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

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    7 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
      11
      ·
      7 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
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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
          6
          ·
          7 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
            2
            ·
            7 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
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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?”

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                If you are about to become homeless, then you really need a lawyer. It’s not like someone under an NDA knows the One Weird Trick that will let you keep your home.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 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
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            That has nothing to do with an NDA. An NDA limits what you can say, an arbitration agreement limits how you can pursue a civil claim.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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
        2
        ·
        7 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.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          No, arbitrators cannot issue injunctions. They simply determine the size of an award, ie the amount of money that one side ought to pay the other. They can’t even force the losing side to actually pay the award.

          That’s why arbitration decisions always end up before an actual court. Because it’s a judge, not an arbitrator, who can actually enforce payment. The judge won’t relitigate the entire case, but they will read the decision and have an opportunity to modify or throw out the award before it can be enforced.