Law Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 to ban Noncompete Agreements

Arkain2K

Si vis pacem, para bellum
@Steel
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
33,438
Reaction score
5,722
FTC To Ban Noncompete Agreements
BY CHRISTOPHER RUGABER | April 24, 2024



WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. companies would no longer be able to bar employees from taking jobs with competitors under a rule approved by a federal agency Tuesday, though the rule is sure to be challenged in court.

The Federal Trade Commission voted Tuesday 3-2 to ban measures known as noncompete agreements, which bar workers from jumping to or starting competing companies for a prescribed period of time. According to the FTC, 30 million people — roughly one in five workers — are now subject to such restrictions.

The Biden administration has taken aim at noncompete measures, which are commonly associated with high-level executives at technology and financial companies but in recent years have also ensnared lower-paid workers, such as security guards and sandwich-shop employees. A 2021 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that more than one in 10 workers who earn $20 or less an hour are covered by noncompete agreements.

When it proposed the ban in January 2023, FTC officials asserted that noncompete agreements harm workers by reducing their ability to switch jobs for higher pay, a step that often provides most workers with their biggest pay increases. By reducing overall churn in the job market, the agency argued, the measures also disadvantage workers who aren’t covered by them because fewer jobs become available as fewer people leave their positions. They can also hurt the economy overall by limiting the ability of other businesses to hire needed employees, the FTC said.

The rule, which doesn’t apply to workers at non-profits, is to take effect in four months unless it is blocked by legal challenges.



“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas and rob the American economy of dynamism,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said. “We heard from employees who, because of noncompetes, were stuck in abusive workplaces.”

Some doctors, she added, have been prevented from practicing medicine after leaving practices.

Business groups have criticized the measure as casting too wide a net by blocking nearly all noncompetes. They argue that highly paid executives are often able to win greater pay in return for accepting a noncompete.

“It’ll represent a sea change,” said Amanda Sonneborn, a partner at King & Spalding in Chicago who represents employers that use noncompetes. “They don’t want somebody to go to a competitor and take their customer list or take their information about their business strategy to that competitor.”

But Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, a professor at Columbia University who is a former Biden administration Labor Department official, argued that lower-income workers don’t have the ability to negotiate over such provisions.

“When they get their job offer,” he said, “it’s really a take-it-or-leave-it-as-a-whole,” he said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Tuesday that it will file a lawsuit to block the rule. It accused the FTC of overstepping its authority.

“Noncompete agreements are either upheld or dismissed under well-established state laws governing their use,” said Suzanne Clark, the chamber’s CEO. “Yet today, three unelected commissioners have unilaterally decided they have the authority to declare what’s a legitimate business decision and what’s not by moving to ban noncompete agreements in all sectors of the economy.”

Two Republican appointees to the FTC, Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson, voted against the proposal. They asserted that the agency was exceeding its authority by approving such a sweeping rule.

Noncompete agreements are banned in three states, including California, and some opponents of noncompetes argue that California’s ban has been a key contributor to that state’s innovative tech economy.

John Lettieri, CEO of the Economic Innovation Group, a tech-backed think tank, argues that the ability of early innovators to leave one company and start a competitor was key to the development of the semiconductor industry.

“The birth of so many important foundational companies could not have happened, at least not in the same way or on the same timeline and definitely not in the same place, had it not been for the ability of entrepreneurs to spin out, start their own companies, or go to a better company,” Lettieri said.

The White House has been stepping up its efforts to protect workers as the presidential campaign heats up. On Tuesday, the Labor Department issued a rule that would guarantee overtime pay for more lower-paid workers. The rule would increase the required minimum salary level to exempt an employee from overtime pay, from about $35,600 currently to nearly $43,900 effective July 1 and $58,700 by Jan. 1, 2025.

Companies will be required to pay overtime for workers below those thresholds who work more than 40 hours a week.

“This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time,” said Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su.

 
Last edited:

Business groups sue FTC over its ban on noncompete agreements​




Less than 24 hours after the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule this week banning employers from using noncompete agreements in the United States, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable filed a lawsuit against the agency in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.

Another lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas by business tax services firm Ryan.

And more may be filed in the coming weeks. “We think it’s likely additional lawsuits could be filed,” said employment lawyer Daniel Turinsky, a partner at DLA Piper.

Even before the rule was issued, the US Chamber had promised to sue on grounds that, in its view, the agency exceeded its administrative authority by outlawing what it deems “unfair methods of competition.”

The suit argues that without a clear legislative mandate from Congress, the FTC does not have the power to issue and enforce its blanket noncompete ban.

“The FTC contends that by using regulation they can simply declare common business practices to be ‘unfair methods of competition’ and thus illegal. This is despite the fact that noncompete agreements have been around longer than the 110-year-old FTC and until now no one has suggested that they are illegal,” the US Chamber said in a release announcing the lawsuit. “If the FTC can regulate noncompete agreements, then they can decide to regulate or even ban any other business practice. All without a vote from Congress.”

The Chamber and the Business Roundtable, along with a third plaintiff — the Longview Chamber of Commerce in Longview, Texas — are asking the court to issue a stay to stop the rule from going into effect, a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the FTC from enforcing the rule while the case is being litigated, “or both.”

In response to the US Chamber’s lawsuit, FTC Chair Lina Khan expressed confidence the agency is on firm ground legally. Appearing on CNN’s “The Lead With Jake Tapper” after the new noncompete prohibition was announced, she said the agency has “clear legal authority” to issue such a ban.

 
Non competes are BS. Not sure of the legal reasoning behind this move - I’m sure it will be contested by corp America - but it was the right thing to do.
 
Does this only apply to tech companies , or any large company that doesn't let their employee's work a second job in a similar type of work?
 
Does this only apply to tech companies , or any large company that doesn't let their employee's work a second job in a similar type of work?
Applies to any company trying to limit their employees other employment options.

1 of 6 fast food workers had non competes for fucks sake. Just being used to keep a person in a job without having to give them meaningful raises to keep them.
 
Does this only apply to tech companies , or any large company that doesn't let their employee's work a second job in a similar type of work?

That’s not usually what non-competes are for, prohibitions on working a second job for a competitor can be dealt with by an employer’s conflict of interest policy.

Non-competes are more for prohibiting former employees from going to work for a competitor after that employee has been terminated or resigned, for a specific period of time.

In Canada non-competes are generally unenforceable against ordinary employees, regardless of industry. Where they are enforced are with respect to owners of a company in the case of a merger or acquisition. So say Joe owns company X and is quite successful. Along comes company Y and they want to buy company X from him. They can do so, and make him sign a non-compete preventing him from opening up Company Z across the street from Company X.

However, say some white collar professional like an engineer is working for company A and his employment contract has a non-compete in it and then Company A fires him, so he goes to work for Company B and then Company A tries to get an injunction from the court prohibiting him from working at Company B. Typically Canadian courts would not grant that injunction because about 100 years ago Courts in Canada took the position that non-competes vis a vis employees were tantamount to slavery and were effectively banned for public policy reasons.
 
California is probably the world centre for innovation (in addition to being a liberal hell hole) and non-competes cannot be enforced in that state. my guess is that banning them nationally will work out ok.
 
That’s not usually what non-competes are for, prohibitions on working a second job for a competitor can be dealt with by an employer’s conflict of interest policy.

Non-competes are more for prohibiting former employees from going to work for a competitor after that employee has been terminated or resigned, for a specific period of time.

In Canada non-competes are generally unenforceable against ordinary employees, regardless of industry. Where they are enforced are with respect to owners of a company in the case of a merger or acquisition. So say Joe owns company X and is quite successful. Along comes company Y and they want to buy company X from him. They can do so, and make him sign a non-compete preventing him from opening up Company Z across the street from Company X.

However, say some white collar professional like an engineer is working for company A and his employment contract has a non-compete in it and then Company A fires him, so he goes to work for Company B and then Company A tries to get an injunction from the court prohibiting him from working at Company B. Typically Canadian courts would not grant that injunction because about 100 years ago Courts in Canada took the position that non-competes vis a vis employees were tantamount to slavery and were effectively banned for public policy reasons.
Ahh, I am probably thinking of conflict of interest policy then. Its still bullshit. Pay your employee's better and they wouldnt have to work a second job.
 
Glad Biden could get another objectively positive thing done. It goes to highlight yet again that there really are substantive differences between Biden and Trump.
 
LOL this is somehow a bad thing? Corporations should be allowed to ruin people's careers/livelihoods/lives with bullshit non competes?

Ahahahahaha.

Conservatives - "I literally just want bad things to happen. That is the sum of my politics"
Anything supported by the administration is by definition is bad to that POS hack.
 
I can understand a very limited application of non-competes.

If someone has specific inside technical knowledge that your company spent money to develop and they are in a position to bring that incredibly valuable information to a direct competitor it's basically legaized corporate espionage with some extra steps.

The problem is non-competes are most often used to make sure people can't develop skills into a career within an industry, or to limit the job options of low skilled labor. It's a boot heel on the throat of the working class.
 
Non-compete clauses should either not exist or be very limted in scope. It's a tool used to stifle wages/not improve working conditions.

Imagine if you got a terrible boss and were not allowed to go anywhere else in your field because of a non-compete clause that you signed several bosses ago.
 
That’s not usually what non-competes are for, prohibitions on working a second job for a competitor can be dealt with by an employer’s conflict of interest policy.

Non-competes are more for prohibiting former employees from going to work for a competitor after that employee has been terminated or resigned, for a specific period of time.

In Canada non-competes are generally unenforceable against ordinary employees, regardless of industry. Where they are enforced are with respect to owners of a company in the case of a merger or acquisition. So say Joe owns company X and is quite successful. Along comes company Y and they want to buy company X from him. They can do so, and make him sign a non-compete preventing him from opening up Company Z across the street from Company X.

However, say some white collar professional like an engineer is working for company A and his employment contract has a non-compete in it and then Company A fires him, so he goes to work for Company B and then Company A tries to get an injunction from the court prohibiting him from working at Company B. Typically Canadian courts would not grant that injunction because about 100 years ago Courts in Canada took the position that non-competes vis a vis employees were tantamount to slavery and were effectively banned for public policy reasons.
Sounds reasonable, at least we got this one right.
 
Non competes are BS. Not sure of the legal reasoning behind this move - I’m sure it will be contested by corp America - but it was the right thing to do.
- I agree. WWE does that, stupid barring some talent of making money while his name is hot.
 
Back
Top