11 ms·

If I have an existing non compete — what does this mean for me ? Is it invalid?

by pylua 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bullfightonmars 2y ago
> Instead, under the final rule, employers will simply have to provide notice to workers bound to an existing noncompete that the noncompete agreement will not be enforced against them in the future. To aid employers’ compliance with this requirement, the Commission has included model language in the final rule that employers can use to communicate to workers. > Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. > The final rule will become effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.
MattSteelblade 2y ago
Going off of the press release, it doesn't go into effect until 120 days after publication and doesn't apply to current senior executives which are defined as "workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions." I would also imagine that it will immediately be challenged in court.
- lokar 2y ago
  Sr execs can’t start new noncompetes
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  How does a challenge work? Is the law valid until a ruling decides or is it put on pause?
  - ixwt 2y ago
    A stay on the ruling could happen, but that would be up to the courts. Not a lawyer, but considering that there could be damages from the removal of non competes and someone leaving to get another job, there could be a stay on the order rather than letting it go into effect. While it works its way up the court system.
- j-cheong 2y ago
  I was under the impression that workers earning less than $151,164 annually usually don't have noncompetes anyway? Sounds like a lot of people will get bucketed into "senior executives" group. At least new noncompetes can't be created.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    I've know places that pay 1/3 of that and have noncompetes. Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      >Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit. Simply put though, they shouldn't have to.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        I absolutely agree, but I make it a point to mention their limits of enforceability whenever I can because it is information worth spreading for those worried about one.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    Non competes are everywhere. Famous case with Prudential Security[0] where they had everyone sign non competes, that includes minimum wage workers, and they enforced them, which put an outsized strain on the minimum wage workers in particular. Its a harmful practice across the board. [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3-companies-that-prevented-employees-from-leaving-for-competitors/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...
    - Animats 2y ago
      That's the motivation behind this rule. About one in six food outlets were demanding non-compete terms in employment, to prevent their employees from quitting to work for higher-paying outlets.[1] (Not McD and Burger King; mostly the smaller ones.) [1] https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreements-executive-order-push-workers/ https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreement...

If I have an existing non compete — what does this mean for me ? Is it invalid?

by pylua 2y ago

If I have an existing non compete — what does this mean for me ? Is it invalid?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bullfightonmars 2y ago

> Instead, under the final rule, employers will simply have to provide notice to workers bound to an existing noncompete that the noncompete agreement will not be enforced against them in the future. To aid employers’ compliance with this requirement, the Commission has included model language in the final rule that employers can use to communicate to workers. > Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. > The final rule will become effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

MattSteelblade 2y ago

Going off of the press release, it doesn't go into effect until 120 days after publication and doesn't apply to current senior executives which are defined as "workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions." I would also imagine that it will immediately be challenged in court.

lokar 2y ago
Sr execs can’t start new noncompetes
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
How does a challenge work? Is the law valid until a ruling decides or is it put on pause?
- ixwt 2y ago
  A stay on the ruling could happen, but that would be up to the courts. Not a lawyer, but considering that there could be damages from the removal of non competes and someone leaving to get another job, there could be a stay on the order rather than letting it go into effect. While it works its way up the court system.
j-cheong 2y ago
I was under the impression that workers earning less than $151,164 annually usually don't have noncompetes anyway? Sounds like a lot of people will get bucketed into "senior executives" group. At least new noncompetes can't be created.
- kube-system 2y ago
  I've know places that pay 1/3 of that and have noncompetes. Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    >Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit. Simply put though, they shouldn't have to.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      I absolutely agree, but I make it a point to mention their limits of enforceability whenever I can because it is information worth spreading for those worried about one.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Non competes are everywhere. Famous case with Prudential Security[0] where they had everyone sign non competes, that includes minimum wage workers, and they enforced them, which put an outsized strain on the minimum wage workers in particular. Its a harmful practice across the board. [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3-companies-that-prevented-employees-from-leaving-for-competitors/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...
  - Animats 2y ago
    That's the motivation behind this rule. About one in six food outlets were demanding non-compete terms in employment, to prevent their employees from quitting to work for higher-paying outlets.[1] (Not McD and Burger King; mostly the smaller ones.) [1] https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreements-executive-order-push-workers/ https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreement...