5 ms·

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

by duxup 2y ago

janice1999 2y ago
But think of the "employer community". How can they punish employees for leaving now?
- andrewstuart2 2y ago
  If companies are implementing unfair policies like non-competes then the invisible hand of the free market will cause employees to leave those companies or never join them! I mean it's really not very likely that the 2-3 CEOs we currently have for each industry now could possibly find time to meet in a room together in order to pad their pockets with billions more and help squash further competition. /s
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Of course the will not, as it will be illegal. Nobody is stupid enough to write an email admitting to doing it. /s
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- yndoendo 2y ago
  I actually had my dad hide out at my place because, while he was visiting, a person attempted to serve him for a non-compete clause. It was in a contract that was written over 20 years ago and never re-authorized. The contract even stated it would only be viable for 1 year. Company even tried using the state he was living in versus the state the company was registered with because the ladder had more strict non-compete causes and the former recently pass laws against non-compete. Sorry but a person's lively hood should not be revoked because they left their former employer that treated them like shit. Of course it equivalent to a SLAP suit and nothing of value came of it. It cost both parties loss of income. Game theory was a loose loose outcome resolution. The case did help other leave the company with impunity and no court case because of the loss. Lucky his next employer fitted the bill if he stayed on for four years.
- eli_gottlieb 2y ago
  You joke, but that's exactly who this government are thinking of. We had the best NLRB for workers in decades and a spell of full employment, and they're now trying to roll that back as best they can while also deporting part of the labor force.
- thfuran 2y ago
  More easily now that the nrlb rescinded those bans.
like_any_other 2y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this action by the NLRB expands the applicability of non-competes. The policy that they rescinded held that (some) non-competes violate employee rights.
- duxup 2y ago
  That's my understanding too, this isn't some wholesale / anything goes "non-compete bonanza". It does however tell you what direction the administration would like this to go.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    Ah, I overlooked the "my state" in your original post.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Which state? I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.
- angry_moose 2y ago
  Minnesota did as of 2023. Might be others https://www.mmmlaw.com/news-resources/minnesota-becomes-yet-another-state-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/ https://www.mmmlaw.com/news-resources/minnesota-becomes-yet-... North Dakota and Oklahoma as well, according to this map: https://eig.org/state-noncompete-map/ https://eig.org/state-noncompete-map/
- duxup 2y ago
  In my case Minnesota.
- terminalbraid 2y ago
  Illinois has restrictions as well for employees <= ~$75k, for cases where it is clear that there is no clear business interest, employers must cover the cost where their NCA is overturned, etc. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3737&ChapterID=68 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3737&C...
- tzs 2y ago
  For anyone curious the earning thresholds in Washington for non-competes to be OK were $120560 for employees and $301400 for independent contractors last year. When non-competes are allowed they are limited to 18 months, and if you get laid off they are void unless the employer continues to pay your base salary during the duration of the non-compete.
dmurray 2y ago
So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states that would want to ban them locally.
- tdeck 2y ago
  Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.
  - unclad5968 2y ago
    I'm against non-competes, but likening them to slavery seems distasteful. I'm not sure they infringe on people's freedoms or rather a specific people's freedoms the way slavery did/does. No one is going to secede over non-competes.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      It illustrates the way the "leave it up to the states" argument grates on some ears. It's a slippery slope argument, which is not automatically faulty. It is a call to know how you expect things to not slide down. If the suggestion is "anything shy of complete chattel slavery", people get worried.
      - IncreasePosts 2y ago
        Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?
        Uvix 2y ago
        The US has been that since 1861.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Nor do giant companies that are immune to competition. But somehow both parties look the other way on antitrust, which is probably even more critical to having a free flowing market.

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

by duxup 2y ago

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

janice1999 2y ago

But think of the "employer community". How can they punish employees for leaving now?

andrewstuart2 2y ago
If companies are implementing unfair policies like non-competes then the invisible hand of the free market will cause employees to leave those companies or never join them! I mean it's really not very likely that the 2-3 CEOs we currently have for each industry now could possibly find time to meet in a room together in order to pad their pockets with billions more and help squash further competition. /s
- Muromec 2y ago
  Of course the will not, as it will be illegal. Nobody is stupid enough to write an email admitting to doing it. /s
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
yndoendo 2y ago
I actually had my dad hide out at my place because, while he was visiting, a person attempted to serve him for a non-compete clause. It was in a contract that was written over 20 years ago and never re-authorized. The contract even stated it would only be viable for 1 year. Company even tried using the state he was living in versus the state the company was registered with because the ladder had more strict non-compete causes and the former recently pass laws against non-compete. Sorry but a person's lively hood should not be revoked because they left their former employer that treated them like shit. Of course it equivalent to a SLAP suit and nothing of value came of it. It cost both parties loss of income. Game theory was a loose loose outcome resolution. The case did help other leave the company with impunity and no court case because of the loss. Lucky his next employer fitted the bill if he stayed on for four years.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
You joke, but that's exactly who this government are thinking of. We had the best NLRB for workers in decades and a spell of full employment, and they're now trying to roll that back as best they can while also deporting part of the labor force.
thfuran 2y ago
More easily now that the nrlb rescinded those bans.

like_any_other 2y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this action by the NLRB expands the applicability of non-competes. The policy that they rescinded held that (some) non-competes violate employee rights.

duxup 2y ago
That's my understanding too, this isn't some wholesale / anything goes "non-compete bonanza". It does however tell you what direction the administration would like this to go.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  Ah, I overlooked the "my state" in your original post.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Which state? I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.

angry_moose 2y ago
Minnesota did as of 2023. Might be others https://www.mmmlaw.com/news-resources/minnesota-becomes-yet-another-state-to-ban-non-compete-agreements/ https://www.mmmlaw.com/news-resources/minnesota-becomes-yet-... North Dakota and Oklahoma as well, according to this map: https://eig.org/state-noncompete-map/ https://eig.org/state-noncompete-map/
duxup 2y ago
In my case Minnesota.
terminalbraid 2y ago
Illinois has restrictions as well for employees <= ~$75k, for cases where it is clear that there is no clear business interest, employers must cover the cost where their NCA is overturned, etc. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3737&ChapterID=68 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3737&C...
tzs 2y ago
For anyone curious the earning thresholds in Washington for non-competes to be OK were $120560 for employees and $301400 for independent contractors last year. When non-competes are allowed they are limited to 18 months, and if you get laid off they are void unless the employer continues to pay your base salary during the duration of the non-compete.

dmurray 2y ago

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states that would want to ban them locally.

tdeck 2y ago
Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.
- unclad5968 2y ago
  I'm against non-competes, but likening them to slavery seems distasteful. I'm not sure they infringe on people's freedoms or rather a specific people's freedoms the way slavery did/does. No one is going to secede over non-competes.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    It illustrates the way the "leave it up to the states" argument grates on some ears. It's a slippery slope argument, which is not automatically faulty. It is a call to know how you expect things to not slide down. If the suggestion is "anything shy of complete chattel slavery", people get worried.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?
      - Uvix 2y ago
        The US has been that since 1861.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Nor do giant companies that are immune to competition. But somehow both parties look the other way on antitrust, which is probably even more critical to having a free flowing market.