bmks270 said:

---

While I agree with the [insert any government entity] decision, I disagree with them having the authority to make it.

---

I wish more people had this mentality. Our country would be much better off in the long run.

AgGrad99 said:

---

erudite said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I see both sides of this.

As an employer, I dont want an employee taking my trade secrets to a competitor, without a reasonable time to protect myself. And training costs are ridiculously high, before an employer typically sees a return on their investment. So you train, expose your trade secrets, and then get your best employees immediately poached without any recourse?

I understand the argument from an employee, who simply wants to use a skill they've acquired (especially if they've been laid off).

But there has to be some sort of protection for the employer, for the myriad of situations where it's not that simple

---

I've seen some sales folks take a book of buisness and delete company data and run. So yes there is a legitmate reason for it to exist.

But on the other hand, I've been "asked" (read pressured) to sign a non-compete right after I moved for a job that banned me from working in the entire agriculture industry for three years in the entirely of North America with no compensation.This isn't some highly skilled role, that was for a relatively mid/entry level position out of college. It blatantly wouldn't pass a trial court but they stilled tried. I countered that I would sign it if they gave three years of salary adjusted for inflation regardless of how I left and got told to pound sand. Fought with them over my relocation fee since it wasn't mentioned in the contract. Won.

---

Yeah, i completely understand protecting the employee, in that scenario. I do see both sides...and think a blanket solution by the govt is not the answer.

---

The major problem is that you've got entire industries that are issuing blanket non-competes to anyone and everyone they hire just because they can. They likely know they aren't enforceable, but it's just enough of a threat to be a deterrent.

My industry (civil engineering) is littered with them, even for new grads. It is supposedly to prevent an employee from walking away with a ton of clients, but it ends up hurting the market by preventing the opening of small businesses/firms that would compete.

erudite said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I see both sides of this.

As an employer, I dont want an employee taking my trade secrets to a competitor, without a reasonable time to protect myself. And training costs are ridiculously high, before an employer typically sees a return on their investment. So you train, expose your trade secrets, and then get your best employees immediately poached without any recourse?

I understand the argument from an employee, who simply wants to use a skill they've acquired (especially if they've been laid off).

But there has to be some sort of protection for the employer, for the myriad of situations where it's not that simple

---

I've seen some sales folks take a book of buisness and delete company data and run. So yes there is a legitmate reason for it to exist.

But on the other hand, I've been "asked" (read pressured) to sign a non-compete right after I moved for a job that banned me from working in the entire agriculture industry for three years in the entirely of North America with no compensation.This isn't some highly skilled role, that was for a relatively mid/entry level position out of college. It blatantly wouldn't pass a trial court but they stilled tried. I countered that I would sign it if they gave three years of salary adjusted for inflation regardless of how I left and got told to pound sand. Fought with them over my relocation fee since it wasn't mentioned in the contract. Won.

---

The rule makes it clear that you can't enforce a noncompete BUT there are other ways that you can work around it. For example with sales people, you could form a non-solicitation, although it has limitations. A better way is to create a TRAP that would meet the new guidelines. Let them take their book, but they have to pay for it.

If we're honest, most sales guys are the reason the client is there in the first place. The client rarely knows much about the company they're with unless it's a proprietary product. But things like insurance, real estate, wholesale companies, etc don't have any real interest to protect outside of their investment costs into the producer. The client is almost always there due to a relationship with the sales rep. So let them go with their clients and pay you a reasonable amount of money to leave.

Ah yes.

The Big 12 business model.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

This is stupid and gives too much credit to business just as progressives and lefties give too much credit to government.

Businesses often adopt anti-competitive practices that stifle the free markets. Especially when it comes to labor.

---

i'm sorry you find the constitution and/or capitalism stupid. a business doing something anti-competitive can still be capitalistic.

again, there is zero basis for any person remotely conservative to think the federal government has the power to do this. its not just the FTC that can't do this, its the whole federal government.

whether non-competes are good, bad, neutral, unneeded, essential, etc. etc.is up for debate, and we on the right can certainly all have different opinions.

however, see second paragraph above. that is not up for debate.

---

As the new rule states, it is not an equal negotiation between employer and employee. Often times as employees gain in skill and desire the upward mobility they can achieve, they are artificially held in place by the ridiculous non competes. Meanwhile, the owner of said company COULD give said employee a raise, partnership, etc but instead rests on the fact said employee is screwed should they leave. There is no incentive to treat employees better.

Legislating working conditions absolutely should fall under the purview of the government. It is not an equal negotiating position and employers are taking advantage of that fact.

TexasRebel said:

---

Ah yes.

The Big 12 business model.

---

And soon the be the ACC model.

ETA: sticking with the CFB analogy, it should work a lot more like coaching. You know you can't keep a coach from leaving if he wants to go somewhere else. So what do you do? Stick a buy out on him. You can go coach at another school but we're getting some money back as we have to rethink our strategy, find a new hire, etc.

A company losing someone who generates a lot of money can have an overly negative impact on said business because of all of the forecasting that goes into managing that business. The admins that were hired, business loans taken out, reinvesting strategies, etc. All of those are flipped on their heads if a large enough producer leaves. So tag them with an appropriately sized buy out. They can pay it or the new company can. And you can still add an NDA to it to make sure that your company's secrets are not shared with the new employer.

bmks270 said:

---

If your entire business depends on a few key employees hanging around and keeping all of your customers from leaving, then you should give them some path to partner or equity holder in the business.

---

And another great point. Noncompetes operate out of a position of fear. When people are properly incentivized and given upward mobility, they tend to stick around. When they are undervalued or underpaid, they tend to leave.

I get that certain industries can have high onboarding costs and the company should have methods in which to protect themselves. The ruling outlines several of these, such as NDAs, non-solicitation, TRAPs, etc. But the idea of "you need to keep working for me or face financial ruin….. and oh by the way I can fire you any time and the same rule is in effect" is stupid and it needs to go.

Lt. Joe Bookman said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

erudite said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I see both sides of this.

As an employer, I dont want an employee taking my trade secrets to a competitor, without a reasonable time to protect myself. And training costs are ridiculously high, before an employer typically sees a return on their investment. So you train, expose your trade secrets, and then get your best employees immediately poached without any recourse?

I understand the argument from an employee, who simply wants to use a skill they've acquired (especially if they've been laid off).

But there has to be some sort of protection for the employer, for the myriad of situations where it's not that simple

---

I've seen some sales folks take a book of buisness and delete company data and run. So yes there is a legitmate reason for it to exist.

But on the other hand, I've been "asked" (read pressured) to sign a non-compete right after I moved for a job that banned me from working in the entire agriculture industry for three years in the entirely of North America with no compensation.This isn't some highly skilled role, that was for a relatively mid/entry level position out of college. It blatantly wouldn't pass a trial court but they stilled tried. I countered that I would sign it if they gave three years of salary adjusted for inflation regardless of how I left and got told to pound sand. Fought with them over my relocation fee since it wasn't mentioned in the contract. Won.

---

Yeah, i completely understand protecting the employee, in that scenario. I do see both sides...and think a blanket solution by the govt is not the answer.

---

The major problem is that you've got entire industries that are issuing blanket non-competes to anyone and everyone they hire just because they can. They likely know they aren't enforceable, but it's just enough of a threat to be a deterrent.

My industry (civil engineering) is littered with them, even for new grads. It is supposedly to prevent an employee from walking away with a ton of clients, but it ends up hurting the market by preventing the opening of small businesses/firms that would compete.

---

It suppresses wages by reducing job hopping.

The Banned said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

If your entire business depends on a few key employees hanging around and keeping all of your customers from leaving, then you should give them some path to partner or equity holder in the business.

---

And another great point. Noncompetes operate out of a position of fear. When people are properly incentivized and given upward mobility, they tend to stick around. When they are undervalued or underpaid, they tend to leave.

I get that certain industries can have high onboarding costs and the company should have methods in which to protect themselves. The ruling outlines several of these, such as NDAs, non-solicitation, TRAPs, etc. But the idea of "you need to keep working for me or face financial ruin….. and oh by the way I can fire you any time and the same rule is in effect" is stupid and it needs to go.

---

Then Congress needs to pass legislation saying that. The FTC has no power nor authority to do so. Which is why I originally started this thread.

The Banned said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

This is stupid and gives too much credit to business just as progressives and lefties give too much credit to government.

Businesses often adopt anti-competitive practices that stifle the free markets. Especially when it comes to labor.

---

i'm sorry you find the constitution and/or capitalism stupid. a business doing something anti-competitive can still be capitalistic.

again, there is zero basis for any person remotely conservative to think the federal government has the power to do this. its not just the FTC that can't do this, its the whole federal government.

whether non-competes are good, bad, neutral, unneeded, essential, etc. etc.is up for debate, and we on the right can certainly all have different opinions.

however, see second paragraph above. that is not up for debate.

---

As the new rule states, it is not an equal negotiation between employer and employee. Often times as employees gain in skill and desire the upward mobility they can achieve, they are artificially held in place by the ridiculous non competes. Meanwhile, the owner of said company COULD give said employee a raise, partnership, etc but instead rests on the fact said employee is screwed should they leave. There is no incentive to treat employees better.

---

^^THIS GUY GETS IT 100%^^

An employee wants to get a foot in the door, learn the industry, better themselves but in order to do that they have to sign away the ability to market all the skills they learned while the company they work for retains the right to fire them whenever they want.

That is NOT an equal negotiation.

And a good portion of yall are okay with it.

The take I am hearing from yall is probably the most pathetic take I have heard on this board.

aggiehawg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

If your entire business depends on a few key employees hanging around and keeping all of your customers from leaving, then you should give them some path to partner or equity holder in the business.

---

And another great point. Noncompetes operate out of a position of fear. When people are properly incentivized and given upward mobility, they tend to stick around. When they are undervalued or underpaid, they tend to leave.

I get that certain industries can have high onboarding costs and the company should have methods in which to protect themselves. The ruling outlines several of these, such as NDAs, non-solicitation, TRAPs, etc. But the idea of "you need to keep working for me or face financial ruin….. and oh by the way I can fire you any time and the same rule is in effect" is stupid and it needs to go.

---

Then Congress needs to pass legislation saying that. The FTC has no power nor authority to do so. Which is why I originally started this thread.

---

You'd definitely know more about that than me. What is the FTC scope when tackling what they see as "unfair trade practices"?

Six pages of people completely missing the point. If noncompetes are so bad, lobby your Cogresscritters and Senators to change the law.

The FTC cannot do this on their own.

And according to the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits the states from doing this type of abrogation of contracts. Federal government can do so, with properly passed legislation. IOW, there are no state based remedies for noncompete agreements. Federal only.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that states are completely prohibited from altering private contracts at all. The Blaisdell case allowed the Minnesota legislature to alter a huge number of private contracts (mortgages) in a big way.

aggiehawg said:

---

Six pages of people completely missing the point. If noncompetes are so bad, lobby your Cogresscritters and Senators to change the law.

The FTC cannot do this on their own.

And according to the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits the states from doing this type of abrogation of contracts. Federal government can do so, with properly passed legislation. IOW, there are no state based remedies for noncompete agreements. Federal only.

---

The FTC claims that Sections 5 and 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives them this power because "prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce".
How does this rule pass any sort of judicial standard? By this logic, anyone who gave a discount to a friend would be in violation of this clause, Anyone who didn't sell outside of their states when asked would be sued, etc.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag00Ag said:

---

RedHand said:

---

Want to explain why you are in favor on non-competes. They are extremely one sided

---

No, there not...

I hire a new associate to practice in my existing $4.4M facility with an existing client base and another $500K worth of diagnostic and treatment equipment that I've spent 16 years growing. They begin generating income with absolutely no investment or risk. Once they have endeared them selves to a portion of my client base, using my facility, they can now go across the street and open up and take clients that I provided them with. Clients they could not have possibly gained access to without using my facilities and good will.

FWIW, the non-compete my associates have signed just says that if they leave my practice, they can not practice within 5 miles of my clinic for 1 year.

---

This is no different than a sales position. A sales person would not have gained access to clients without first working for their current employer.

If the only thing keeping patients and customers at your company is a good employee then pay that employee what they are worth so they don't leave you.

Sounds like you don't want to pay that employee commensurate for the goodwill they are bringing and generating for your facility.

They are not taking company secrets with them that they can use against you when they go.

---

not necessarily true. Sometimes a company hires someone because of that person already knows.

Ag00Ag said:

---

RedHand said:

---

Want to explain why you are in favor on non-competes. They are extremely one sided

---

No, there not...

I hire a new associate to practice in my existing $4.4M facility with an existing client base and another $500K worth of diagnostic and treatment equipment that I've spent 16 years growing. They begin generating income with absolutely no investment or risk. They don't have to do anything to generate business, I provide them clients. I take the risk of their employment. After a couple of years, once they have endeared them selves to a portion of my client base, using my facility, at no risk to themselves and no capital investment, they can now go across the street and open up and take clients that I provided them with. Clients they could not have possibly gained access to without using my facilities and good will.

FWIW, the non-compete my associates have signed just says that if they leave my practice, they can not practice within 5 miles of my clinic for 1 year.

---

The new rule does recognize that properly define TRAPs are A-OK. In your situation, if you were to properly outline the amount of money invested in the new hire and explain exactly how much revenue would need to be generated in order to recoup one's investment, plus one's cost of doing business (increased admin, etc) the potential loss could be mitigated.

In your example I think the physician should be able to leave. Go open your own practice and see if you actually have the business acumen to go along with your professional skills. But Ag00Ag should be due compensation for the knowledge imparted, along with the salary that acts as a startup investment.

In bygone days this was an apprenticeship where the physician in question basically worked for free under the expectation they SHOULD open their own shop and make money eventually. Now it's flipped. You will receive a decent starting wage but you better work for me forever or else….

US Chamber of Commerce files suit in Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Two judges there, both Trump appointees.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-chamber-commerce-sues-ftc-noncompete-ban

Aston04 said:

---

This is gonna make a huge impact in the medical field. Health systems spend a ton to recruit and train... Now can be poached immediately after...

---

That is part of life. They got to deal with it. Companies can hire you and dump you off "because business changed". About 20 years ago, I suffered my first layoff. 33% of the company gone. I had been there for about 2 months. One fellow who got laid off was there just 3 days. He was livid.

infinity ag said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

This is gonna make a huge impact in the medical field. Health systems spend a ton to recruit and train... Now can be poached immediately after...

---

That is part of life. They got to deal with it. Companies can hire you and dump you off "because business changed". About 20 years ago, I suffered my first layoff. 33% of the company gone. I had been there for about 2 months. One fellow who got laid off was there just 3 days. He was livid.

---

Did you sign an NDA? If not, how does your story have anything to do with NDA's?

Nobody forced anone to sign NDA's. If they want to be poached, don't sign. Oh wait. If they don't sign, they don't get an opportunity.

Free market principals would dictate who has the upper hand in these negotiations. If it's the hiring entity, then they can make you sign an NDA. if not, then the doctors/researchers don't sign one.

Government dictitating these as illegal is stupid.

Science Denier said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

This is gonna make a huge impact in the medical field. Health systems spend a ton to recruit and train... Now can be poached immediately after...

---

That is part of life. They got to deal with it. Companies can hire you and dump you off "because business changed". About 20 years ago, I suffered my first layoff. 33% of the company gone. I had been there for about 2 months. One fellow who got laid off was there just 3 days. He was livid.

---

Did you sign an NDA? If not, how does your story have anything to do with NDA's?

Nobody forced anone to sign NDA's. If they want to be poached, don't sign. Oh wait. If they don't sign, they don't get an opportunity.

Free market principals would dictate who has the upper hand in these negotiations. If it's the hiring entity, then they can make you sign an NDA. if not, then the doctors/researchers don't sign one.

Government dictitating these as illegal is stupid.

---

Crap you are right. I mixed up 2 different discussion threads. Sorry about that.

Coming back to this discussion. I think it is good that non-compete's are gone, or will go away. Companies misuse them a lot.

Today, a company can lay people off and then prevent them from finding a job in the field or competitor for 1 year. I was in a situation some years ago, I asked them and they said sorry, you cannot. They likely would not enforce. Companies laying off people should be made to pay all compensation with benefits for 1.5 times of the non compete period.

As for NDA, those should be illegal too. You cannot make people sign something and hold them just because they were in a situation where they had no option. As an extreme example, you cannot make a homeless hungry person to sign something saying he is your slave for life and claim that he signed it.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

^^THIS GUY GETS IT 100%^^

An employee wants to get a foot in the door, learn the industry, better themselves but in order to do that they have to sign away the ability to market all the skills they learned while the company they work for retains the right to fire them whenever they want.

That is NOT an equal negotiation.

And a good portion of yall are okay with it.

The take I am hearing from yall is probably the most pathetic take I have heard on this board.

---

I agree.

Investors are taught to diversify. But skilled workers are not. They specialize in doing one job. And being told they can't do the same job for anyone else puts them at a huge disadvantage if they ever lose that job.

Of course, how much of a disadvantage this is depends on how "competitors" are defined and how specialized the job is. If a software developer who makes videogames is told that he can't work for another game company, he probably won't face any obstacles to getting hired to write retail management software. But if an aerospace engineer at Boeing is told that he can't work for Airbus or Lockheed Martin, where's he going to get another job?

Now, you can argue that the employee "chose" to sign the non-compete agreement. But it's only a choice if there's a realistic opportunity to work for a company without non-compete agreements. If the entire industry does it, then the only choice is to pursue a different career path.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

put aside pros/cons of a non-competition agreement.

Does anyone here think it's right for Feds to ban them? That's what this gets down to.

---

**** no.

typically, anything which takes power from the employer is bad for the country.
let the market handle it.

---

That may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on texags.

I guess you're against weekends, child labor laws, unadulterated food supply, meat inspections, sick leave, overtime pay, vacation time, health coverage, Right to Know, Responsible Care, all worker safetey programs...

The "market" handled none of those things. Zero. And employers now mostly support every one of them.

My brain would just die a slow death as your employee.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

^^THIS GUY GETS IT 100%^^

An employee wants to get a foot in the door, learn the industry, better themselves but in order to do that they have to sign away the ability to market all the skills they learned while the company they work for retains the right to fire them whenever they want.

That is NOT an equal negotiation.

And a good portion of yall are okay with it.

The take I am hearing from yall is probably the most pathetic take I have heard on this board.

---

I agree.

Investors are taught to diversify. But skilled workers are not. They specialize in doing one job. And being told they can't do the same job for anyone else puts them at a huge disadvantage if they ever lose that job.

Of course, how much of a disadvantage this is depends on how "competitors" are defined and how specialized the job is. If a software developer who makes videogames is told that he can't work for another game company, he probably won't face any obstacles to getting hired to write retail management software. But if an aerospace engineer at Boeing is told that he can't work for Airbus or Lockheed Martin, where's he going to get another job?

Now, you can argue that the employee "chose" to sign the non-compete agreement. But it's only a choice if there's a realistic opportunity to work for a company without non-compete agreements. If the entire industry does it, then the only choice is to pursue a different career path.

---

Every NDA I've ever signed I've negotiated that the contract terminates if my employment is terminated by the company and it's not for cause. There was additional language that defines terminated for cause. Most states also put limits on what companies can put in their NDA's.

Can't say I'm anywhere close to being an expert in this, but I'm pretty sure what Biden is doing sucks ass and takes away normal, legal and legitimate protections that businesses have.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

^^THIS GUY GETS IT 100%^^

An employee wants to get a foot in the door, learn the industry, better themselves but in order to do that they have to sign away the ability to market all the skills they learned while the company they work for retains the right to fire them whenever they want.

That is NOT an equal negotiation.

And a good portion of yall are okay with it.

The take I am hearing from yall is probably the most pathetic take I have heard on this board.

---

I agree.

Investors are taught to diversify. But skilled workers are not. They specialize in doing one job. And being told they can't do the same job for anyone else puts them at a huge disadvantage if they ever lose that job.

Of course, how much of a disadvantage this is depends on how "competitors" are defined and how specialized the job is. If a software developer who makes videogames is told that he can't work for another game company, he probably won't face any obstacles to getting hired to write retail management software. But if an aerospace engineer at Boeing is told that he can't work for Airbus or Lockheed Martin, where's he going to get another job?

Now, you can argue that the employee "chose" to sign the non-compete agreement. But it's only a choice if there's a realistic opportunity to work for a company without non-compete agreements. If the entire industry does it, then the only choice is to pursue a different career path.

---

If the entire industry does it, then it is collusion and is illegal too. Like price fixing.

Science Denier said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

^^THIS GUY GETS IT 100%^^

An employee wants to get a foot in the door, learn the industry, better themselves but in order to do that they have to sign away the ability to market all the skills they learned while the company they work for retains the right to fire them whenever they want.

That is NOT an equal negotiation.

And a good portion of yall are okay with it.

The take I am hearing from yall is probably the most pathetic take I have heard on this board.

---

I agree.

Investors are taught to diversify. But skilled workers are not. They specialize in doing one job. And being told they can't do the same job for anyone else puts them at a huge disadvantage if they ever lose that job.

Of course, how much of a disadvantage this is depends on how "competitors" are defined and how specialized the job is. If a software developer who makes videogames is told that he can't work for another game company, he probably won't face any obstacles to getting hired to write retail management software. But if an aerospace engineer at Boeing is told that he can't work for Airbus or Lockheed Martin, where's he going to get another job?

Now, you can argue that the employee "chose" to sign the non-compete agreement. But it's only a choice if there's a realistic opportunity to work for a company without non-compete agreements. If the entire industry does it, then the only choice is to pursue a different career path.

---

Every NDA I've ever signed I've negotiated that the contract terminates if my employment is terminated by the company and it's not for cause. There was additional language that defines terminated for cause. Most states also put limits on what companies can put in their NDA's.

Can't say I'm anywhere close to being an expert in this, but I'm pretty sure what Biden is doing sucks ass and takes away normal, legal and legitimate protections that businesses have.

---

You are a smart educated, aware guy with options. So you negotiated this and got a good deal. However, you are in the minority. Steve and Keyshawn are not that bright and certainly don't have options. They just need a job to pay rent. So they will sign on whatever to get paid. How will you help people like him? Is it their fault that they had no options but to sign to survive?

Women typically also will sign without question since they hate negotiating. My wife has a Masters degree and hates negotiating offers. I have to badger her to ask for 15% more and she gets at least 10% more. Not everyone is confident enough to negotiate. My first job out of A&M, I had not negotiated. Because I did not know you could. And I was relieved to get an offer.

Please don't be flippant to their situation, you would sign it as well if you lived paycheck to paycheck like most of America. Remember, slavery in America also started the same way. Bonded labor comes from legal channels.

No one is forcing you to sign the non-compete. It's only 18% of the workforce. These agreements are signed willingly by both parties.

It's simple:

1) dont sign it.
2) Interview somewhere else.

AgBandsman said:

---

No one is forcing you to sign the non-compete. It's only 18% of the workforce. These agreements are signed willingly by both parties.

It's simple:

1) dont sign it.
2) Interview somewhere else.

---

It's simple if you've lined up "somewhere else" to interview, or if you've saved up enough money that you can afford to hold out for a better offer.

But a person who's been out of work for months and desperately needs the income may have to accept the first job offer they get, even if the terms are unfavorable. Sure, they aren't technically "forced" to do so, but that's a semantic game.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

AgBandsman said:

---

No one is forcing you to sign the non-compete. It's only 18% of the workforce. These agreements are signed willingly by both parties.

It's simple:

1) dont sign it.
2) Interview somewhere else.

---

It's simple if you've lined up "somewhere else" to interview, or if you've saved up enough money that you can afford to hold out for a better offer.

But a person who's been out of work for months and desperately needs the income may have to accept the first job offer they get, even if the terms are unfavorable. Sure, they aren't technically "forced" to do so, but that's a semantic game.

---

Exactly. Or my personal favorite: accept the job then handed a noncompete to sign.