially if it's retroactive to existing agreements.

 

[krista4]

If an entire industry in a state or region all has a standard practice of non-competes for all employees, then the collusive effect means that one cannot practice their chosen profession in that area without signing a non-compete.

The DOJ and FTC have in recent years tried to step up efforts in this area, too, by charging some companies and executives with criminal conspiracy for alleged no-poach agreements, A good summary here of a couple of recent cases involving the health care industry where the DOJ lost on this argument.

 

[McBokonon]

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone does something voluntarily

I mean, I guess you can voluntarily choose not take the job because you don't want to sign it, thereby volunteering to not make money and potentially default on your mortgage, or not eat well, or not get your kids new clothes, and continue your job search in the meantime, likely in an industry where all prospective employers will force you to make the same choice. So then that person is voluntarily not choosing to try a different career path/industry where this requirement is less likely.

Not everyone is in a position where they can laugh about it.

 

[The Z Machine]

I don't see why most people should be opposed to giving power to individual employees (labor) vs. corporations (capital).

 

[psychobillies]

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone does something voluntarily

I mean, I guess you can voluntarily choose not take the job because you don't want to sign it, thereby volunteering to not make money and potentially default on your mortgage, or not eat well, or not get your kids new clothes, and continue your job search in the meantime, likely in an industry where all prospective employers will force you to make the same choice. So then that person is voluntarily not choosing to try a different career path/industry where this requirement is less likely.

Not everyone is in a position where they can laugh about it.

You don't have to guess about it. That's definitely a choice they get to make. Is it the role of government to take every minute aspect of everyone's life that may seem a little unfair and make regulations to protect them? Have we given up on personal responsibility?

I totally understand not liking them. I just don't think government should be involved at all.

 

[The Z Machine]

Is it the role of government to take every minute aspect of everyone's life that may seem a little unfair and make regulations to protect them?

Is that what is happening here? Cuz I thought this was about uncompetitive and possibly collusive practices in the labor market.

 

[psychobillies]

I don't see why most people should be opposed to giving power to individual employees (labor) vs. corporations (capital).

Not all corporations are big evil billionaires lighting their cigars with million dollar bills. I don't think the government should be picking sides.

 

[The Z Machine]

I don't see why most people should be opposed to giving power to individual employees (labor) vs. corporations (capital).

Not all corporations are big evil billionaires lighting their cigars with million dollar bills. I don't think the government should be picking sides.

Well, they've certainly picked the corporations for many labor relations in recent history...

 

[CletiusMaximus]

People sign these things voluntarily, right? Why should a government bureaucracy involve themselves in private contracts between two consenting parties? If enough workers decide not to sign them, they would go away on their own.

Sure its "voluntary" but the decision isn't whether or not to sign the non-compete. The decision is whether or not you want the job (or the promotion, etc.)

Why did you need to put voluntary in quotes?

I didn't need to put it in quotes but wanted to note the important and obvious qualification which I stated. Signing a noncompete isn't necessarily "voluntary" in the same way that I voluntarily chose to eat an entire pizza last night while watching basketball alone on my couch. In many if not most business employment situations, the negotiation leverage is not equal. You take the job or you don't. If you're a young financial advisor and are offered a job at Merril Lynch, you can't negotiate out of the noncompete. So you turn down the job and apply at Morgan Stanley and guess what?