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
    5 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
      ·
      5 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
        ·
        5 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.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Is that similar to our Supreme Court? Could conservatives stack that court and just destroy everything?

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          FTC commissioners have a limited term of office, and no more than 3 are allowed to be members of one party.

          A future Republican President could in fact change this by appointing a Republican majority. This makes it incredibly important to not allow that. That means not just planning to vote, but checking your registration to make sure it hasn’t been purged or in need of an update because you moved or changed names, volunteering and donating

          • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Government ran entities are the bane of my existence but the FTC has always been a seemingly efficient and unbiased regulatory commission. They’re fucked when it comes to regulating the tech industry but still less fucked than anyother boomer politician who vote on its laws.

            I am a kid with the popcorn bucket entranced by the current and looming topic of intellectual property arguments. People rarely appreciate how fucking wild wild west the internet (even now) really is. Fuckin crawlers, scrapers, AI training all this shit is the smoke and tremors before Mt. St. Helen’s.

            You cant but a pack of gum anymore without agreeing to terms and conditions while at the same time its all but common knowledge none of them hold a lick of value in a court room.

            The best part is normally in life you can have a decent gut feeling the way something will play out. But with this I have no fuckkng clue.

            I mean aren’t half the regulations around spamming emails covered by the FCC while the other half is FTC. Like think about this for a second. We live in 2024 where the internet is connected to implanted medical devices, it’s tracking your driving habits, listening to you jerk off, storing every text message you ever sent, then backing up that plus every picture you ever took but surprisingly do not actually own all because it never leaves the apple servers…etc the point being how in the flying fuck is the there not a single regulatory committee over seeing the internet? IDK maybe it’s because they would have to have open discussion about the very real very terrifying backdoor policy to software. Can’t drop terabytes if child porn on you nemises’ hard drive with out that little loophole in the system.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 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
        5 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
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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
              ·
              edit-2
              5 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
          ·
          5 months ago

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

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        ·
        5 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.