They’ve been around forever, which is where my pessimism comes from. I’ve personally suffered and even had to pass up a job due to a non-compete. I’m not going to court to prove a point, which means employers have much more power than workers.
While they have been around forever, courts tend to take kindly to the argument that you need to be able to earn a living doing what you are an expert in, and so unless very narrow they tend to be struck down. You need a good lawyer though to get far in court which often makes the fight not worth it.
Differs from state to state. CA for instance has been shooting them down in court left and right--it's such a guaranteed win for you that no company would actually sue you over it.
You need a good lawyer though to get far in court which often makes the fight not worth it.
And that's the point. It keeps lower-wage workers at bay, because a waged worker typically doesn't have the time or resources for a long, drawn out court battle.
Isn't there a pretty universal argument that you cannot prevent a person from earning an income? I've always thought that was the argument that gets these tossed in court. Then again i have zero experience with these and i didn't know anyone who does so shrug
Unfortunately these are common in the healthcare industry. There are currently Healthcare workers who are being sued over this. Yeah, the companies may not ultimately win in court, but the workers can't even afford to hire an attorney to defend themselves.
This was the advice I received when I consulted a lawyer on my non-compete. She said “I mean, you could go for it, but if they do call you on it, you’ll either owe the wages from your new organization, or you’ll have to take them to court and that’ll likely take a year or legal fees. You have to ask yourself if that’s worth it to you and your family.”
Sucked to hear, and NCs are predatory anti-worker BS.
Ah got ya. I've been in long term contact work for years in pharma mfg/pkg and haven't ever really bumped into anyone with any experience. Ty for the input.
Hopefully it sticks.
The dissenting commissioners, Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson, argued that the FTC was overstepping the boundaries of its power. Holyoak predicted the ban would be challenged in court and eventually struck down.
This might get voted down, but y'all should hear the counterpoint. My friend requires new hires to sign a NC that expires after 2 years. It basically says the employee may not work for another company using the same equipment unless they pay him the $3000 it costs him to get them certified. Before he did that, some employees would jump to a competitor shortly after completing the training. Now he's wondering if he can make the $3000 an employee loan that will be forgiven after 2 years of employment.
And no, he doesn't do the NC if the new employee was already certified. He just wants to protect his investment in their training.
This change in the law will have consequences in businesses where employees require special certifications or training for a high demand specialty. Will an auto repair shop be willing to train an employee to service EVs if they can't guarantee the employee will remain with the shop?
If your friend paid a competitive wage with the other company using the same equipment, while also providing an equal or better working environment, he would be able to retain the employees, and find an equilibrium for those moving to and from his competitor.
The only reason he would need a contractual limitation is if he was offering worse wages or a worse working environment.
Counter point, the other company pays better because they save on training costs.
3000 isn't much when it comes to onboarding costs, so I don't think that's why, but imagine if it cost 10k,20k, etc.
For clarity, I'm very much in favor of this ruling. But I also sympathize with the above reply.
You have options like offering a guaranteed raise or bonus
An employer could offer an immediate $15,000 signing bonus to anyone who already has the certification, effectively outsourcing their training costs while pocketing the extra 5k of the 20k true cost
While I sympathize with the potential to get intentionally ripped off for the training class, there’s got to be a better way. I don’t see how you define it well enough to not open it wide for employer scams. Your friend may be honest but what about the fast food place that mandates $3,000 “training” on flipping a burger? You have someone who can’t afford to pay it off so is trapped, but by training that is either unnecessary or currently “free”.
Given the employer has the power and the financial/legal advantage, you have to give this to the employee
I understand there's a lot of abuse, but for some specialties there just aren't enough trained workers. This change is going to make employers think hard about things like diesel mechanic certifications and IT certifications. And like my friend, they'll turn to making workplace loans for the cost.
In the above example, it seems like it would make sense to handle like a sign on bonus. I don't have a noncompete, but there was like a two timeout that was pro-rated on my sign on bonus. Basically if I jumped ship before the two years was up I would owe something to my previous employer but less the closer I got to the two years. Tuition reimbursement worked in a similar way.
2 years is too long IMHO. 1 year, forgiven in a prorated fashion seems far more palatable.
I work in government and an agreement to work for 2 years after the city pays tuition, license renewals, etc or reimburse the city is pretty standard.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.