Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
What say you?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
Politics belongs on the Chat.Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
Non competes are garbage. I got hired by a place and a week in they tried to get me to sign one. I flat out told them no and never heard a word about it.Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
Go Dawgs.Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
I work in medical and so they are standard. Not only have I never seen one be successfully enforced, I’ve literally never even heard of it. Like not even a rumor.Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
The vote was 3-2 at the FTC. Not everyone agrees with this.I work in medical and so they are standard. Not only have I never seen one be successfully enforced, I’ve literally never even heard of it. Like not even a rumor.
They are an intimidation tactic.
My current employer uses them the same way, threaten to sue, make $20/ hour employees scared to death so that they don’t leave. It artificially holds their wages down and this will go 9-0 at SCOTUS.
Like one of the only things all sides agree on.
if the agreement is between the two companies it is still enforceable...... the ruling from the FTC is based on non compete between a company and an individual.This one is particularly relevant to me, specifically my wife. She works for a company based in Jacksonville called Hueman, who is a recruiting services contractor. Her team specifically is in the medical recruiting field. She was just reassigned from a hospital in Utah on a team that she loved, to a more strict and "work is king" team that works with Baptist Health in Jax. The internal people with the hospital in Utah (Intermountain) want her as an internal, but there is some sort of a non-compete deal in place where she can't be hired as an internal there as long as Hueman has a relationship with them (they have one remaining employee with Intermountain) and then for one year after. She wants to work directly with Intermountain, they want her, but there's that red tape. So am I correct in surmising from this thread that she should just go for it, and it likely won't be enforced? Or because she is relatively low-level, neither her nor Intermountain would probably have the means or want to spend the time/effort on fighting it?
We've tried to get someone from the Intermountain side to send her a copy of the contract, but have been unsuccessful thus far. She is hesitant to ask for a copy of it from the Hueman side, because she doesn't want to get canned. Can't really afford to take that risk. What say y'all? This may need to be a separate thread.
if the agreement is between the two companies it is still enforceable...... the ruling from the FTC is based on non compete between a company and an individual.
I believe if the agreement is between two companies then it is a contractual agreement that will be difficult to circumvent.
Unless they pay you for them. E.g.: sign this non compete and it comes with options to buy equity at a pre-set price. Options are in the money, you execute or sell the options. OR…they pay you during the term of the non compete. Break the non compete-they stop paying. Non competes are virtually worthless…unless they give you something for them.non-competes are anti-freedom
When did law discussions become political ? GeeshPolitics belongs on the Chat.
Hope this doesn't get overturned. Total intimidation tactic by companies. Jimmy John's was making sandwich makers sign them.....just a way for them to try to keep wages down.
Exactly. I was asked to sign one at a previous employer. Everytime they left it on my desk (I'm old), I threw it in the trash. When HR brought it to me to sign, I asked them to amend to include that as long it was in force, they would pay me monthly based on my previous two years W-2 income. They looked shocked. I told them this job is how i feed my family and I couldn't afford to not work for two years. Never had to sign it.They’re disfavored by law anyway and almost no one gets compensated for them appropriately. This is the correct decision
This is how you handle it. Great jobExactly. I was asked to sign one at a previous employer. Everytime they left it on my desk (I'm old), I threw it in the trash. When HR brought it to me to sign, I asked them to amend to include that as long it was in force, they would pay me monthly based on my previous two years W-2 income. They looked shocked. I told them this job is how i feed my family and I couldn't afford to not work for two years. Never had to sign it.
Mine from my previous employer covered any market they had a television station…which is 115 markets throughout the country. My attorney told me to go get a job wherever I wanted and dare them to try to enforce it. He was more than willing to fight that battle for me…he knew that one was way too overreaching even in an industry where non competes were the norm. Of course my former employer agreed to let me out of it so it never came to that. The other side of it though, is that most companies in my industry are reluctant to interview a candidate who has a non-compete so they are often enforced that way.I work in medical and so they are standard. Not only have I never seen one be successfully enforced, I’ve literally never even heard of it. Like not even a rumor.
They are an intimidation tactic.
My current employer uses them the same way, threaten to sue, make $20/ hour employees scared to death so that they don’t leave. It artificially holds their wages down and this will go 9-0 at SCOTUS.
Like one of the only things all sides agree on.
Exactly. I was asked to sign one at a previous employer. Everytime they left it on my desk (I'm old), I threw it in the trash. When HR brought it to me to sign, I asked them to amend to include that as long it was in force, they would pay me monthly based on my previous two years W-2 income. They looked shocked. I told them this job is how i feed my family and I couldn't afford to not work for two years. Never had to sign it.
This is what really matters....it might be unenforceable, but the other company doesn't want to take on the risk of onboarding someone just to have them leave in 30-60 days.The other side of it though, is that most companies in my industry are reluctant to interview a candidate who has a non-compete so they are often enforced that way.
This is how you handle it. Great job
That is non-solicitation.Had to pay $8M to old firm for clients and people we took. They are enforceable. Went up against the best attorneys in NYC through mediation and we got it down from the $10M we actually owed under the agreement. This is not something to celebrate as it will now go through years of trial and end up at the SCOTUS.
Not within their purview.Of course, there will be legal challenges to this decision.
What say you?
I raise you "Weapon of Choice" (dancing!)
I am in medical and I have seen them enforced against physicians. Several good friends went to court to try to get out of them and the non compete was upheld even when the employer terminated the physician employee. I always refused any position requiring a non compete. And I have seen medical assistants making less than $20/hr threatened over them but never taken to court.I work in medical and so they are standard. Not only have I never seen one be successfully enforced, I’ve literally never even heard of it. Like not even a rumor.
They are an intimidation tactic.
My current employer uses them the same way, threaten to sue, make $20/ hour employees scared to death so that they don’t leave. It artificially holds their wages down and this will go 9-0 at SCOTUS.
Like one of the only things all sides agree on.