comment: >
  
  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.
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