I rarely expect anything governmental or corporate to look being the end of the 4th quarter of the year Rocket River
I actually side with the left on this one. I'm under a non-compete in my job and it sucks. Companies have abused it and now force every new hire sign a non-compete. There's a huge difference between going to work for a competitor and sharing proprietary info to a competitor. I could (and should be able to) go to a competitor and use my experience and skills without revealing any confidential info from my current employer. I agree that this is definitely a restraint of trade. AND...getting rid of non-competes is great for salaries and compensation! If my employer wants to keep me, they need to pay me! If they aren't salary-competitive, they might lose me to a competitor (IF there are no non-compete contracts).
Yes No. Non-disclosure agreements would still apply and legally protect the company's proprietary information. Employees shouldn't be contract-locked to a specific employer. A worker should have the freedom to choose their employer and be able to change jobs and employers. Under the new ruling, businesses will need to be better managers, provide better working environments, provide competitive salaries, and offer better incentives to employees.... which should have been happening (but hasn't been) for the past few decades.
I had recently seen a post where some engineering company was being snarky saying. . . when ever they see a competitor come out saying they forcing their employees back to the office They immediately reach out to all of them .. . . .. its the easiest way to poach them from the company Rocket River
so... one company forces employees to be physically present in the office, while another company requires employees to either be present in the office or present remotely online. Employees should have the freedom to choose which one they want to work for. ...and if employers want to keep their talented staff, they should consider such things.
Agreed. Kind of the point of the story I am not ANTI or PRO Non-Competes Wrapping my head around the implecations The in NON COMPETE would hold those employees hostage from leaving . .. correct? Rocket River
Correct. Now that you're under contact with us and can't go to one of our employers, we own you. We don't have to salary-compete your salary with the competitor's offer. Don't like the knucklehead that we made Director? Too bad. Don't like the lousy working conditions? Too bad. Don't like the raise policy (or lack thereof)? Too bad. If you quit, you can't use your years of industry experience at a competitor - maybe you can be flip burgers or something.
This right here, the reality is employers have been abusing DNDs for decades. At the very least they need to be modified so they can't be abused, it's the American capitalist way.
I can vouch that the FTC and the relevant scholarship on noncompetes, including research on the many foreign and domestic jurisidictions where they have already been made illegal or restricted (a list that includes California and..... Minnesota) have thought all the way through the repercussions - certainly a lot more than you did when you made this post. This rulemaking has in fact been pending for over a year, but studied for way longer. I think though that the thing to know about administrative rulemaking - but it's literally entire buildings full of technocrats whose whole job is to repeatedly think things through - almost none more so than technocrat-heavy bodies like the FTC.
I hope so but we’ve seen many government policies not work out the way they were intended or have unintended consequences. For example patents and airline deregulation.
I personally think airline deregulation was a fantastic change. Yeah we had more legroom and half empty planes back in the day but an average ticket before deregulation was three times the cost of today's prices. We'd be crazy to go back to the days of regulated airfare. It was just a glorified oligopoly filled of poorly run businesses that were kept afloat by government regulated fares that were well above what they should have been and protected routes that limited competition.
I have your posts printed out and ready to hand to the HR rep at the start of my 10am meeting tomorrow.
I didn't say I'm against just that we should consider all the consequences. This is another example of complex issues being very simplified for online debate. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that every government policy has worked out exactly as intended?
Allowing non-competes to exist WAS a govt policy, though. They're inherently a restraint of trade. You couldn't enforce them in TX (except in rare circumstances) until the 1990's. This is unwinding a govt policy that most believe has gotten out of hand.
We also have much poorer service, many more fees as airlines try to nickel and dime customers, we've had smaller seats, and while Boeing's problems aren't specifically because of airline deregulation the pressures airlines are putting on Boeing for lower costs and faster productions does appear to contribute to their problems. We wouldn't have needed things like "The Passengers Bill of Rights" or the latest policy changes regarding refunds if Airline deregulation had worked without unintended consequences.
