•
counterpoint: "I signed an NDA" is an easy cop out if I don't remember or don't feel like talking about what went on at previous jobs in job interviews
Yeah, I read a couple of comments before getting to this and completely forgot there was a title.
I always thought non-compete agreements were so bizarre. like why would a company get to have any say where I can work after I stop working for them lol. Same vibes as an HOA telling you what color you're allowed to paint your house or how long your grass can be
More like a HOA telling you that you can never paint a house blue again in your life, even after you move out
This is good, but iirc I seem to recall being told in business law years back that most non competes were unenforceable in court
Still, I suppose that's 1 point for this admin, 533,256 against
And companies kept using them anyway, because how many employees know it's unenforceable, or would be able to fight a much larger company trying to enforce it?
I'm expecting more of the same here.
Yeah...the wording of 'nearly all' non competes being voided worries me as well. I wonder if we'll just see corporations weasel a way around this to keep using them
From the official FTC release it looks like existing NCAs for senior executives are still enforceable but new ones can’t be written.
Really curious if this ruling applies to public employers as well as private.
I finally got curious and went digging, looks like public and private; at least, I don't see anything distinguishing between the two in either this text or the proposed rule
Also looks like the two conservative chairs voted against the rule lmao, shocking
Ed, I did find this in the finalized rule under part E, Sect 1 , 'Generally'
For example, the Act exempts “banks” and “persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act.” And the Act excludes from its definition of “corporation” any entity that is not “organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members.” The NPRM explained that, where an employer is exempt from coverage under the FTC Act, the employer would not be subject to the rule. The NPRM also explained that State and local government entities—as well as some private entities—may not be subject to the rule when engaging in activity protected by the State action doctrine.
So probably just certain contractors/researchers could still be bound by NDAs under this ruling, likely ones for government work (as mentioned below)
Generally, I'm thinking of the scientists and engineers that do the researching and designing, where it's not just that the company doesn't want them to blab about their internal secrets, but the government also doesn't want them using that knowledge for a foreign competitor.
They've been unenforceable in California and New York for several years now, but I think in other states they were still valid.
I was thinking less along the lines of being outright nullified by definition, and more them not passing the basic tests, but that's good to know. Looks like a lot of other states also already had conditions outlining their use (at the bottom of that link)
I can go steal all my former clients from my prior employer now lol
EDIT: actually nevermind, that's a non-solicitation agreement which is different from a non-compete.
I actually can't do this, I forgot I have a non-solication agreement with my former employer for 2 years (meaning I can't poach clients) versus on non-compete (meaning I can't go to a competitor)
It's funny, I can't help but think Adam Smith would come around to socialism if he saw what capitalism has become in the 21st century.
Behind every socialist is a disappointed free-market enthusiast.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-labor-board-limits-gag-clauses-severance-agreements-2023-02-22/
At least the NLRB did put some limits on certain NDA/non-disparaging in severance agreements.
This just allows the fed/sec full reign to move to Goldman/etc lol
This will be horrible for fraud in America
An agreement you’re forced to sign when starting a job saying that if you leave you can’t work for a competitor for x number of years.
If I put a gun to your head and made you sign yourself into slavery, that’s the free market
How was anyone supposed to tell you were trying to invoke irony with no kind of tone indicators or shorthand attached to your post other than insufferable rexxitor smarm? Telepathy-over-IP? /srs
Satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize
Ooooh woaw sorry for not understanding your unindicated social cue
Neurodivergent people exist fuck you
You don't seem to grasp how many idiots we get that absolutely hold this line of thought unironically
It basically means you can't go work for a concurrent of your current company for a set period of time after you leave your job.
They probably did this for companies so they can take labor from others easier. Side benefit to the workers
Fucking based.
The only way capitalism can work in any feasible way is if capitalists are doing all the competing, something capitalists promise they're all about but they historically will do anything to avoid competing as much as possible.