The Federal Trade Commission narrowly voted Tuesday to ban nearly all noncompetes, employment agreements that typically prevent workers from joining competing businesses or launching ones of their own.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    I remember my last job had a Non compete. I was a handy man. Non competes for NBA players and wealthy CEOs, fine. But non compete for just regular people doing regular jobs is crazy. Once I leave my current job, my ex employer should have no say in where I work afterwards.

    • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s just so they can treat you like crap and under pay you, so that you can’t just go be a handy many somewhere else. If you lived in California it would have already been unenforceable anyway though.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why is good for athletes and ceos? And is that the specific line that you would draw? NC seems like it benefits corporations and organizations but almost never individuals. Seems better to eliminate all together to me.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s fine for them because they’re being paid tens and hundreds of millions. And they can easily reject the contract and not sign. Don’t act like a cleaning lady and an NBA player are in the same boat

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          “It’s fine for them” isn’t a reason to keep something in place. That will just allow it to creep closer and closer to the cleaning lady (I don’t think many cleaning ladies are signing non competes though - this is not a representative example). Non competes are typically for higher level talent, the line between it specialist, physicians, minor league athletes and ceos and NBA players starts to blur. There is no good argument to keep these.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Executives make some sense because they made deciding the direction of companies, and can take “unfair advantage”.

      Athletes, no. They bring mostly their own talent and effort, and that’s also what they bring to a new team. They are only employable by doing the same thing for someone else, and likely in the same league: literally competing . Non-competes don’t make any more sense for athletes than they do for baristas

    • girlfreddy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Canadian here. I had one for working in a call centre ffs. And afaik we don’t have laws against it. :(

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Non competes for NBA players

      This sounds so stupid. Big sport is dead. Go play chess.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Huh? What are you even getting offended at? Are you just seeking out things to be mad at?

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Offended? Why? I’m just saying that if this is true, then “big sport” is more broken than I imagined. And that chess is good sport that does not have such bullshit.