FTC proposes ban on non-compete clauses

[bradman]

I can’t imagine a non compete on an hourly sandwich maker would be legal and enforceable in court. That’s my point. JJ would have to prove damages against an hourly sandwich maker. I doubt they can do that without getting laughed out of court.

As far as salaried workers, that also depends on a number of factors. I have seen some non competes that were strong agreements and enforceable and I have seen others that were not. It all depends on the position as well as how the agreement is written and whether the terms are reasonable.

Bottomline, I would agree with a previous poster that you can’t outlaw all such agreements. Businesses do have a right to take reasonable steps to protect their intellectual property and trade secrets.

As usual it's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. As other poster's have noted, It seems more a case by case basis and the examples are many.

I've worked through a few sell off's in the construction biz. They always had non compete clauses. Sell your company and you had to agree not to use your contacts to restart another company for x amount of time.

One of the companies i worked for was family run and a bit old school. It was an honor system that trickled down to hourly wager's and even poaching. It was about the time they hired one of the favorite supervisors kids to work in the office. It was basically a favor as the kid barely passed a few votec classes for engineering and was kinda a numb nut. 2 yrs. he worked helping bid projects. Even though he was still a numb nut after 2 years, he did pick up one thing. He knew the companies formulas for bidding. Intellectual property. Anyway, he started thinking he was all that and wanted more when he could barely do what he was doing. When they wouldn't give it to him he huffed off with that property in tow. Man did he use it. He hired on to a rather snakey company which just happened to be a contractor that bid basically the same kind of jobs we went after. It showed the next year. Some of the jobs that should have been gimmy's for us instead ended up to be lost to them.... sometimes by only a few thousand dollars. It took a couple years before we started winning them back. Needless to say, our engineering department had to sign non compete agreements after that.

[gounion]

As usual it's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. As other poster's have noted, It seems more a case by case basis and the examples are many.

I've worked through a few sell off's in the construction biz. They always had non compete clauses. Sell your company and you had to agree not to use your contacts to restart another company for x amount of time.

One of the companies i worked for was family run and a bit old school. It was an honor system that trickled down to hourly wager's and even poaching. It was about the time they hired one of the favorite supervisors kids to work in the office. It was basically a favor as the kid barely passed a few votec classes for engineering and was kinda a numb nut. 2 yrs. he worked helping bid projects. Even though he was still a numb nut after 2 years, he did pick up one thing. He knew the companies formulas for bidding. Intellectual property. Anyway, he started thinking he was all that and wanted more when he could barely do what he was doing. When they wouldn't give it to him he huffed off with that property in tow. Man did he use it. He hired on to a rather snakey company which just happened to be a contractor that bid basically the same kind of jobs we went after. It showed the next year. Some of the jobs that should have been gimmy's for us instead ended up to be lost to them.... sometimes by only a few thousand dollars. It took a couple years before we started winning them back. Needless to say, our engineering department had to sign non compete agreements after that.

The lesson to be learned is don’t hire numb nuts.

[JoeMemphis]

Yep, they did get sued - by several states. And they didn't get laughed out of court. They didn't do anything unusual. Companies across the nation have such agreements that you're forced to sign.

And it's a great threat to a low-wage worker. You scare them with a letter from a lawyer, saying you'll have to pay for their costs for suing you. It's how big corporations lean on workers without the resources to fight back. But then, you guys love that, don't you?

And it was certainly unreasonable:



And while they may not have actually sued an employee in court, they likely DID threaten many workers. They were also sued by franchisees over a "no-poaching" of employees that franchise owners were forced to sign.

And this from a legal site makes some good points:



In my brief google research, I found that several states, all northern states, had sued Jimmy Johns. I'm not surprised. I guess that's why southern states brag about being "business friendly". Is that because the "business friendly" states will just ignore businesses using such agreements to threaten their workers? THAT'S why there needs to be a nationwide ban.

Do you have a single case where JJ sued an hourly worker and prevailed. An actual case where the non compete was upheld in JJ’s favor against an hourly sandwich maker. I’m betting not.

I never said or claimed that your example of JJ was a legal enforceable non compete agreement. I would think just about any court would throw out a JJ lawsuit against an employee as unlawful. For one thing JJ would have to show damages.

But an abusive practice by one employer is not grounds to deny other businesses the right to protect their intellectual property or their trade secrets. You don’t outlaw contracts because someone somewhere drafted an illegal and unenforceable contract. You don’t punish everyone for the bad behavior of another. Illegal/unenforceable contracts get sorted out by the courts. That’s what the civil court system is designed to do.

[gounion]

Do you have a single case where JJ sued an hourly worker and prevailed. An actual case where the non compete was upheld in JJ’s favor against an hourly sandwich maker. I’m betting not.

I never said or claimed that your example of JJ was a legal enforceable non compete agreement. I would think just about any court would throw out a JJ lawsuit against an employee as unlawful. For one thing JJ would have to show damages.

But an abusive practice by one employer is not grounds to deny other businesses the right to protect their intellectual property or their trade secrets. You don’t outlaw contracts because someone somewhere drafted an illegal and unenforceable contract. You don’t punish everyone for the bad behavior of another. Illegal/unenforceable contracts get sorted out by the courts. That’s what the civil court system is designed to do.

Oh, there are MANY cases of companies using non-competes in ways unfair to workers. They have often been abused, that's why that they are being banned. But hey, you don't give a shit for workers rights, never have.

Joe, if these contracts are so damned important, and business can't function without them, why is it such contracts have never been legal in the State of California, and the state has for decades been the primary engine of innovation in the United States of America? Silicon Valley has done fine without them, so why must we have them elsewhere?

[JoeMemphis]

Oh, there are MANY cases of companies using non-competes in ways unfair to workers. They have often been abused, that's why that they are being banned. But hey, you don't give a shit for workers rights, never have.

Joe, if these contracts are so damned important, and business can't function without them, why is it such contracts have never been legal in the State of California, and the state has for decades been the primary engine of innovation in the United States of America? Silicon Valley has done fine without them, so why must we have them elsewhere?

But you can’t produce a single case where JJ successfully sued and prevailed against an hourly sandwich maker. It’s your example. I’m just asking for one case.

As far as California is concerned, maybe that’s why CA is shrinking in population. Maybe it’s because it’s the primary engine of innovation and people just can’t take so much innovation. Maybe they can innovate away all the people living on the streets and shitting on the sidewalk.

If CA is so great one wonders why you moved to backward TN. Is it because you can’t take all that progressivism and innovation in the “freedom state”?

[gounion]

But you can’t produce a single case where JJ successfully sued and prevailed against an hourly sandwich maker. It’s your example. I’m just asking for one case.

As far as California is concerned, maybe that’s why CA is shrinking in population. Maybe it’s because it’s the primary engine of innovation and people just can’t take so much innovation. Maybe they can innovate away all the people living on the streets and shitting on the sidewalk.

If CA is so great one wonders why you moved to backward TN. Is it because you can’t take all that progressivism and innovation in the “freedom state”?

California gave us the silicon chip and computers. It’s still the center of innovation. It’s still the leader of the world in innovation and commerce.

And you can’t explain how they did that without non-compete contracts.

Go ahead. Explain.

You can’t.

[JoeMemphis]

California gave us the silicon chip and computers. It’s still the center of innovation. It’s still the leader of the world in innovation and commerce.

And you can’t explain how they did that without non-compete contracts.

Go ahead. Explain.

You can’t.

You can’t explain why all the other states have survived quite well with these contracts you want outlawed. You can’t show a single court case to support the example you gave as abusive.

I’m not advocating abusive contracts. I am also not advocating a regulatory agency outlawing a whole class of contract law. All kinds of contracts fail in court but we aren’t and don’t outlaw contracts. No we take them to court and let the system sort it out just the way it worked in the JJ case. And the system as it exists today must have worked well because you can’t show a single case where a sandwich guy was successfully sued by JJ. I only asked you for one. But instead of providing a case, you again change the subject and run away again as is your habit.

[gounion]

You can’t explain why all the other states have survived quite well with these contracts you want outlawed. You can’t show a single court case to support the example you gave as abusive.

I’m not advocating abusive contracts. I am also not advocating a regulatory agency outlawing a whole class of contract law. All kinds of contracts fail in court but we aren’t and don’t outlaw contracts. No we take them to court and let the system sort it out just the way it worked in the JJ case. And the system as it exists today must have worked well because you can’t show a single case where a sandwich guy was successfully sued by JJ. I only asked you for one. But instead of providing a case, you again change the subject and run away again as is your habit.

Yeah, I didn’t think you had anything.

These contracts impede the freedom of workers to quit and take jobs to their benefit. But you never gave a fuck for workers rights, just for corporations rights to control people. I guess that’s why you guys like shutting down American factories to move them to countries where they can use slave labor.

Again, if California can be very successful at innovation without such contracts, why are they needed elsewhere?

A question you cannot answer.

[JoeMemphis]

Yeah, I didn’t think you had anything.

These contracts impede the freedom of workers to quit and take jobs to their benefit. But you never gave a fuck for workers rights, just for corporations rights to control people. I guess that’s why you guys like shutting down American factories to move them to countries where they can use slave labor.

Again, if California can be very successful at innovation without such contracts, why are they needed elsewhere?

A question you cannot answer.

I asked you for a single case to support the example of abuse you cited. Obviously you can’t find one. You give examples you can’t support.

I’m not an expert of CA. Don’t want to be an expert on that shithole. But I’m not advocating that CA do anything differently. You however, want to change the rules for other states but can’t show a single court case to support your example. Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is if outlawing these contracts is so essential to innovation, why aren’t all the other blue states banning these contracts? Nothing prevents them from passing such laws. Why aren’t they? The other question you don’t or won’t or can’t answer is how a regulatory agency can outlaw a legal contract without changing the law? Shouldn’t that go thru the legislative process?

[gounion]

I asked you for a single case to support the example of abuse you cited. Obviously you can’t find one. You give examples you can’t support.

I dunno. Several states, including Illinois, Michigan and New York sued Jimmy Johns over their actions, and won.

That says it all.

I’m not an expert of CA. Don’t want to be an expert on that shithole. But I’m not advocating that CA do anything differently. You however, want to change the rules for other states but can’t show a single court case to support your example. Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is if outlawing these contracts is so essential to innovation, why aren’t all the other blue states banning these contracts? Nothing prevents them from passing such laws. Why aren’t they? The other question you don’t or won’t or can’t answer is how a regulatory agency can outlaw a legal contract without changing the law? Shouldn’t that go thru the legislative process?

Oh, are you serious? You mean states like these?

Noncompete agreements are becoming less common throughout the country, partly due to state legislative and court action. Most recently, Colorado has taken steps to significantly limit the use of noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements, which are contracts that stop employees from competing with the company or soliciting a company's customers for a certain period of time after they leave the company.

California; North Dakota; Oklahoma; and Washington, D.C., ban noncompete agreements with a few narrow exceptions. Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington state prohibit noncompete agreements unless the worker earns above a certain threshold. Multistate employers need to be aware of the changing legal obligations. "Whereas many state legislatures do not want to go so far as to outright ban all restrictive covenants, many also want to protect lower-income employees from being hamstrung by noncompetes and nonsolicits," said Eric Barton, an attorney with Seyfarth in Atlanta. "By enacting salary thresholds, legislatures are attempting to balance employers' wishes with the mobility of lower-income workers."

Beyond the state legislatures, court cases are setting legal precedent, as well. In February, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a real estate brokerage could not enforce a noncompete agreement that prohibited a real estate broker from establishing her own company in Hawaii for one year after leaving the employer. The court concluded that employers in Hawaii can't enforce noncompete agreements unless there's a legitimate business purpose for doing so, such as protecting trade secrets, confidential information or special customer relationships.

Wipe that egg off your face and just admit you're not ready for the grown-ups table.

[gounion]

BTW, dumbass, since you brought it up about where I moved:

Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Tennessee?

It depends. Generally speaking, non-compete agreements, also called ‘covenants not to compete’, are disfavored in Tennessee. See Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984). Courts interpret these agreements strictly in favor of the employee, in part because the agreement is a restraint on trade. Having said that, courts will uphold non-compete agreements if there is a legitimate business interest to be protected and the agreement sets reasonable time and territorial limitations. Id.

[JoeMemphis]

I dunno. Several states, including Illinois, Michigan and New York sued Jimmy Johns over their actions, and won.

That says it all.

Oh, are you serious? You mean states like these?



Wipe that egg off your face and just admit you're not ready for the grown-ups table.

So basically no state according to your post “bans” them. They restrict them. They pass laws. Nothing wrong with a state passing law. That’s democracy. States can decide legislatively how much they choose to regulate business. What they can’t do is decide for other states. What they can’t do is decide by executive decree what is or is not legal. That’s also democracy.

All you have demonstrated is that companies that over reach get reported and are sued for doing so. You have yet to show a single case where the sandwich guy was hauled into court. Not in a blue state or a red state.

Which brings me to another question that you have historically run away from. CA the freedom state. CA the shinning example of innovation according to you. Why don’t they have M4A? You have CONSISTENTLY run away from that question. If M4A is as great an innovation as you claim, why hasn’t the pinnacle of innovation according to you implemented it on a state level? I will watch and wait while you run away.

[JoeMemphis]

BTW, dumbass, since you brought it up about where I moved:

Well dumbass, I stated over and over that not all non competes are the same. You are the dumbass calling for a complete ban. The exception noted in your post goes to reasonable limitation which I mentioned previously.

[gounion]

So basically no state according to your post “bans” them. They restrict them. They pass laws. Nothing wrong with a state passing law. That’s democracy. States can decide legislatively how much they choose to regulate business. What they can’t do is decide for other states. What they can’t do is decide by executive decree what is or is not legal. That’s also democracy.

All you have demonstrated is that companies that over reach get reported and are sued for doing so. You have yet to show a single case where the sandwich guy was hauled into court. Not in a blue state or a red state.

Which brings me to another question that you have historically run away from. CA the freedom state. CA the shinning example of innovation according to you. Why don’t they have M4A? You have CONSISTENTLY run away from that question. If M4A is as great an innovation as you claim, why hasn’t the pinnacle of innovation according to you implemented it on a state level? I will watch and wait while you run away.

Wow, you REALLY got nothing. You don’t have the integrity to admit you were wrong. I’m not surprised, you’re like damned near every other conservative - you’re a lying sack of shit.

[JoeMemphis]

Wow, you REALLY got nothing. You don’t have the integrity to admit you were wrong. I’m not surprised, you’re like damned near every other conservative - you’re a lying sack of shit.

Run away. Again.

[gounion]

Run away. Again.

No, you wanted to know why no other state did anything, and I showed you. And you don’t have the ethics to admit you didn’t know what you were talking about.

So now you want to deflect. You gutless worm.

[JoeMemphis]

No, you wanted to know why no other state did anything, and I showed you. And you don’t have the ethics to admit you didn’t know what you were talking about.

So now you want to deflect. You gutless worm.

You showed me that most states have laws similar to TN where a JJ case against sandwich guy would get summarily dismissed. Laughed out of court. What you showed me was that where there are legitimate business interests and the contract restrictions are reasonable, non competes are legal. Just like I said. You say a complete ban is necessary and yet what you post demonstrates that most states have restrictions against abusive behavior and that a complete ban isn’t necessary. Finally, you have yet to demonstrate that the FTC has the statutory authority to outlaw all such contracts without legislative approval.

And you still run away from the question I asked you weeks and weeks ago. Why hasn’t the innovation / freedom state you adore as the progressive utopia implemented your innovative and ultimate solution to health care? Why?

So I will watch again as you duck this question again while claiming there isn’t a question you won’t answer.

[gounion]

You showed me that most states have laws similar to TN where a JJ case against sandwich guy would get summarily dismissed. Laughed out of court. What you showed me was that where there are legitimate business interests and the contract restrictions are reasonable, non competes are legal. Just like I said. You say a complete ban is necessary and yet what you post demonstrates that most states have restrictions against abusive behavior and that a complete ban isn’t necessary. Finally, you have yet to demonstrate that the FTC has the statutory authority to outlaw all such contracts without legislative approval.

And you still run away from the question I asked you weeks and weeks ago. Why hasn’t the innovation / freedom state you adore as the progressive utopia implemented your innovative and ultimate solution to health care? Why?

So I will watch again as you duck this question again while claiming there isn’t a question you won’t answer.

Again, you wanted to know why other states hadn’t done like California. Well, they have. Including Oklahoma!

And you don’t have the ethics to admit you were full of shit, so you try to deflect, like the gutless worm you are.

[JoeMemphis]

Again, you wanted to know why other states hadn’t done like California. Well, they have. Including Oklahoma!

And you don’t have the ethics to admit you were full of shit, so you try to deflect, like the gutless worm you are.

With a few narrow exceptions. Not a complete ban. That is what you are calling for is it not?

Most states including Tennessee restrict the use of non compete agreements and limit them to reasonably protect intellectual property and trade secrets. They don’t use them to sue the sandwich maker as you allege. The example you cited was clearly illegal in scope as I indicated and lost in court when challenged. So all you have proved is that a single total ban on non competes is not warranted as the current set of restrictions suffice to prevent the abuse you have noted. Tennessee law follows what I told you originally so you argue against yourself.

You failed to address the issue of whether the FTC has the statutory authority to ban such contracts without legislation.

You also failed to address the question of why the state you claim is so innovative can’t or won’t pass your innovative solution to healthcare. M4A. You run away again and again and again like the coward you are. Perhaps it is your claim that M4A pays for itself that is full of shit. Or maybe you are just too gutless to admit the numbers don’t work. At any rate, gutless you are and have always been. That will never change. You are the epitome of the running man when it come to answering tough questions. All we see is your fat ass running away.

So do it once more. As always.

[gounion]

With a few narrow exceptions. Not a complete ban. That is what you are calling for is it not?

Most states including Tennessee restrict the use of non compete agreements and limit them to reasonably protect intellectual property and trade secrets. They don’t use them to sue the sandwich maker as you allege. The example you cited was clearly illegal in scope as I indicated and lost in court when challenged. So all you have proved is that a single total ban on non competes is not warranted as the current set of restrictions suffice to prevent the abuse you have noted. Tennessee law follows what I told you originally so you argue against yourself.

You failed to address the issue of whether the FTC has the statutory authority to ban such contracts without legislation.

You also failed to address the question of why the state you claim is so innovative can’t or won’t pass your innovative solution to healthcare. M4A. You run away again and again and again like the coward you are. Perhaps it is your claim that M4A pays for itself that is full of shit. Or maybe you are just too gutless to admit the numbers don’t work. At any rate, gutless you are and have always been. That will never change. You are the epitome of the running man when it come to answering tough questions. All we see is your fat ass running away.

So do it once more. As always.

Is this thread about M4A? You're the one deflecting, like the gutless worm you are. It shows you've lost the argument, got it shoved down your throat and made to look like the fool you are, but you don't have the stones or the ethics to admit it. You said why hadn't other states did it, and then got egg all over your face when I showed that other states DID do it.

And we also see that it doesn't matter if it's smart business or even legal, but corporations WILL demand people sign such agreements, even if they are janitors. Why is that?

Better ways to protect intellectual property and trade secrets than non compete agreements.

If you have to have non competes to protect these secrets, why do these states basically ban them? Answer: Because there's other, better ways.

All you guys want to do is to keep workers from having freedom to take another job.

[JoeMemphis]

Is this thread about M4A? You're the one deflecting, like the gutless worm you are. It shows you've lost the argument, got it shoved down your throat and made to look like the fool you are, but you don't have the stones or the ethics to admit it. You said why hadn't other states did it, and then got egg all over your face when I showed that other states DID do it.

And we also see that it doesn't matter if it's smart business or even legal, but corporations WILL demand people sign such agreements, even if they are janitors. Why is that?

Better ways to protect intellectual property and trade secrets than non compete agreements.

If you have to have non competes to protect these secrets, why do these states basically ban them? Answer: Because there's other, better ways.

All you guys want to do is to keep workers from having freedom to take another job.

Most other states do not completely ban them. The article you post say as much. Most states restrict them which is consistent with what I originally posted.

Bottomline - It’s up to the states to pass legislation if they so choose. Bottomline none have as yet gone as far as CA with complete bans. I doubt the Federal Government can ban them as you advocate without passing legislation.

As far as innovation and CA, you brought that into the discussion. Not me. I’m just pointing out that they aren’t as innovative as you claim and you run away from answering difficult questions all the time. So until you start answering and addressing tough questions, you are in no position to demand that from others.

[Bludogdem]

BUT they most likely sent threatening letters, which would scare low-wage workers.

But you never gave a shit for workers, did you?

“The attorney general had no evidence that Jimmy John’s ever enforced a non-compete agreement against an hourly worker, the company said.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimm ... SKBN13W2JA

[JoeMemphis]

“The attorney general had no evidence that Jimmy John’s ever enforced a non-compete agreement against an hourly worker, the company said.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimm ... SKBN13W2JA

As I thought. It would be a ridiculous case to take to court. JJ would be hard pressed to show actual damages.

[bradman]

“The attorney general had no evidence that Jimmy John’s ever enforced a non-compete agreement against an hourly worker, the company said.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimm ... SKBN13W2JA

It's the same link i gave a page back only mine works..

viewtopic.php?p=48614#p48614

[gounion]

As I thought. It would be a ridiculous case to take to court. JJ would be hard pressed to show actual damages.

But, like so many other corporations, they still forced employees to sign it. And low-wage workers HAVE been sued. This company sued a janitor for taking another job.

Now, wouldn't this be chilling to the janitor, who obviously wouldn't have the financial wherewithal to pay for legal counsel? Yes or no, Joe?