The FTC’s three Democratic members were in favor of adopting the regulation, while its two Republican members were against it.

“The FTC estimated that the ban would boost wages by between $400 billion and $488 billion over 10 years.”

Employers are required to tell people that existing noncompetes are void:

The new rule makes it illegal for employers to include the agreements in employment contracts and requires companies with active noncompete agreements to inform workers that they are void. The agency received more than 26,000 comments about the rule after it was proposed some 16 months ago. The rule will take effect after 120 days, although business groups have promised to challenge it in court, which could delay implementation.

New York Times coverage for comparison

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    From the article…

    The FTC’s three Democratic members were in favor of adopting the regulation, while its two Republican members were against it.

    … and …

    The FTC’s rule does not include a salary threshold, but it has an exception for noncompetes when a business is sold.

    The final rule also allows existing non-competes to be enforced for senior executives. But all other such contracts would be rendered unenforceable when the rule is implemented

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The FTC’s three Democratic members were in favor of adopting the regulation, while its two Republican members were against it.

      Not surprising in the least. Of all the Republican hypocrisy their attitude towards workers using their value to increase their earnings is one of the worst. They claim that they support self reliance and building yourself up, but stuff like this shows that it’s clearly a lie. They support businesses maximizing their earnings by charging what the market will bear, but as soon as a worker tries to do the exact same thing they lose their God damn minds.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The Republicans would reinstate child labor and child marriage in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. In fact, they do get away with it in some of their states.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Now do arbitration agreements in employment contracts. Good luck arguing that the employer is still enforcing non-competes, when you have to do it in confidentiality through an arbitration provider your employer has already pre-selected.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Arbitrators can’t issue injunctions (ie they can’t order you not to work somewhere), so they don’t really have any way to enforce a non-compete.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re missing the point. Getting a court to review an arbitrator’s decisions can be extremely challenging. And actually arbitrators can issue injunctions in many cases. What your’e thinking of is likely if they can compel arbitration themselves on an injunction you file in court.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Do NDAs used to cover up illegal shit, too. Settlements shouldn’t be able to include anything to make the settlement or circumstances around it secret. It just enables them to continue doing what they were doing to others.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        An NDA cannot be used to stop you from reporting a crime to the police or filing a lawsuit.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, but it can be used to prevent you from informing other people being exploited by the other party about how you fought them and how it worked out for you. In theory anyways, I’m not aware of any cases where such an NDA was breached and a lawsuit resulted. The Streisand effect might actually prevent some companies from following through and they hope the presence of the NDA is enough of a deterrent. Or maybe the courts are liberal with gag orders about such cases.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            If other people are being exploited, they need a lawyer. A lawyer will have much better advice than you on how to fight back.

            If you know other people are being exploited, nothing stops you from suggesting they get a lawyer. And if you have relevant evidence, a lawyer can subpoena it even if it’s under NDA.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              LOL. “Excuse me sir. It looks like you’re about to be homeless. You could really use a lawyer right now. Why don’t you come up with 20k for a retainer instead?”

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Actually, in many cases courts have permitted employers to compel arbitration even against civil RICO claims.