In reply to fitzgeraldsd

fitzgeraldsd said:

---

As a physician owner of a medical practice non competes are essential. I spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to help establish a new doc in their practice. Guaranteed salary, with all that risk borne by me. If non competes are dissolved then the physician that I have supported for years to build their patient base will simply go out and start their own practice and take their patients with them. Well, I will not take that financial risk and new physicians will take be on their own.

---

Oh boo boo, this is how every other industry works. You don't think a company takes a risk by hiring a new engineer and then letting them learn for years only to have them jump ship for a hire paying position?

This is the norm in other fields. If you want people to stay then compensate them for it. Otherwise be ready to have people constantly leave.

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's a very liberal sentiment to think government making something overall better is a basis for federal action.

The argument it is anti-capitalist to let people contractually agree to things is absurd.

One cannot possibly consider themselves to be a conservative or believe in the constitution, if they think the federal government has the power to ban non-competition agreements.

---

So? I have no issues using government power to improve situations and this was desperately needed. Noncompetes have been abused for decades. Time for companies to actual compensate people properly if they want to keep them.

Quote:

---

So? I have no issues using government power to improve situations and this was desperately needed.

---

most liberal don't. You are in great company.

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's a very liberal sentiment to think government making something overall better is a basis for federal action.

The argument it is anti-capitalist to let people contractually agree to things is absurd.

One cannot possibly consider themselves to be a conservative or believe in the constitution, if they think the federal government has the power to ban non-competition agreements.

---

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.

Most non-competes are stupid and not needed any way.

Non-competes have the effect of artificially suppressing wages. I've witnessed it first hand in engineering. Employers pay less because they know their employee won't be able to job hop within the same sector.

I've also witnessed people leave an employer and succeeding taking some customers. Ot's always because the business isn't serving them as well as they could, and employee sees the opportunity to offer a better product or service. These customers might otherwise be unserved, and no they don't put the first business out of business either because they don't have the bandwidth to serve all of the customers of the first business. They simply offer a more niche service for a small number that the original business couldn't.

It's good for consumers and for innovation if people with experience can start a business to offer better service than the current market is offering.

It's good for workers to be able to get a free market compensation.

It's bad for existing lazy business owners who want to suppress wages and not need to compete.

While I agree with the FTC decision, I disagree with them having the authority to make it. Legislators shouldn't be delegating their legislating duties. Bureaucrats should not be empowered to just decree law whenever they please like dictators.

In reply to bmks270

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.

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.

In reply to Nanomachines son

Nanomachines son said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's a very liberal sentiment to think government making something overall better is a basis for federal action.

The argument it is anti-capitalist to let people contractually agree to things is absurd.

One cannot possibly consider themselves to be a conservative or believe in the constitution, if they think the federal government has the power to ban non-competition agreements.

---

I have no issues using government power to improve situations

---

Oh goodness

OK, comrade

In reply to BMX Bandit

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.

---

I don't find capitalism stupid. I find believing that all businesses will practice free market philosophy in their dealings is stupid.

All this thread has accomplished:

1) remind me that even a group of Aggies contains plenty of communists who believe in those failed economic principles, most of them just don't realize what they are

2) remind me that few people seem to value following the constitution anymore, and we have many openly begging for government to control their lives

3) remind me that there are still great stories of entrepreneurs creating great businesses out there, and this group is what truly made America differentiated in the first place

In reply to Ag00Ag

Quote:

---

So someone that buys my business can handcuff me from marketing my labor in a free market but I get zero protection from being screwed by an employee I hire in good faith?

---

The employee is just trying to market his labor in a free market as well. Your response is literally the definition of "having your cake and eating it too".

In reply to cslifer

cslifer said:

---

Quote:

---

So someone that buys my business can handcuff me from marketing my labor in a free market but I get zero protection from being screwed by an employee I hire in good faith?

---

The employee is just trying to market his labor in a free market as well. Your response is literally the definition of "having your cake and eating it too".

---

No no, ..I was just making a point. I don't think the ban is justified for either employment or the sale of a business. Just trying to illustrate the rule is unequally applied.

If I sell my business and sign a non-compete, I would honor it.

When I took a job and signed a non-compete, I honored it.

In reply to Nanomachines son

Nanomachines son said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's a very liberal sentiment to think government making something overall better is a basis for federal action.

The argument it is anti-capitalist to let people contractually agree to things is absurd.

One cannot possibly consider themselves to be a conservative or believe in the constitution, if they think the federal government has the power to ban non-competition agreements.

---

So? I have no issues using government power to improve situations and this was desperately needed. Noncompetes have been abused for decades. Time for companies to actual compensate people properly if they want to keep them.

---

Maybe labor unions are more your style comrade

In reply to Urban Ag

Urban Ag 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.

---

Exactly this.

How does an alphabet agency have the legal authority to ban non competes? Feds are completely out of control.

---

this is nuts

reportedly we just forgot some details of the fundamental legal underpinnings of the administrative state for several decades https://t.co/uRFQnZWeHv pic.twitter.com/lRtLxPkz0e

— eigenrobot (@eigenrobot) April 24, 2024

Interesting, turns out they may not have the authority to do this but that has clearly never stopped them before. I mean we all know how much the EPA and BLM overstep and nothing stops them.

In reply to Nanomachines son

Nanomachines son 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

---

Employers don't train people anymore. I have not seen any formal training program in my career at all. Everything is basically "figure it out" or "we don't want to hire inexperienced people".

Training programs haven't existed for a long time so that argument doesn't work anymore.

---

Wait...what?

I understand that your experience is different, but that couldn't be more wrong.

I work in a giant industry, and I am required to have certified training programs, which are audited annually. Our industry is not unique in that regard.

Your experience is the exception.

Regulatory capture is likely not the answer

How about making it standard/best practice to add non-compete disclosure to hiring documents so the employee can know, in advance, the potential non-compete concerns they may have subject to upon termination of the employment contract

In reply to Nanomachines son

Nanomachines son said:

---

Urban Ag 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.

---

Exactly this.

How does an alphabet agency have the legal authority to ban non competes? Feds are completely out of control.

---

this is nuts

reportedly we just forgot some details of the fundamental legal underpinnings of the administrative state for several decades https://t.co/uRFQnZWeHv pic.twitter.com/lRtLxPkz0e

— eigenrobot (@eigenrobot) April 24, 2024

Interesting, turns out they may not have the authority to do this but that has clearly never stopped them before. I mean we all know how much the EPA and BLM overstep and nothing stops them.

---

Really? Haven't people been telling you this?

In reply to Nanomachines son

Quote:

---

turns out they may not have the authority to do this

---

I'm okay with a maximum 6 month non-compete, but only if you leave the company on your own terms. If you get laid off or fired you should be able to do whatever you want.

In reply to bmks270

bmks270 said:

---

Non-competes, and arguably patents to some extent, slow innovation and entrepreneurship.

It's better for the consumer and overall prosperity of society if the more efficient business is allowed to operate rather than the less efficient business be protected by non-competes and patents.

---

That's why patents are for "limited times" (20 years at most). The idea is to incentivize innovation by offering a temporary monopoly. But not a permanent one, because if you still had to pay royalties in order to build an Archimedes' screw, crossbow (Qin Shi Huangdi), eyeglasses (Salvino D'Armate), or flush toilet (Sir John Harington), it would be silly and crippling to the economy.

Copyrights are covered by the same clause in the US Constitution, but since the entertainment industry apparently has better lobbyists than STEM people, its term is absurdly long.

In reply to AgGrad99

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

---

Sounds like you need to pay them more, provide better benefits and create a better work environment.

In reply to Dufflepud

Dufflepud 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

---

Sounds like you need to pay them more, provide better benefits and create a better work environment.

---

I also want to work in fantasyland
Employers that try to make everyone happy, eventually make no one happy

In reply to IDaggie06

IDaggie06 said:

---

I'm okay with a maximum 6 month non-compete, but only if you leave the company on your own terms. If you get laid off or fired you should be able to do whatever you want.

---

I agree with this. Or, more to the point, I think there should be some sort of tiered approach. Something like "if you make less than $100,000, then the longest non-compete you can sign is for six month, and the company must be willing to pay the regular salary for at least three months of that time" and so on. There are plenty of people under non-compete clauses who would be hard-pressed to save enough money to not work for a year (or work for a year in an entry-level job). Sure, the employee signed, but as an employer, you sort of have them at a disadvantage.

That said, I don't think this is the mechanism that should be used to address the problem.

(On a separate note, I'm also sort of surprised at the number of people here who seem to think it is fine to break an agreement you signed just because it may be unenforceable.)

In reply to Dufflepud

Dufflepud 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

---

Sounds like you need to pay them more, provide better benefits and create a better work environment.

---

Yeah, that's been said. But life isn't that simple.

A company cant pay every employee the worth of the trade secrets they learn, which are the value of the business itself.
You can't expect employers to build a business out of sweat equity, make sacrifices, take all the risk and at the same time expect them to fully expose their business to poachers.

That's absurd. Some protections should be expected, and the market agrees.

-This seems dumb especially in light of the fact we talking about, according to the article, 18% of employees.
-If two parties willingly enter into an agreement that is otherwise legal, WTF is the FTC to say those types of agreements are not allowed?
-This will potential prevent/interfere with the sale of many businesses, and dramatically reduce their value.

Just another reason for SCOTUS to dump the Chevron Doctrine and rein in these federal agencies from promulgating rules beyond their authority granted in the enabling act.

In reply to Ag00Ag

Ag00Ag said:

---

This effects more than just employees...and quite frankly I'm shocked to hear so many posters on this board ( a generally conservative lot) shouting "workers of the world unit!" That's sure what it sounds like.

Take for example a business owner in any business. When he's ready to retire, he sells his business. The buyer is purchasing more than just his building and equipment,He's buying the name and goodwill that comes with the businesses reputation. So when he buys, he make the seller sign a non-compete stating he won't open up a similar business in the same area and advertise to his old clients. If he did, all the good will the buyer purchased is vanished.

Now, the seller, who sold his business yesterday, can ignore his non-compete today. Open up next door the the guy he sold his company, client base, company reputation and name to...advertise in the community and completely devalue the business he sold.

And for those of you who are content to be salaried employees for the entirety of your lives. Do you have a retirement account? Is any of it invested in private equity funds? Hope your ready to lose that!

Private equity companies make there investors money by buying and consolidating businesses in one sector or another. When they buy those companies, they make the sellers sign non-competes. As in the scenario above, the purchases they made are no longer protected from rapid devaluation.

I understand that in some cases, non-competes are overly restrictive but in the vast majority of those cases, they don't hold up in court anyway.

In high skill and professional industries like medical fields and certain tech sectors, this is going to be devistating. Not only to those in those sectors but in the over all economy as others invest in those sectors.

And for those comments like "just pay your people what their worth and they'll stay" you can't possible imagine how ignorant you sound. The investment a medical professional practice owner makes in an associate is significantly more than just their salary and the associate typically benefits from the arrangement far more than the owner...but the owner takes all the risk.

---

You don't need a non-compete for that. You need a contact of commitment.

Almost like enlisting.

Want to go somewhere else? Okay, but you still owe for what you've been given.

In reply to FrioAg 00

FrioAg 00 said:

---

All this thread has accomplished:

1) remind me that even a group of Aggies contains plenty of communists who believe in those failed economic principles, most of them just don't realize what they are

2) remind me that few people seem to value following the constitution anymore, and we have many openly begging for government to control their lives

3) remind me that there are still great stories of entrepreneurs creating great businesses out there, and this group is what truly made America differentiated in the first place

---

Don't forget the people who think employees (who didn't have the balls to take the risk to start their own company and put up/borrow money to do so) should be given ownership if the employer doesn't want them raiding their employees, clients, and business that they built from the ground up.

In reply to Ag00Ag

Ag00Ag said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

And to my point- most individuals don't want to take the risk and deal with the headache of making nothing for several years by opening their own business.

Pay a good employee enough or have a vesting schedule that allows them to share in success.

A noncompete is not necessary.

---

Jeeze the ignorance of this comment is overwhelming!

Most people don't want to take the risk and deal with the head aches...but pay them like an owner anyway?

Go away commie.

---

Paying enough to retain employees isn't the same as paying like an owner.

How little do you pay your slaves?

In reply to TexasRebel A vesting schedule is absolutely paying like an owner. What exactly do you think they are vesting?

In reply to erudite

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.

In reply to Four Seasons Landscaping

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

A vesting schedule is absolutely paying like an owner. What exactly do you think they are vesting?

---

Depends on what's in the contract.

401k
Stock
Bonuses

Could be plenty of things.

In reply to TexasRebel I mean in the context of the sentence it was mentioned in...

Quote:

---

Pay a good employee enough or have a vesting schedule that allows them to share in success.

---

You have to split the finest of hairs to pretend that's not referring to some form of ownership.

In reply to Four Seasons Landscaping Bonuses.