comment: >
  
  Nice! Thanks for that!
context: Omg, please let this happen.  Most contract dentists sign has 5-10 mi noncompete clause.  The companies don't really enforce it cuz they don't know where my next job is, but if they did, I would not be able to work in my city and have to move. >
  
  My gf worked in a ltc rehab center and their non compete was 100 miles.  She'd basically have to leave the state in order to switch to a different company in a similar setting.  It's ludicrous >
  
  Ok, that's just fucking spiteful. >
  
  Noncompete clauses reached peak overreach and stupidity when Jimmy John's started having its sandwich makers sign them. >
  
  How many miles from the store location are you prohibited from making a sandwich? There's a lot of trade secrets involved in sandwich making so I can see why they use non competes >
  
  Really? The low level sandwich maker has trade secrets at minimum wage?!
  Unless you being sarcastic then I apologize >
  
  You've clearly never made a sandwich. It's one of the most closely guarded industries there is. The secrets of sandwich making have been kept for centuries >
  
  I used to work at Subway back in the 90s. Still can’t work for any other sandwich shop until at least 2045. >
  
  Ever considered selling those trade secrets to Iran? >
  
  I can already see the headlines about selling secrets of U.S. subs to Iranian military >
  
  My wife just left her job to become a co-owner in a business that is in a similar industry. Not exactly the same, but there is overlap. She is very professional and has a good relationship with everyone in her previous company. She was on the management team and was friends with the owner.
  She left thought she knew what all the non-compete she signed meant and was respecting that to the best of her abilities. She was not talking to any of her old clients and she wasn't reaching out to anyone that she had ever worked with or even worked with that company in her previous decade+ of working there.
  About a week after quitting, someone from the company contacted her so they could have lunch to chat and catch up. She accepted since they were in good terms. Turns out this chat was to explain the specifics of the updated non-compete clause.
  As it is written, she can't do anything that relates to her job in any state that company does business or any state adjacent to a state where they do business. This is a pretty large tech company that has been buying a lot of businesses the past five or so years so they have an office somewhere in most states.
  Right now the only North American geographic locations she can do business in is basically Hawaii, Alaska, and very remote parts of Canada. She literally cannot work in her field for the next year should her previous employer decide to enforce their non-compete (which it's sounding like they want to). >
  
  Not a lawyer (yet), but that sounds potentially like textbook unreasonable geographic scope, examples of which have been struck down by courts in the past (learned about those in Contracts). >
  
  That is what we're hoping because it is pretty nuts. We're still figuring it out. >
  
  My wife is an employment lawyer, on the employer side, and deals with these all the time. What you have described is flagrantly easy to get thrown out. It's blatantly unenforceable due to the geographic details. She refuses to defend these, she just tells her clients to abandon them and NOT go to court. Spend $300 and have a lawyer write a letter begging them to sue you, they'll drop it immediately. Open and shut case. >
  
  Please do. In my industry, i literally have to give up my career to avoid violating it. So i just tell everyone that hires me they need yo be prepared for me to personally ruin their lives if they ever try to enforce it - because it will ruin my life and leave my family to starve. I will have nothing to lose, and i will share the misery. They all suddenly have a story about their lawyer says they need one, they'll never use it, etc. >
  
  I signed one for an IT consulting firm that we jokingly said meant we couldn't work for any company that either owned a computer or was thinking of getting one.  I signed it after I was assured that it was so broad as to be unenforceable. >
  
  Most are unenforceable. I had to sign one too when I worked IT consulting. But is was basically so I wouldn't just go work directly with one of their clients (basically steal their client). One of my coworkers did exactly that. They didn't do shit about it. To be fair, it was a bigger client and they still had them as a client for other things. So the client basically said "you're going to let this happens or lose us completely". >
  
  I think that can be captured by a non-solicitation clause though. No need for a non-compete there. >
  
  This absolutely needs to pass for healthcare workers. I’ve had 2 former coworkers as medical technologists sued and the non-compete upheld and they owed $50,000
  Why is this fucked up, besides the wages part? That we work 36/hrs per week and our hours ARE NOT GUARANTEED (Ex:patient doesn’t show, we get sent home with no pay). Due to this, many of us have 2 jobs in case we get sent home. Before Covid, I went through 50 hrs of PTO and negative pay because we had so many patients no show, despite the business charging them $200 (of course we didn’t get that pay)
  Also, we don’t dictate where the patient gets a sleep study - the physician referral and insurance company do! Also before Covid, there were no jobs hiring in a 100 mile radius because of too many grads and not enough jobs 
  Our wages have been so stagnant that we have been paid $24/hr since 2018 and no increases.
  I finally left. It is absolutely insane that healthcare workers have this shitty as clause in their paperwork >
  
  You need to comment on the ftc website or you won't be heard.
  Ftc knows if 1 person comments, hundreds agree >
  
  I tried to find the section but couldn’t. Where is it ? >
  
  My ex had to sign one to cut people's fucking hair lol >
  
  
  The FTC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which is based on a preliminary finding that noncompetes constitute an unfair method of competition and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
  
  …
  
  Companies use noncompetes for workers across industries and job levels, from hairstylists and warehouse workers to doctors and business executives. In many cases, employers use their outsized bargaining power to coerce workers into signing these contracts. Noncompetes harm competition in U.S. labor markets by blocking workers from pursuing better opportunities and by preventing employers from hiring the best available talent.
  
  …
  
  To address these problems, the FTC’s proposed rule would generally prohibit employers from using noncompete clauses. Specifically, the FTC’s new rule would make it illegal for an employer to:
  
  enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompete with a worker;
  maintain a noncompete with a worker; or
  represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.
  
  The proposed rule would apply to independent contractors and anyone who works for an employer, whether paid or unpaid. It would also require employers to rescind existing noncompetes and actively inform workers that they are no longer in effect.
  The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types of employment restrictions, like non-disclosure agreements. However, other types of employment restrictions could be subject to the rule if they are so broad in scope that they function as noncompetes. >
  
  Someone can correct me, but I think Lina Khan is the only good person in federal government right now. It's literally just her. >
  
  I dunno, this biden guy seems to be doing a little bit of good work as well. >
  
  Other than crushing rail workers’ fight for paid sick leave 🤥 >
  
  Even AOC voted to block the strike. If it went through people would have literally died because medicine and water cleaning chemicals would not be shipped. The workers need sick days definitely but this strike would have been nothing short of catastrophic. >
  
  Preventing a strike is different from just caving to the rail companies and shoving a contract down the workers’ throats; we could have nationalized the railways or passed a law giving all workers the right to X days of sick leave. Your argument is silly. >
  
  nationalizing the railways is the nuclear option rofl. And there's a 95% chance it fails in courts. It's an option that's not an option. 
  No way to pass a law through the filibuster. >
  
  If you don't want your employees to work for your competitors, maybe pay them more and treat them better? >
  
  NCAs are total bullshit. If my employer can lay me off at any time for any reason they cook up, I should be able to immediately go work for one of their competitors. >
  
  I am curious if this will cover already signed contracts or not. I had to sign a non-compete with a company a while back. A competitor reached out to me later on, offering double the pay, and I had to turn them down.