comment: >
  
  I had no idea these were or could be imposed on low-wage workers. That's reprehensible.
context: The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday announced settlements with three companies that made workers sign noncompete agreements, in which they promised not to work for competitors for a period of time after leaving their jobs. It is the first time that the FTC has taken legal action on noncompetes — restrictions that have grown increasingly popular with employers in recent years and that tend to lower workers' wages by reducing their options.
  
  
  The FTC on Thursday proposed a wholesale ban on noncompete agreements between businesses and workers. 
  
  
  Michigan-based Prudential Security and Prudential Command allegedly required more than a thousand minimum-wage security guards to sign noncompetes, going so far as to sue former employees who left for better jobs, the FTC said in a complaint. Prudential's agreements threatened workers with a $100,000 penalty if they took jobs with a competitor within a 100-mile radius within two years of leaving, the complaint stated.
  
  
  In 2019, a Michigan court found that the noncompetes were "unreasonable and unenforceable under state law," but the company continued to impose these agreements on their workers, according to the FTC.
  
  
  "These cases highlight how noncompetes can block workers from securing higher wages and prevent businesses from being able to compete," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement. 
  
  
  under the FTC settlement, Prudential and its former owners, Greg Wier and Matthew Keywell, must notify workers that they are no longer bound by noncompetes. They also agree not to use noncompetes in any future businesses. 
  
  
  "Titan ( new owner co) does not and has never imposed noncompete restrictions on its security officers. We applaud the FTC's efforts to halt unlawful noncompete restrictions and to protect workers," the spokesperson said in a statement.
  
  
  Noncompetes have become increasingly common, with one study finding that one-third of businesses require their workers to sign away future economic rights in some way. The Biden administration has made restoring competition a major plank of its economic policy, issuing an executive order in 2021 to limit monopolistic behavior.
  
  
  The FTC estimates that banning noncompetes nationwide would raise workers' wages by $250 to $300 billion a year. >
  
  $300 billion a year that is robbed from employees. Across 164 million employees. That’s $1829 per person, per year. But let’s not forget most of these wages would be paid to people of lower incomes: so for most people the results would be far higher than this. >
  
  That's $304 a month for six months. For one person that is food for half the year. >
  
  Imagine having the grocery bill just covered like that. >
  
  They’re boss sure did. >
  
  I lost a big studio gig because I refused to sign a non compete. Fuck everyone who makes that shit mandatory. >
  
  I’ve known people who’ve been asked to singe no /competes for $30k jobs. It’s insane. >
  
  I signed a NDA and non-compete which said i nor my heirs can work for any other company in the industry, world wide, and for the entire life of both me and my heirs.
  i consulted with a contract lawyer who said it would 100% not hold up and was entirely worthless. I signed it, left 8 years later and started a competing company 30 minutes down the road. They took no action. >
  
  Not merely unenforceable, but hilariously unenforceable! >
  
  It really should be illegal to make people sign contracts like that. It should be considered fraud to have such absurd clauses in a contract because you’re tricking a significant amount of people into entering a contract that cannot be legally enforced.
  This is also why it’s so imperative for an average person to have a basic understanding of how contract law works. >
  
  I Am Not A Lawyer.  I think pushing limits like this is how we end up with the laws we have, good ones and bad ones. >
  
  For security guard positions? Jesus that shitty. Time to mark Prudential off my list. Fuck all of them. >
  
  Per the article... Prudential sold bulk of its business to Titan Security Group, which in turn dropped non-compotes. The FTC had beef that they didn't explicitly inform workforce originally hired by Prudential that they are no longer subject to non-compete. Titan rectified it, and actually supports eliminating non-competes. >
  
  "titan...actually supports eliminating non-competes"
  Which is why they didn't say anything until they were forced to by the FTC. Yep, real good wholesome people at titan for doing what they legally were required to do. 
  If you support something, no one needs to force you to do it. >
  
  I understand your point but large organizations like these are hard to run and things like these can fall through the cracks. The new owners aren’t the bad guys here because 1) they probably don’t support non-competes because they need to hire more and 2) it’s highly probably this simply slipped through the cracks.  
  Sure - place distaste and disgust on the old owners. I do too. However, views like this bypass reality and what happens in the real world. >
  
  They can schedule a Google calendar notification to remind them to simply send an email company wide "oh btw, every single former and current non compete is invalidated by us effective immediately"
  They spent a long time benefitting from the terror employees were under for fear of their livelihood being destroyed. You don't simply "forget" that you have hundreds of employees feeling desperate. 
  They could have done this sooner and were required to by the FTC. This was an enforced action, there is zero evidence to support the idea the company did not like non-compete clauses other than their statements after the FTC forced them to disclose the legal reality of the house of cards. 
  The former CEO deserves plenty of blame, but to pretend you just "forget" that tons of your employees are made desperate by a clause in former contracts is absolutely asinine. >
  
  These are the same companies who are happy to fire an "at-will" employee for any or no reason >
  
  Fun story: Day one at a big company - huge stack of papers to sign.  I intended to read every one of them, so I'm reading, and the HR rep with is me going "standard boilerplate, blah, blah, blah."  Me: "uh-huh,' and I keep reading.  They try to get me to just sign them quickly, and I keep reading.  They get bored of watching me read (I'm in my second hour of reading) and they start doing other work.  When I get to the non-compete, I edit the term from 2 years to 10 days, sign and date the edit, finish reading and signing everything else, hand the stack back, and I'm off to my job.
  Three years later I get a better offer which I accept.  They call me into HR when they learn, pull out the non-compete I signed, and see my edit, apparently for the first time.  "Hey, this edit isn't valid - you'll have to sign another one!"  Ummm, no I don't. >
  
  brilliant! you can say no to the clauses you dont agree with (if you feel its disadvantageous to you) -dated and signed. unless they immediately contest it - its not enforceable (imo)
  edit: typo >
  
  I thought the purpose on a non-compete was for jobs where you are creating proprietary intellectual property, like software, or inventing objects, or things like that? How does a non-compete even make sense for a security guard position? They are relying on the fact that their workers are not knowledgeable about employment laws or too poor to fight them on their bullshit and desparate for a job. >
  
  It doesn't, and wouldn't be enforceable. >
  
  Punishing low-wage workers with large fines would create an environment of distrust and discontentment in the workplace and make it more difficult to retain employees. It could be seen as a way of attempting to limit mobility in the labor market and would likely be counter-productive to the company’s interests. Loyalty is a liability and the best way to climb is to change companies periodically to achieve a reasonable increase in compensation that would not be afforded by staying at the same company. >
  
  My former company tried to get everyone to sign one of these. I looked up our state law and no
  one making under 100K could be required to sign one so I informed them of that. But guess who was on the list for the next round of layoffs? >
  
  Non competes don’t make any sense. If you stole IP you stole IP. Working at a business doesn’t mean they own current or future thoughts. >
  
  Non competes for low level workers is horse shit. That’s reserved for only the highest level employees. >
  
  FWIW. Check your state laws. In some (but not all) states, non-compete agreements are simply non-enforceable if written too broadly, or simply outright null and void. For example in California.
  Non-competes are completely nonsensical for rank and file employees of any company. >
  
  I had a noncompete contract with a large, national professional services firm back in the early 80s. I was pretty much doing all the heavy lifting for the branch, brought in 90 percent of the business, while the other two account reps together brought in the other 10 percent. The only thing corporate did was carry the payroll. After they fucked me over and I left, my first stop was a business lawyer. He looked at the contract; then told me the way it was written, they couldn't touch me until I actually started getting paid.
  So I started my own agency, and by the time my first customer started paying their invoices, the contract had expired. Also, I ended up in an entirely different niche, so they couldn't get me for doing business with my old customers. And every time I ran into them in the field, going for the same customer I was, I worked 16 hour days until the deal was closed. And most of the time, I won. 
  As the 16th century poet George Herbert said, “Living well is the best revenge". I totally agree.
  Edit: added two words. I also want to add, for anyone currently in a noncompete contract: get yourself a good lawyer and pay for a consultation before you make any decisions at all, even before you leave or get terminated or laid off. You may just find that, for all practical purposes, your contract is toilet paper. Courts don't just look at the contract, then at your new gig, then say "Guilty, pay back everything you made, criminal!" They pretty much will not enforce a contract that prevents a person from being able to find employment, regardless of the ex-employer's noncompete. A good business lawyer can look at your noncompete and tell you exactly how much real world risk you have. I'm not so keen on lawyers who specialize in Labor Law, as they tend to have tunnel vision and over-focus on actual labor laws, rather than on what the odds are if you have to end up in court litigating a contract. >
  
  smart move to get an expert's opinion—and beat them at their own game. >
  
  Absolutely. A noncompete isn't some nuclear club an employer can beat up any ex-employees with at will. The employer has to prove that the ex-employee damaged them, tangibly and measurably and financially. And when a massive corporation is suing a regular working stiff, the judge will demand hard evidence. As flawed as our legal system can be, this isn't Victorian England, or the Gilded Age.
  It also hardly cost anything; compared to how much I made over the next 20 years for sure, but also for me as just a regular unemployed guy. >
  
  true, the non-competes are scare tactics used by self-serving employers. my ex-boss is currently slugging it out with our past company over the NC. hoping he wins. >
  
  I remember what my lawyer told me: "Judges are people too, and they aren't going to prevent a person from being able to find work. If you're a CEO and you move to a competitor for millions in gain, sure, the courts will enforce that. For regular working people trying to get a job, they won't find for the ex-employer".
  That kind of makes sense; preventing a person from being able to pay rent and buy food is serious bad shit for that person and their family. Preventing one from making ten million a year and only making 5 million a year is not. >
  
  a good and reasonable judge. well, my ex-boss was 2nd-in-command so likely he’s privy to a lot of stuff. though to be fair, they’ve already retrenched him when he sought employment to one of the previous major client. >
  
  Only reason to sign a non compete is if your parachute is the same length of time. >
  
  Right? I'll sign a non-compete for a year or two if the company is paying for that time. Otherwise, sod off. If it's not your money, you don't get to tell me how I can earn it. >
  
  "Michigan-based Prudential Security and Prudential Command allegedly required more than a thousand minimum-wage security guards to sign noncompetes, going so far as to sue former employees who left for better jobs, the FTC said in a complaint."
  The FTC said later that the settlement agreement required the abusing company to notify employees that the non compete agreements were no longer in effect
  So, no monetary penalties, or repayement of attorney fees? 
  Looks like employees are not much better off than they were. >
  
  Thank you for the link! >
  
  no worries. enjoy the rest of ur day >
  
  Fuck yeah, bitches. Another Biden campaign promise coming to fruition. Fuck non-competes. >
  
  these non-competes are grossly unfair to workers and limits ability to find better livelihood. its not as if workers are giving away trade secrets >
  
  non-competes ought to be patently illegal, worldwide.