A stopped clock is right twice a day, but it's still good to see. Though, in practice, most non-competes don't hold up in court. That still requires you to actually get sued first, and that's never a fun time.
I work for a grocery store. One of my coworkers was caught shopping at a different grocery chain by the High higher-ups, and got her ass REAMED, with threats. We can't afford to shop at our own store, between high prices and low wages, but they can threaten us if we try to make frugal choices. Screw every version of non-compete clauses.
I feel that I got yelled at by my first jobs district manager for *daring* to order food and eating at work. Its when she compared me and the crew to barneys playhouse in an official letter attached to our punch in card that I decided to leave. Even mentioning that wearing shorts wasn't to company code, not to mention that all companies are required to give at least 15 minute breaks. We were never given one. Which is why I left.
@@thedog5k Knowing late-stage capitalist corporate America, it's probably real. Some mfs think that people should be working 24/7, and any time spent not earning them money is wasted
Looked up an article from the FTC about this. Here's a quot: Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. It says that NDAs and laws regarding trade secrets are still enforceable.
I expected the part about NDAs, as I had wondered that myself but it seems pretty self-explanatory. It makes sense, they can't just gut every company protection all at once, and it's not really a bad thing to enforce trade secret laws. That being said, I have a feeling tech giants are going to get very litigious in the coming years towards former employees.
@@graywolfdracon From what I can find, senior executives are the exception for why it doesn't apply to everyone. Otherwise, it applies to everyone. I'm pretty sure this is the language used: 910 2 Unfair methods of competition. (a) Unfair methods of competition-(1) Workers other than senior executives. With respect to a worker other than a senior executive, it is an unfair method of competition for a person: (i) To enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause; (ii) To enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause; or (iii) To represent that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause. (2) Senior executives. With respect to a senior executive, it is an unfair method of competition for a person: (i) To enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause; (ii) To enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause entered into after the effective date; or (iii) To represent that the senior executive is subject to a non-compete clause, where the non-compete clause was entered into after the effective date.
@@graywolfdracon You're looking for § 910.2 Unfair methods of competition. Senior executives are the exception. It applies to everyone else, pretty much, including contractors and unpaid workers.
I honestly see where you’re coming from but disagree. I work for a lawncare company and one of the previous employees went and started his own business and undercut some of the yards we mow to steal business. I don’t think it’s ethical but fair play to that guy i guess…
Non-competes are not as general as one would think. They usually are about restricting an employee from going to a rival business in the area or creating a rival business. The idea was that an employee shouldn't take business from an ex-boss, by setting up next door. That said, the hypothetical is uncommon and most employers would take advantage of it, so yeah.
For anyone like me who was just vibing to the song is: 096 💜 Heartbound OST 💛 Raging Shadows here on youtube, free to use as long as you credit. Thank you Pirate Software
The original intention of the law was to be used on high ranking executives, because if you know insider info about cococola, and you go work for Pepsi, then that’s where it becomes problematic and I can somewhat get behind that. Where it went wrong was massive overstepping beyond that. At the time this was passed, 1 in 5 working Americans were in a noncompete. He mentions “starting a rival business” but it’s also working for a rival business. So when a Jimmy John’s sandwich maker(they actually have them in noncompetes in the states where it was legal) gets mistreated or underpaid, they cannot work for ANY food service job in a pretty large radius for months if not years. This applied regardless of whether they quit or were fired. That’s why the ruling is all noncompetes are void for salaries under 150k(though apparently there will be a process in place as well for those over that amount). The FTC has been popping off since Lina Khan was appointed back in 2021, like stopping the Kroger-Albertsons acquisition, which would’ve been a major issue for grocery prices. They’re also currently suing Amazon for monopolistic practices so hopefully that one goes through!
Yeah cause it makes other companies to actually start producing better quality games or media or etc. If any customer sees that some indie person has made the same thing a big company makes but better people are gonna go over to that indie company
It's so insane, because this is a no-brainer decision that should have happened a long time ago, but it came from a body that doesn't have the power to make wide-sweeping changes like that, so it's going to get overturned and non-competes (which historically have been extremely difficult to enforce) are going to get a lot stronger
I remember that one. It wasn't a non compete, I believe they argued that they weren't ready for a bunch of people to leave (even tho they told the employer another hospital was offering better and they would quit if they didn't match it at least). But they can't force them to work because that would be indentured sservitude, so they could only stop them from working at another
@@PieGuy-mv1rsyeah like you said it wasn’t a noncompete but they wanted to turn it into one with the lawsuit and force them to go back to working for them 😊
@@theoverseer393 I'm pretty sure that _was_ front page news, or whatever the modern equivalent of "front page news" is these days. I remember a _crazy_ number of people talking about it when it happened, even prominent channels/ podcasts/ influencers that aren't even related to law or working conditions or anything like that.
Here in Poland, if an employer gives you a non compete, he has to pay you 25% of your salary for the duration of the non compete, and also the scope of it is controlled better
That sounds pretty fair. Exploitable though lol, get contract - 5 year non compete? No problem - quit after 1 year then go for another 5+ year non compete and etc.
@@Shyhalu you’d think that, but it’s smarter than you think. No company is going to force you into a non compete for 5 years, since they have to keep you on payroll for those 5 years. It works more as a deterrent than an actual mechanism. It ensures that the company thinks twice before they put anyone on a noncompete
Well, then the market will decide. Not allowing someone to open up their own business within the same field they worked. It will cause an outcome we get companies that are dog shit to their employees and also do not innovate. They expect the market to buy the same shit over and over again. Yet, allowing small startups come in within that field. That causes competition. Which the bigger companies need to adapt or these small startups will end up growing bigger than them. The old big company dies out. To not allow non-competes is terrible. Yet, to expect it to ruin the market. That is thinking like someone who owns a multimillion dollar corporation and works their employees no better than slaves.
@@purple-lemonade No, it isn't. This thing existed for a reason, even if its been abused there are still unintended consequences of getting rid of it. I spent 3 years working for a boss who wasn't even a developer that stole his former company's warehouse management code. Dude literally ran off with code, kept the app non public, made a few design changes via contracted developers and got a large business deal within a larger company. As someone looking forward to making a game company in the near future....I now have to worry about spending 5 years making a solid, high quality game just to have someone I'm paying very well run off and steal my company's work and sell dozens of systems and etc to a competitor. It doesn't lead to investor confidence. Not when code is as easy as copy and paste.
I work in construction, and worked for a pretty big company. On hire, i had to sign a non-compete that prevented me from leaving and going somewhere else, and technically I wasn't allowed to work in the same specific field for 5 years if i did leave, which after talking to a lawyer about it when I wanted to leave he explained that part was essentially non-enforceable in my state, but this is a huge event that's not being mentioned at all by every major outlet outside of a small online only article.
Ok, in fairness, The Washington Post is about as big of a newspaper as you can get in America. If it doesn't get picked up by the others, that's on them.
That's always been the craziest thing to me about non-competes - I get the concept of "not seeking employment with rival companies WHILE employed with this company", even though that in itself is still scammy and oppressive, but the ones that try to prevent you from seeking that employment AFTER YOU LEAVE the first company is just outrageous, like... you aren't paying me any more, you have absolutely ZERO authority over me or my decisions, and I am absolutely not inclined to give a rodent's posterior about whatever it is you think I *have* to do or not do. Of course that part is non-enforceable in most states: unless the company is going to pay me, while not employed with them, to not seek out employment in that field, then they don't have a legal leg to stand on, because them restricting my freedom of choice without compensation would be the literal definition of slavery.
@@Solon64 The only, and I mean ONLY reason why I could empathize with non-compete clauses sticking after you leave is corporate espionage. Hiring the people who are making next year's big thing and rush it out before the first company can produce it, is scummy, but theoretically possible depending on how this is worded.
@@MrSJPowell And yet, without a non-compete clause, that could still be prevented by paying those employees enough to stay loyal. The companies don't want to do that. They'd rather have the option to sue instead of just paying more.
It'd be great if no one had to experience anything negative, but for that to happen life would have to be so incredibly regulated and strict it would suck for everyone. So the best we should ever try to do, is remedy it after the fact, preempting it always goes to shit.
yep whole country needs to follow example of what amazon labor union and game workers union are doing. unions that fight work. look at how aggressive Hollywood has been historically and recently to try and remove unions. because fighting works, and if you dont fight you will surely lose.
This legislation restores freedom in the market. Which in turn means the worker can be a free employer or self business, which is what capitalism is about.
@@cestlextaseThis should not be an union matter. This should be an enshrined right in a capitalist society. Laws that prevent individuals from creating or joining business are detrimental to all but gov backed corpos who would be king if not for the free market.
I’m a music instructor working for guitar center, we have to sign a document saying we won’t teach for anyone else or privately within a certain mile radius of the store’s location, which is pretty ridiculous. Can’t wait for this to go into effect.
It seems like without that document, you could get a student for a single lesson at GC, convince them to study with you privately away from GC for a lower rate, and make more money since none of it goes to GC. Doesn't seem that ridiculous of a policy to me.
I used to work for a cell phone company, I won't mention it which one, in the retail Market. They had a non-compete clause in their contract as a sales rep, and one of the biggest places in my hometown as to getting a part-time job is Walmart. And since Walmart sells smartphones, this pretty much made it so that I couldn't get a part-time job working there on the weekends, when I wasn't working at the actual store. Even if I got a job at Walmart working to change tires and change oil, it's still meant that I couldn't work there because of that non-compete clause. So yes I am in 100% agreement to ban non-compete clauses
yeah, this is so gross and massively overstepping boundaries, companies should have *never* been allowed to do this at all period. it is gross and disgusting.
The bigger implication to this is if you shit on your employees they can take what they know of your process and development to someone else or do it better themselves. This forces a situation where people are going to have to be treated better or company secrets are going to be exiting and not be secret
@@comphoto6451 It's an issue on two fronts. 1). All phone services are owned or operate on the big 3. For example, Walmart primarily sells TracFone, which is owned by Verizon. 2). End of the day, that doesn't matter in a non compete. Walmart is in the business of selling phones. That's all your employer cares about. You are potentially making a profit and making a competitor profit off of the training and resources that they provided you.
@@derpaderpaderpaderit doesn't though. Capitalism is about producing the cheapest product/service for the highest price. Quality costs more, so unless you can raise the price exponentially higher, quality isn't worth it.
@@derpaderpaderpadernah, good quality does not automatically mean good profitability Good quality products can be sold at a low profit (let's say, good quality rice being sold at a low profit margin but because of the amount they sell and the fact that most customers are returning, they eventually make a profit) And highly profitable products can be very low quality (easiest example are movie theatre popcorn and drinks, which are very highly upmarked) There's no inherent incentive at the surface level to raise the quality if you go by capitalism' profit for profit's sake/growth for growth's sake That's why when companies actually raised their employees wages to a livable wage (raising the quality) they actually see a profit raise even though normally they'd think paying more = less profits In short, quality does not always breed profitability, but more employers/people sure as hell should be somewhat aware of it insteas of prioritizing profit above all else because yay capitalism amirite?
@@derpaderpaderpader if that was true there would be well done games everywhere. 2 things come to mind as to why this isnt typical. First is companies that buy company with really good ip, and release bad versions - are best bet and crowd out good games from the money. Second is: in business 'the shit rises to the top'. what that means is sad robot types with no soul, most people with a job long enough knows this and eventually see how profit makes anyone in the position burn the workers and with them the games.
This makes me recall a story about a high end restaurant we have in Baltimore. The place couldn't keep a staff because every person working there was forced to sign a non-compete agreement from working in another seafood restaurant because of how they coveted their recipes. It would exclude anyone leaving the restaurant from starting their own business AND from working for half the restaurants in the city. Madness. Edit: why does this have over 600 likes?
@@Thomass-yc7wm I only have second hand knowledge of the contract but I know for certain it was non-compete. From what I gathered it wasn't about the recipe after a certain point, they just wanted to trap staff so they couldn't leave for better paying jobs with their learned skills. (Much like the game industry) I spoke to a local bartender that was given the contract at the end of her interview process, she was so weirded out by how intrusive it was that she backed out of the job.
I wish this happened sooner, it happened to my dad 3 years ago and he was sued by his ex-employer but then was found that another worker embezzled 700k+ and 4 separate groups of installers never saw a penny….included my father. It all fell off and they didn’t continue after my old man but that didn’t stop the lawyer fees and lack of pay from our last jobs.
Non-Competes as a problem is an apolitical issue and it's great to see it finally stop. I worked in an entry level retail job and I couldn't join a different retail company for half a year after I left. It's insane how much companies try to get away with.
I mean, it's not apolitical insofar that a way too large number of politicians see their jobs being to make extra money for themselves on the side from selling the legal code to the highest bidder. That's why policies like this happened in the first place.
It’s inherently a political issue. But that doesn’t mean it lacks support from a broad range of voters. Among the working class, which is to say anyone who survives on the basis of exchanging their time and labour for money (even if they’re on a 7 figure salary) rather than owning capital which pays dividends, scrapping non-competes is absolutely universal. This is why we say that there are only really two major classes, those who work and those who own, rather than trying to distinguish between upper and lower middle or whatever else - people who work have shared interests and people who own have shared interests, the two don’t actually overlap very much. As the two parties of the US are different shades of neoliberal, the issue is non-partisan. Both parties share the same stance: they want to keep it, because their ideology (and their donors) prioritises the interests of the owning class. It is only democracy that can keep this in check.
I believe the word you are looking for is non-partisan. Apolitical would mean it's unrelated to the government, which laws inherently are. Non-partisan would mean that it is not relevant to either of the primary political parties, which is probably more accurate. The right should like this as competition is the core of a free-market economy and the left should like it as it is pro-worker.
My gf is a Veterinarian, some non competes in her contract are very restricting. For example, can’t work at a clinic within 100 miles… she would have to move to work somewhere else and that’s wild. Happy about this for sure.
Keep track of this situation, companies are already trying to fight it. FTC tried to stop microsoft blizzard merger and others and failed, this is a good thing, but not sure if we can trust it to stick.
Typical animal-related business L. If you wonder where that's coming from, my past education involved livestock and I wished I was bled out like a hog for pursuing it. *Don't* work with animals for a living. That, and being a vet has me concerned for your partner's mental health tbh.
I'd get that non compete looked at by a lawyer, very good chance it would get thrown out in court at least the distance part. There are probably other parts that would get thrown out too.
How do these ghouls sleep at night? They're literally making it harder for people to get their pets the care they need, _explicitly_ to make more money. Not even "Oh we'd be ruined" money. Just "I don't want to have to compete with my fellow businesses" money.
It reminds me of am old funeral director i knew. He was in business when the Funeral Rule came out. For those who are unaware, the funeral rule is a rule that states funeral homes must provide. General Price Listing when requested as well as forbidding funeral homes from refusing items provided by families for services. He said many colleagues of his bitched about it but now its been a huge benefit for families.
You telling me now I can use my skills to work for someone OTHER *than one and only one business??* The fact that this was a thing in and of itself is already a major red flag.
I assume it was introduced back then so companys would not loose workers that they trained only for them to be lured away after the company put in money, time, and resources into them. On the surface level it makes sense.
It makes sense for some things. For instance my BIL was hired by a company to develop, maintain, and work a program. It's his work but the program is the company's property. He cannot take what he knows to a competitor. But 99% of non-competes aren't like that. They're often overly broad and completely unenforceable.
so funny thing for the most part non competes could not be enforced it was more of a scare tactic, companies knew they would loose in court most of the time so the goal was to get employees to go this isnt worth that fight in court and not do it. the few times it could be enforced depended on the state you where in and whether it impacted your ability to provide for yourself. that last part is the reason most non competes where unenforceable because it would hinder someones ability to provide for themselves which isnt legal at all.
This is a major win for tons of industry. We had to lose one of our animators for our game because they went to work with one of the giant animation studios and had to sign a non-compete.
Soooo what I’m hearing is a gaming industry may be on the up and up in the coming years as far as quality goes and we may see more companies. Im so excited
What a lot of people don't know is that non-compete agreements are almost impossible to enforce from a legal standpoint. The problem is that businesses have a lot of money to handle the legal battle and the individual does not so it becomes an extremely effective deterrent. Big win for the individual workers!
Depends on specifics. The broad "you can't work in the industry ever and get nothing" is hard to enforce but time limited or compensated non-competes are fairly routinely held as fine (a lot of time this is what your severance actually is). It all depends on how sensitive and specific your knowledge is and whether they've cut off all options or just directly competitive ones long enough for your specific knowledge, not general skills or ability, to be stale.
Expect a lot of people running off with stolen code and game companies going under from lawsuits. This isn't a win, it increases the danger of investing into gaming companies as well as hiring workers. That takes away investor confidence. At best its neutral.
@@garybicknell2135 i see what you are saying. I do think employers have the right to protect their intellectual property, but instead of using a non-compete I think they should lean on an NDA. So let the employee go wherever but they should know they can't use the prior employers IP for their new employers gain. At which point, by all means, the company can go after you to protect their interests.
@@Shyhalu its a win. non-competes also suppress local wages. just because one industry might have a few minor issues to sort out doesn't mean on whole it isn't a win for a great majority of people. and the shareholders? LOL. most "shareholders" are institutions. Blackrock, fidelity...not an exhaustive list for sure. this will also increase competition, wages, consumer choice among other things...all wins
@@Shyhaluthe amount of money being suppressed by noncompetes is estimated to be over 300 Billion. You're comparing hypothetical theft with the actual theft these companies engage in.
One of the authors for the Lancer ttrpg is employed by Wizards of the Coast which is we got no new mainline books and only supplements over the recent years. The community is very excited for him to come back so we can get more of the good stuff
Not really, watch the next few years for the lower hiring and investment rates. No one wants to build a gaming company to have an employee run off with the code, disguise it enough, and then hand it to your competitors. There is a ton of nuance that needs to be accounted for.
Feels more like a pressure-release valve to me, to make it appear like the government is competent. But still, it absolutely is a good thing for Americans, and a win for American workers who are stuck underemployed, locked out of their specialty, or unable to pick up second jobs because of non compete contracts. We'll see if Corporate America takes it on the chin or shifts to prioritize further outsourcing/migrant(scab) labour soon enough.
@@Shyhalu There isn't really any nuance in the matter at all. Employees taking company property, intellectual property, and ongoing projects that don't belong to them is already covered by laws involving industrial espionage, theft, opyright laws, intellectual property laws, computer/infosec laws, privacy laws, etc. There is absolutely zero good faith reason to use lawfare to enslave workers to a specific company by not allowing them to leave for greener pastures within their specialty/skill set.
I used to do private tutoring for a brief stint through a company that hired independent contractors. Decent side gig, but not many hours. They made this difficult by enforcing a noncompete agreement, so I couldn't work in a brick and mortar tutoring location at the same time and for 2 years after, which effectively invalidated my lifestyle. This is wild really, and it's going to impact a lot of people.
It really functionally is slavery by lawfare, even if they aren't technically always enforceable just the threat of it existing and the years of lawfare that could come from it are enough to keep most people locked into one company, or locked out of their area of expertise entirely because of one company. Another bad one is companies using PR sponsorship programs to basically enslave foreign workers by holding their paperwork and potential residency/work permits over their head to work them/abuse them in ways that would be illegal to do to domestic workers, just to pull the rug out from under them and send them back home shortly before the program time is up. Like many companies in Canada were doing with the TFW program, among other foreign works and immigration/foreign student programs. Just so they don't have to pay domestic workers regionally competitive wages or benefits.
Lina Kahn is the current chair of the FTC and she is awesome, the exact kind of person who should be in government. Her interview on the Daily Show is great, Jon Stewart tells her how when his show was on Apple TV, Apple told him not to have her on to talk. It’s part of the reason they parted ways.
I mean in Germany we too have the thing in the contract that after you go away you can't work for someone else in the Business to not share the secrets you know... BUT For that to be valid and enforcable your employer has to pay you a certain percentage of your salary(at least 50% of what you earned) for as long as you are not allowed to work each month. And you need to have a certain income you must have earned and must be somewhat important. If none of these things are fullfilled then the noncompete in the Contract is void by Default.
That's a good thing, it protects against monopolies and keeps competition in the market which drives prices down, it's protection for a free economy and economic growth along with more opportunities to grow a market that has become small due to lack of competition
Most are only very narrowly enforceable, but that doesn't matter very much when you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an attorney to defend yourself when a former employer sues you. This will be a big win for employees.
I literally just came over from that DoubleFine doc episode where Matt Boone reminded employees at DoubleFine that they needed to tread carefully about developing games in their off time for exactly this type of thing
@@testacals this isn't providing a free market for companies, it's limiting their freedoms. It's give more freedoms for workers. This is amazing, but the opposite of a free market.
The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are gonna have a God damn FIT if this goes through and I'm going to be sitting to the side with a bucket of popcorn for it.
Its the same for us mental health therapists as well when working in private practice. Group practices always pushed it but in Louisiana they dont recognize them anyways. Working for myself has been the most rewarding for myself but even more so for my clients. We have both benefited from the move
Noncompetes would still apply, and the gaming industry is hardly different from contractors anyway. They hire people for a game then fire everyone when it’s finished, then hire more for the next game.
Contractors have a position to negotiate pay and benefits and regular workers can shift to be contractors if they're not bound by these unfair clauses. Either way it gives the workers a foothold to demand fair wages and benefits, something that is currently only possible with the help of a large union.
@@riverdays533 As an IT contractor, no it isn't. A stable paycheck is much more beneficial when building wealth and starting your career. I started as a contractor during the 2008 market crash, my IT career sucked for 8+ years.
It will heavily impact the fertilization industry here in Florida. I built years long relationships with clients who prefer only me on their property but going to start my own business I’ve had to sign non competes with my employer and now people can start a business with a trusted system and customer base backed by a good already existing relationship. This is big news for a lot of people I know!
Capitalism is about owning property and increasing profits. Competition is the enemy of capitalism because competition reduces profits, which is the only thing capitalism values. And competition only increases quality to a point because R&D is incredibly expensive and have diminishing returns in more-developed capitalist economies. It’s better to cut costs and quality than to compete and improve.
To be fair, most non-competes wouldn't hold up to being challenged legally. They were more so used by unethical business owners to scare employees from leaving. My company has brought in employees with non-competes and had our lawyers look at it, and they are completely unenforceable if they ever attempt to pursue a lawsuit. There is a difference between having some secret recipe or formulation for a product that cost millions of dollars in R&D being stolen and given to competitor for next to nothing, and an employee doing in general what their skill set is (programmer, construction worker, etc.) IP theft is one thing, but you could never deny an employee's learned skills moving to another company.
@@btf_flotsam478 "the perspn who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client and an a*s for a lawyer," as the saying goes. There's pretty much zero instances where you would want to go against a corp without a lawyer.
Unfortunately it might take way longer for it to start being enforced, some companies are already drafting appeals to courts and this will likely be drawn out for a couple of extra months, potentially even more depending on how many economic and political elites join the side of the companies, but hey, here's hoping!
As someone who is now just getting into coding/programming with aspirations of going into game development. This is fantastic. I remember my mom struggled with a non-compete in her last job and it really limited her options, even though she had a high corporate position.
I interviewed at a company that wanted me to sign something just to interview. It had all kinds of crazy stuff in it, including non-compete and taking ownership of things produced during the interview, even if it was made before the interview (that mainly revolved around artwork.) I wouldn't sign. They asked me to leave but I had been at a party thrown by the guy that started the company the previous weekend, he wanted me there... I dropped his name so they proceeded with the interview and hired me. They then came at me with another NDA/contract that I did end up signing after many edits, including the removal of the non-compete. (I'm fine with NDAs, but non-compete is BS...) I 100% agree with you, this will force companies to change their ways or their ship will sink. Hope it stands! 👍
My lovely supervisor at WH was poached (recruited) by IHOP. She went from being an hourly manager in training with us, to being fasttracked into a General Manager role on salary making so much more money. I'm still sad she's gone, but she really deserves the money and responsibility.
Because it's a consensual obligation. You weren't forced by gunpoint to sign the non-compete. It's no different from the company including stipulations that say they can fire you if you bring bad rep to the company through outside actions. You don't HAVE to sign that contract.
@@beluga2342 Comments like this represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts work (totally understandable, its kinda weird) Just because someone agrees to something, that does not make a legally enforceable contract. "Contracts" can be invalidated for a number of reasons, often because of a lack of consideration (which I suspect is the reasoning behind banning non-competes, I haven't done the research to back this up, though)
Dont neglect how much this can also impact healthcare. Nurses, doctors, etc can now easily start transferring between rival institutions when one doesnt adequately compensate or respect them. Massive all around
Non-competes also drive down wages. They prevent employees from saying "Hey, the market rate for the sort of labor I do is 'x' and they are paying that across the street at our competitor. I'm going to work for them unless you can match that rate."
In theory, non-competes should make wages higher - the employer needs to give you a reason to take the non-compete risk. I am not from USA, but it sounds like you guys had no regulation how it can be used at all (most countries have some laws about how and when a non-compete can be applied)
Non-compete agreements are peak capitalism and are fully compatible with free markets. Since they can be used to keep wages down and decrease competition they are ideal tools of capitalism. Since they protect company profits they are beneficial to the free market, you just don’t have the same understanding of free market as the ruling class does. We are lead to believe that a free market is one that’s open to competition and free from unnecessary regulation, but to the capitalist a free market is a market that they can freely manipulate.
No, banning them is anti free market. The government is telling a business how to run now. As a worker - you AGREED TO IT. If you don't want a NCS then don't sign it. Find another employer, make your own company, or gain more talent such that you can afford to demand it taken out. *THAT is a free market.*
Exactly! A free market requires free movement of the factors of production, and a cost of labor determined by supply and demand. If workers are tied down by these abusive contracts, the economy is less efficient, which hurts everyone. It is pretty much impossible to achieve perfect competition in real life, but the closer we can get, the more efficient the economy is and the better everyone's life will be. I'm glad that the government is not letting companies take advantage of the economy like this anymore.
As a government contractor, I greatly welcome this news. Working a job where new companies(more as in didnt have a foothold in the field rather than up and coming companies) had better conditions for their new guys, and offering salaries as much as mine, if not more, when I have 10+ years experience and also supposed to be their technical lead. Couldn't jump companies because of the noncompete, and the only reason I went with this company in the first place was because they had a chokehold.
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is an incredibly rare government W
*Don’t read my name….*
Even more rare *American* government W
@@DontReadMyPicture478 we don't do recursion here, it's going to overflow the stack at some point because youtube isn't tail recursive optimized.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, but it's still good to see.
Though, in practice, most non-competes don't hold up in court. That still requires you to actually get sued first, and that's never a fun time.
This will kill free apprenticeships.
I work for a grocery store. One of my coworkers was caught shopping at a different grocery chain by the High higher-ups, and got her ass REAMED, with threats. We can't afford to shop at our own store, between high prices and low wages, but they can threaten us if we try to make frugal choices. Screw every version of non-compete clauses.
I’m not a lawyer, but that sounds super illegal. How can they dictate where you shop in your personal time?
@@jglackey2 They can't, but who's going to stop them?
I can’t tell if this is fake or just another day in 🤡 🌎
I feel that I got yelled at by my first jobs district manager for *daring* to order food and eating at work. Its when she compared me and the crew to barneys playhouse in an official letter attached to our punch in card that I decided to leave. Even mentioning that wearing shorts wasn't to company code, not to mention that all companies are required to give at least 15 minute breaks. We were never given one. Which is why I left.
@@thedog5k Knowing late-stage capitalist corporate America, it's probably real. Some mfs think that people should be working 24/7, and any time spent not earning them money is wasted
This new FTC chairwoman has been kicking ass for a while now.
Huh? She's been taking Ls for most of her time as FTC chairmen
The system has been built since the truman days to be anti workers, she's been trying and not just sitting there like the otherd@@RyTrapp0
What other things have been Ws? I've been out of the loop
LOL, she was fantastic in the whole EA acquisition...
No she hasn't. Even a broken clock is right twice a day but this FTC chair is a shining example of why diversity hires are garbage.
Looked up an article from the FTC about this. Here's a quot: Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions.
It says that NDAs and laws regarding trade secrets are still enforceable.
I expected the part about NDAs, as I had wondered that myself but it seems pretty self-explanatory. It makes sense, they can't just gut every company protection all at once, and it's not really a bad thing to enforce trade secret laws. That being said, I have a feeling tech giants are going to get very litigious in the coming years towards former employees.
I can’t believe there actually a clear cut and reasonable law in this day and age.
Does it only cover senior executives? Cause if it doesn't apply to lower employees then it doesn't really help much.
@@graywolfdracon From what I can find, senior executives are the exception for why it doesn't apply to everyone. Otherwise, it applies to everyone. I'm pretty sure this is the language used:
910 2 Unfair methods of competition.
(a) Unfair methods of competition-(1) Workers other than senior executives. With respect to a worker other than a senior executive, it is an unfair method of competition for a person:
(i) To enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause;
(ii) To enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause; or
(iii) To represent that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause.
(2) Senior executives. With respect to a senior executive, it is an unfair method of competition for a person:
(i) To enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause;
(ii) To enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause entered into after the effective date; or
(iii) To represent that the senior executive is subject to a non-compete clause, where the non-compete clause was entered into after the effective date.
@@graywolfdracon You're looking for § 910.2 Unfair methods of competition.
Senior executives are the exception. It applies to everyone else, pretty much, including contractors and unpaid workers.
It's insane that that was ever a thing.
I honestly see where you’re coming from but disagree. I work for a lawncare company and one of the previous employees went and started his own business and undercut some of the yards we mow to steal business. I don’t think it’s ethical but fair play to that guy i guess…
*Don’t read my name….*
Non-competes are not as general as one would think. They usually are about restricting an employee from going to a rival business in the area or creating a rival business. The idea was that an employee shouldn't take business from an ex-boss, by setting up next door. That said, the hypothetical is uncommon and most employers would take advantage of it, so yeah.
Non competes make a lot of sense if they aren't abused
@@gagesalsbury4531 yeah and the person that started your business did the same thing probably, and the consumers are all better for it.
boeing is going to have their assassins on speed dial once the bill passed
Going to? They already have them on speed dial with the whistleblowers.
@@vfv1262 they sure did
@@vfv1262 Specially mr hands
@@lorekeeper685I think Mr hands died in a different way
@@O1O1OOO1tip he was a boeing engineer
This will make EVERY industry so much better
Who is this dork?
For anyone like me who was just vibing to the song is: 096 💜 Heartbound OST 💛 Raging Shadows here on youtube, free to use as long as you credit. Thank you Pirate Software
Thank you so much!
Came looking for this
Thank god and you that i found a comment with name of the ost. Good health to you!
The fact that this was even a thing in the first place in the US means that the companies that have it are scared shitless by the competition.
The original intention of the law was to be used on high ranking executives, because if you know insider info about cococola, and you go work for Pepsi, then that’s where it becomes problematic and I can somewhat get behind that. Where it went wrong was massive overstepping beyond that. At the time this was passed, 1 in 5 working Americans were in a noncompete. He mentions “starting a rival business” but it’s also working for a rival business. So when a Jimmy John’s sandwich maker(they actually have them in noncompetes in the states where it was legal) gets mistreated or underpaid, they cannot work for ANY food service job in a pretty large radius for months if not years. This applied regardless of whether they quit or were fired. That’s why the ruling is all noncompetes are void for salaries under 150k(though apparently there will be a process in place as well for those over that amount). The FTC has been popping off since Lina Khan was appointed back in 2021, like stopping the Kroger-Albertsons acquisition, which would’ve been a major issue for grocery prices. They’re also currently suing Amazon for monopolistic practices so hopefully that one goes through!
@@glowco.717 Thank you for explaining that. What a massive FTC double-u!
More like Lina Khan W but yeah still mostly true
@@glowco.717 Holy shit. She sounds like a champion of the people. More power to her!
@@glowco.717 Oh i remember Atrioc talking about this
Aw hell yeah, I love competition in industries.
*Don’t read my name….*
Yeah cause it makes other companies to actually start producing better quality games or media or etc. If any customer sees that some indie person has made the same thing a big company makes but better people are gonna go over to that indie company
@@DontReadMyPicture478ok I won’t 👍
@@DontReadMyPicture478 jokes on you, I can't read.
@@DontReadMyPicture478 I read your name, what are you going to do now? Mwahahahahahahabaha
Too many companies have had too little competition for too long and I support this immensely
It's so insane, because this is a no-brainer decision that should have happened a long time ago, but it came from a body that doesn't have the power to make wide-sweeping changes like that, so it's going to get overturned and non-competes (which historically have been extremely difficult to enforce) are going to get a lot stronger
We shall see. My expectations are similarly tempered, since there are some very large entities who desperately want non-competes to continue existing.
The Courts being in the hands of The Federalist Society, which doesn't believe in the rule of law, makes me not very optimistic.
Remember the hospital that sued the nurses who all quit to go work at a competitor?
I don’t and that makes me a little sad. It should’ve been front-page news
I remember that one. It wasn't a non compete, I believe they argued that they weren't ready for a bunch of people to leave (even tho they told the employer another hospital was offering better and they would quit if they didn't match it at least). But they can't force them to work because that would be indentured sservitude, so they could only stop them from working at another
@@PieGuy-mv1rs ...That kinda sounds exactly like a non-compete though. Just with a different reason to exist.
@@PieGuy-mv1rsyeah like you said it wasn’t a noncompete but they wanted to turn it into one with the lawsuit and force them to go back to working for them 😊
@@theoverseer393 I'm pretty sure that _was_ front page news, or whatever the modern equivalent of "front page news" is these days. I remember a _crazy_ number of people talking about it when it happened, even prominent channels/ podcasts/ influencers that aren't even related to law or working conditions or anything like that.
Here in Poland, if an employer gives you a non compete, he has to pay you 25% of your salary for the duration of the non compete, and also the scope of it is controlled better
That sounds pretty fair.
Exploitable though lol, get contract - 5 year non compete? No problem - quit after 1 year then go for another 5+ year non compete and etc.
@@ShyhaluI’m sure enough people tried to exploit this to the point where the loophole has been fixed.
@@Shyhalu you’d think that, but it’s smarter than you think. No company is going to force you into a non compete for 5 years, since they have to keep you on payroll for those 5 years. It works more as a deterrent than an actual mechanism. It ensures that the company thinks twice before they put anyone on a noncompete
@@Shyhaluyou can fix this by not having non compete
It's not perfect, but it's way better than it is in America. It would make employers think twice before slapping a non compete
a worker turning into a patron is always a desired outcome.
Frr, in about 5 years time we’re going to get a flood of sick indie games from this
Well, then the market will decide. Not allowing someone to open up their own business within the same field they worked. It will cause an outcome we get companies that are dog shit to their employees and also do not innovate. They expect the market to buy the same shit over and over again. Yet, allowing small startups come in within that field. That causes competition. Which the bigger companies need to adapt or these small startups will end up growing bigger than them. The old big company dies out.
To not allow non-competes is terrible. Yet, to expect it to ruin the market. That is thinking like someone who owns a multimillion dollar corporation and works their employees no better than slaves.
@@Qardo I think I'm with you on this? Your comment was one of the more confusing ones I've ever read lol.
@@Qardo we will see what happened to Atari happen to many current big companies if it pans out like this
@@Qardo this Is one of the most objectively wrong comments i have read in a while
@@purple-lemonade No, it isn't. This thing existed for a reason, even if its been abused there are still unintended consequences of getting rid of it.
I spent 3 years working for a boss who wasn't even a developer that stole his former company's warehouse management code.
Dude literally ran off with code, kept the app non public, made a few design changes via contracted developers and got a large business deal within a larger company.
As someone looking forward to making a game company in the near future....I now have to worry about spending 5 years making a solid, high quality game just to have someone I'm paying very well run off and steal my company's work and sell dozens of systems and etc to a competitor.
It doesn't lead to investor confidence. Not when code is as easy as copy and paste.
I work in construction, and worked for a pretty big company. On hire, i had to sign a non-compete that prevented me from leaving and going somewhere else, and technically I wasn't allowed to work in the same specific field for 5 years if i did leave, which after talking to a lawyer about it when I wanted to leave he explained that part was essentially non-enforceable in my state, but this is a huge event that's not being mentioned at all by every major outlet outside of a small online only article.
Ok, in fairness, The Washington Post is about as big of a newspaper as you can get in America. If it doesn't get picked up by the others, that's on them.
They don't want you to know your rights
That's always been the craziest thing to me about non-competes - I get the concept of "not seeking employment with rival companies WHILE employed with this company", even though that in itself is still scammy and oppressive, but the ones that try to prevent you from seeking that employment AFTER YOU LEAVE the first company is just outrageous, like... you aren't paying me any more, you have absolutely ZERO authority over me or my decisions, and I am absolutely not inclined to give a rodent's posterior about whatever it is you think I *have* to do or not do.
Of course that part is non-enforceable in most states: unless the company is going to pay me, while not employed with them, to not seek out employment in that field, then they don't have a legal leg to stand on, because them restricting my freedom of choice without compensation would be the literal definition of slavery.
@@Solon64 The only, and I mean ONLY reason why I could empathize with non-compete clauses sticking after you leave is corporate espionage. Hiring the people who are making next year's big thing and rush it out before the first company can produce it, is scummy, but theoretically possible depending on how this is worded.
@@MrSJPowell And yet, without a non-compete clause, that could still be prevented by paying those employees enough to stay loyal. The companies don't want to do that. They'd rather have the option to sue instead of just paying more.
This is absolutely WONDERFUL. Rare to see them get one 100% correct for once
Competition pushes forward quality and work conditions. This is a massive W.
As a student graduate game developer, this news is fantastic to hear.
But in general, no one should have to be treated poorly in their job.
E
It'd be great if no one had to experience anything negative, but for that to happen life would have to be so incredibly regulated and strict it would suck for everyone. So the best we should ever try to do, is remedy it after the fact, preempting it always goes to shit.
Sucks because this means no job for you as this is another push to ai.
That requires people to not allow themselves to be treated as such. People are cowards
Student grad game dev club! This makes me actually excited for the future and it's really been looking down recently
Government: “Hey, do we still have monopolies? We do? Oh…shit!”
You can have good fast and cheap.
Govt: “we’re not good, but we’re slow 😃”
@@Federico-1hey at least they’re cheap
oh wait
Lina Khan is fighting the good fight.
That's not really what a monopoly is. We're not talking about a market here, we're talking about workers' rights.
@@ezshroom they’re cheap if your income is in the 9 digit range!
Dont know this guy but every time he show's up. He's spittin' game.🔥💯
This changes everything
Power to the workers.
*Don’t read my name….*
yep whole country needs to follow example of what amazon labor union and game workers union are doing. unions that fight work. look at how aggressive Hollywood has been historically and recently to try and remove unions. because fighting works, and if you dont fight you will surely lose.
Rare moment where the government actually allows Capitalism to work like it’s intended to.
This legislation restores freedom in the market. Which in turn means the worker can be a free employer or self business, which is what capitalism is about.
@@cestlextaseThis should not be an union matter. This should be an enshrined right in a capitalist society. Laws that prevent individuals from creating or joining business are detrimental to all but gov backed corpos who would be king if not for the free market.
I’m a music instructor working for guitar center, we have to sign a document saying we won’t teach for anyone else or privately within a certain mile radius of the store’s location, which is pretty ridiculous. Can’t wait for this to go into effect.
100 mile radius like most?
@@duramaxadventures5832 pretty sure, I’d have to read the contract again it’s been six years since I first signed it.
"or privately" too?!
Damn, that's unethical as F. Hope you get some private lessons in when this law changes (or better yet, find a better employer)
It seems like without that document, you could get a student for a single lesson at GC, convince them to study with you privately away from GC for a lower rate, and make more money since none of it goes to GC. Doesn't seem that ridiculous of a policy to me.
@@BriggsMullen oh no lowering prices for the consumer in a competitive environment, how dreadful. Can't wait for the law
Moral of the story, competition is good and Non Competes can eat an entire Frank.
You are such a wholesome and lovable guy. Your content is exceptional. You deserve all this success. Thank you for spreading joy here.
I used to work for a cell phone company, I won't mention it which one, in the retail Market. They had a non-compete clause in their contract as a sales rep, and one of the biggest places in my hometown as to getting a part-time job is Walmart. And since Walmart sells smartphones, this pretty much made it so that I couldn't get a part-time job working there on the weekends, when I wasn't working at the actual store. Even if I got a job at Walmart working to change tires and change oil, it's still meant that I couldn't work there because of that non-compete clause. So yes I am in 100% agreement to ban non-compete clauses
E
yeah, this is so gross and massively overstepping boundaries, companies should have *never* been allowed to do this at all period. it is gross and disgusting.
The bigger implication to this is if you shit on your employees they can take what they know of your process and development to someone else or do it better themselves.
This forces a situation where people are going to have to be treated better or company secrets are going to be exiting and not be secret
That sounds horrible, although most Walmarts only sell phones through a vender it still disallows you??
@@comphoto6451 It's an issue on two fronts.
1). All phone services are owned or operate on the big 3. For example, Walmart primarily sells TracFone, which is owned by Verizon.
2). End of the day, that doesn't matter in a non compete. Walmart is in the business of selling phones. That's all your employer cares about. You are potentially making a profit and making a competitor profit off of the training and resources that they provided you.
I respect how he values quality over profitability. We need more employers/businesses like this
quality breeds profitability. most companies forget that very quickly and try to maintain their status quo.
Agreed, competition is always good for an economy, so should in fact be more profitable for the economy long term as well.
@@derpaderpaderpaderit doesn't though. Capitalism is about producing the cheapest product/service for the highest price. Quality costs more, so unless you can raise the price exponentially higher, quality isn't worth it.
@@derpaderpaderpadernah, good quality does not automatically mean good profitability
Good quality products can be sold at a low profit (let's say, good quality rice being sold at a low profit margin but because of the amount they sell and the fact that most customers are returning, they eventually make a profit)
And highly profitable products can be very low quality (easiest example are movie theatre popcorn and drinks, which are very highly upmarked)
There's no inherent incentive at the surface level to raise the quality if you go by capitalism' profit for profit's sake/growth for growth's sake
That's why when companies actually raised their employees wages to a livable wage (raising the quality) they actually see a profit raise even though normally they'd think paying more = less profits
In short, quality does not always breed profitability, but more employers/people sure as hell should be somewhat aware of it insteas of prioritizing profit above all else because yay capitalism amirite?
@@derpaderpaderpader if that was true there would be well done games everywhere. 2 things come to mind as to why this isnt typical. First is companies that buy company with really good ip, and release bad versions - are best bet and crowd out good games from the money. Second is: in business 'the shit rises to the top'. what that means is sad robot types with no soul, most people with a job long enough knows this and eventually see how profit makes anyone in the position burn the workers and with them the games.
the government standing up for the little guy...that's a rare move
Some company lobbyists are gonna get a stern talking to after they failed to bribe their way out of this one.
This makes me recall a story about a high end restaurant we have in Baltimore. The place couldn't keep a staff because every person working there was forced to sign a non-compete agreement from working in another seafood restaurant because of how they coveted their recipes. It would exclude anyone leaving the restaurant from starting their own business AND from working for half the restaurants in the city. Madness.
Edit: why does this have over 600 likes?
Yeah... having someone steal the thing that you built your business up on is pretty awful.
That's generally what I've used Non compete agreements for.
Being forced to sign something, does not make it legal or valid.
I mean, now they’ll just have to sign NDA’s to not give out the recipie, but that still wouldn’t stop them from using it provided it stays secret
@@Thomass-yc7wm I only have second hand knowledge of the contract but I know for certain it was non-compete. From what I gathered it wasn't about the recipe after a certain point, they just wanted to trap staff so they couldn't leave for better paying jobs with their learned skills. (Much like the game industry)
I spoke to a local bartender that was given the contract at the end of her interview process, she was so weirded out by how intrusive it was that she backed out of the job.
@@captain_context9991 Nobody forced them. You don't wanna sign - go find a job somewhere else.
I wish this happened sooner, it happened to my dad 3 years ago and he was sued by his ex-employer but then was found that another worker embezzled 700k+ and 4 separate groups of installers never saw a penny….included my father. It all fell off and they didn’t continue after my old man but that didn’t stop the lawyer fees and lack of pay from our last jobs.
Man that’s terrible. Is your old man doing alright these days??
@@coryjohnson2486 theres no update so I assume he dead
@@revemb4653 bro the original comment was posted 3 days ago chill lmao
Excuse me, why tf is this the first time I'm hearing of this? This is literally huge that's amazing!
Thor; the guide you didn't know you needed.
But you did.
Non-Competes as a problem is an apolitical issue and it's great to see it finally stop. I worked in an entry level retail job and I couldn't join a different retail company for half a year after I left. It's insane how much companies try to get away with.
I mean, it's not apolitical insofar that a way too large number of politicians see their jobs being to make extra money for themselves on the side from selling the legal code to the highest bidder. That's why policies like this happened in the first place.
It’s inherently a political issue. But that doesn’t mean it lacks support from a broad range of voters. Among the working class, which is to say anyone who survives on the basis of exchanging their time and labour for money (even if they’re on a 7 figure salary) rather than owning capital which pays dividends, scrapping non-competes is absolutely universal. This is why we say that there are only really two major classes, those who work and those who own, rather than trying to distinguish between upper and lower middle or whatever else - people who work have shared interests and people who own have shared interests, the two don’t actually overlap very much.
As the two parties of the US are different shades of neoliberal, the issue is non-partisan. Both parties share the same stance: they want to keep it, because their ideology (and their donors) prioritises the interests of the owning class. It is only democracy that can keep this in check.
I'm libertarian and I support this, never should have been a thing you could do in this country.
@@TAP7a"Democracy is for the people, by the people. But the people are restarded." -wise sand man
I believe the word you are looking for is non-partisan. Apolitical would mean it's unrelated to the government, which laws inherently are. Non-partisan would mean that it is not relevant to either of the primary political parties, which is probably more accurate. The right should like this as competition is the core of a free-market economy and the left should like it as it is pro-worker.
My gf is a Veterinarian, some non competes in her contract are very restricting. For example, can’t work at a clinic within 100 miles… she would have to move to work somewhere else and that’s wild. Happy about this for sure.
Keep track of this situation, companies are already trying to fight it.
FTC tried to stop microsoft blizzard merger and others and failed, this is a good thing, but not sure if we can trust it to stick.
Typical animal-related business L. If you wonder where that's coming from, my past education involved livestock and I wished I was bled out like a hog for pursuing it. *Don't* work with animals for a living. That, and being a vet has me concerned for your partner's mental health tbh.
I'd get that non compete looked at by a lawyer, very good chance it would get thrown out in court at least the distance part. There are probably other parts that would get thrown out too.
How do these ghouls sleep at night? They're literally making it harder for people to get their pets the care they need, _explicitly_ to make more money. Not even "Oh we'd be ruined" money. Just "I don't want to have to compete with my fellow businesses" money.
As a free-market guy, this is great. The entrepreneurial spirit has more room to grow.
It reminds me of am old funeral director i knew. He was in business when the Funeral Rule came out.
For those who are unaware, the funeral rule is a rule that states funeral homes must provide. General Price Listing when requested as well as forbidding funeral homes from refusing items provided by families for services. He said many colleagues of his bitched about it but now its been a huge benefit for families.
You telling me now I can use my skills to work for someone OTHER *than one and only one business??*
The fact that this was a thing in and of itself is already a major red flag.
*Don’t read my name….*
I assume it was introduced back then so companys would not loose workers that they trained only for them to be lured away after the company put in money, time, and resources into them. On the surface level it makes sense.
It makes sense for some things. For instance my BIL was hired by a company to develop, maintain, and work a program. It's his work but the program is the company's property. He cannot take what he knows to a competitor.
But 99% of non-competes aren't like that. They're often overly broad and completely unenforceable.
I guess america never was the land of free after all
so funny thing for the most part non competes could not be enforced it was more of a scare tactic, companies knew they would loose in court most of the time so the goal was to get employees to go this isnt worth that fight in court and not do it. the few times it could be enforced depended on the state you where in and whether it impacted your ability to provide for yourself. that last part is the reason most non competes where unenforceable because it would hinder someones ability to provide for themselves which isnt legal at all.
This is a major win for tons of industry. We had to lose one of our animators for our game because they went to work with one of the giant animation studios and had to sign a non-compete.
Second Wind gave you a call-out for being awesome.
Soooo what I’m hearing is a gaming industry may be on the up and up in the coming years as far as quality goes and we may see more companies. Im so excited
This helps franchisees so much too
What a lot of people don't know is that non-compete agreements are almost impossible to enforce from a legal standpoint.
The problem is that businesses have a lot of money to handle the legal battle and the individual does not so it becomes an extremely effective deterrent.
Big win for the individual workers!
Depends on specifics. The broad "you can't work in the industry ever and get nothing" is hard to enforce but time limited or compensated non-competes are fairly routinely held as fine (a lot of time this is what your severance actually is). It all depends on how sensitive and specific your knowledge is and whether they've cut off all options or just directly competitive ones long enough for your specific knowledge, not general skills or ability, to be stale.
Expect a lot of people running off with stolen code and game companies going under from lawsuits.
This isn't a win, it increases the danger of investing into gaming companies as well as hiring workers.
That takes away investor confidence.
At best its neutral.
@@garybicknell2135 i see what you are saying.
I do think employers have the right to protect their intellectual property, but instead of using a non-compete I think they should lean on an NDA.
So let the employee go wherever but they should know they can't use the prior employers IP for their new employers gain. At which point, by all means, the company can go after you to protect their interests.
@@Shyhalu its a win. non-competes also suppress local wages. just because one industry might have a few minor issues to sort out doesn't mean on whole it isn't a win for a great majority of people. and the shareholders? LOL. most "shareholders" are institutions. Blackrock, fidelity...not an exhaustive list for sure. this will also increase competition, wages, consumer choice among other things...all wins
@@Shyhaluthe amount of money being suppressed by noncompetes is estimated to be over 300 Billion. You're comparing hypothetical theft with the actual theft these companies engage in.
One of the authors for the Lancer ttrpg is employed by Wizards of the Coast which is we got no new mainline books and only supplements over the recent years. The community is very excited for him to come back so we can get more of the good stuff
Ive been waiting for Act 2 for Wallflower for forever! Im going to keep holding out hope
lets hope theres no sneaky ammendments in these next 120 days and beyond
Every Amazon worker needs to get a courier license and start a company the day of. "The Amazonian Exodus"
Finally, we’re allowing competition again
Holy shit, the government was competent
Not really, watch the next few years for the lower hiring and investment rates.
No one wants to build a gaming company to have an employee run off with the code, disguise it enough, and then hand it to your competitors.
There is a ton of nuance that needs to be accounted for.
@@Shyhalu That falls under completely different laws. But hey, nice defense of technically not slavery you're running.
@@Shyhalu Thats a super flimsy reason to justify denying someone the right to use their own skills to make a living.
Feels more like a pressure-release valve to me, to make it appear like the government is competent.
But still, it absolutely is a good thing for Americans, and a win for American workers who are stuck underemployed, locked out of their specialty, or unable to pick up second jobs because of non compete contracts.
We'll see if Corporate America takes it on the chin or shifts to prioritize further outsourcing/migrant(scab) labour soon enough.
@@Shyhalu There isn't really any nuance in the matter at all. Employees taking company property, intellectual property, and ongoing projects that don't belong to them is already covered by laws involving industrial espionage, theft, opyright laws, intellectual property laws, computer/infosec laws, privacy laws, etc.
There is absolutely zero good faith reason to use lawfare to enslave workers to a specific company by not allowing them to leave for greener pastures within their specialty/skill set.
Lina Khan is a beast, it's refreshing to see someone running these agencies who has a clue what they are doing.
I used to do private tutoring for a brief stint through a company that hired independent contractors. Decent side gig, but not many hours. They made this difficult by enforcing a noncompete agreement, so I couldn't work in a brick and mortar tutoring location at the same time and for 2 years after, which effectively invalidated my lifestyle. This is wild really, and it's going to impact a lot of people.
This could be a huge dub for gamers and devs alike
Huge dub for Employees and goods consumers everywhere.
@@americankid7782 that's a guarantee. But I don't see it being such a sure thing for gaming and devs. I can hope for it tho
FTC: "non competes... Sounds like slavery with extra steps"
Thats because it is
It really functionally is slavery by lawfare, even if they aren't technically always enforceable just the threat of it existing and the years of lawfare that could come from it are enough to keep most people locked into one company, or locked out of their area of expertise entirely because of one company.
Another bad one is companies using PR sponsorship programs to basically enslave foreign workers by holding their paperwork and potential residency/work permits over their head to work them/abuse them in ways that would be illegal to do to domestic workers, just to pull the rug out from under them and send them back home shortly before the program time is up.
Like many companies in Canada were doing with the TFW program, among other foreign works and immigration/foreign student programs. Just so they don't have to pay domestic workers regionally competitive wages or benefits.
Im happy for cooks too because this means cooks there can create rival businesses with their skills
this is a very rare win... IDK wtf happen to make this go through but i love it
Lina Kahn is the current chair of the FTC and she is awesome, the exact kind of person who should be in government. Her interview on the Daily Show is great, Jon Stewart tells her how when his show was on Apple TV, Apple told him not to have her on to talk. It’s part of the reason they parted ways.
Aple is afraid of Lina khan? Another W.
I mean in Germany we too have the thing in the contract that after you go away you can't work for someone else in the Business to not share the secrets you know...
BUT
For that to be valid and enforcable your employer has to pay you a certain percentage of your salary(at least 50% of what you earned) for as long as you are not allowed to work each month. And you need to have a certain income you must have earned and must be somewhat important. If none of these things are fullfilled then the noncompete in the Contract is void by Default.
non-competes simply cannot be free... you have contractual amount of time for non-competing, and you are paid for it.
I know it's not the main focus here, but that music's a banger
That's a good thing, it protects against monopolies and keeps competition in the market which drives prices down, it's protection for a free economy and economic growth along with more opportunities to grow a market that has become small due to lack of competition
I dont know how but the heartbound ost in the background is always on point for the current topic
Do you know the exact song name? It goes hard
❤🏴☠️🤣 noncompetes were never worth their weight on paper....according to my past lawyers 🤺🏴☠️
Most are only very narrowly enforceable, but that doesn't matter very much when you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an attorney to defend yourself when a former employer sues you. This will be a big win for employees.
This is gonna be huge for the housing industries too
I literally just came over from that DoubleFine doc episode where Matt Boone reminded employees at DoubleFine that they needed to tread carefully about developing games in their off time for exactly this type of thing
Imagine having competition in a free market.
This isn't good because it's a "free market" it's good because it protects Worker's rights
@@brenkyle12 It's actually good because both reasons
@@testacals this isn't providing a free market for companies, it's limiting their freedoms. It's give more freedoms for workers. This is amazing, but the opposite of a free market.
@@brenkyle12 Most people would agree that breaking up monopolies is enforcing the free market. This is no different that that.
@@testacals monopolies are made in a free market what are you talking about? How do you think monopolies are made in the first place?
Hopefully this also applies to indipendant contractors. The professional wrestling industry needs this badly
Non competes never held up in court anyways.
They do this in Jimmy Jones with the regular people that make the sandwiches
The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are gonna have a God damn FIT if this goes through and I'm going to be sitting to the side with a bucket of popcorn for it.
holy shit that really is enormous. Like, that's actually a fucking huge change.
Its the same for us mental health therapists as well when working in private practice. Group practices always pushed it but in Louisiana they dont recognize them anyways. Working for myself has been the most rewarding for myself but even more so for my clients. We have both benefited from the move
This might be the best news I've heard in years.
They are just going to start having contractors instead of employees, gotta love loopholes
Noncompetes would still apply, and the gaming industry is hardly different from contractors anyway. They hire people for a game then fire everyone when it’s finished, then hire more for the next game.
nah because contractors dont get benefits so people will just go work for the company that gives the best benefits. it's a win-win for the worker
Contractors have a position to negotiate pay and benefits and regular workers can shift to be contractors if they're not bound by these unfair clauses.
Either way it gives the workers a foothold to demand fair wages and benefits, something that is currently only possible with the help of a large union.
@@riverdays533 As an IT contractor, no it isn't.
A stable paycheck is much more beneficial when building wealth and starting your career.
I started as a contractor during the 2008 market crash, my IT career sucked for 8+ years.
@@Aetius_of_Astora LOL no we do not, you start arguing pay and there are 1,000 Indians lined up to take the job for less.
It will heavily impact the fertilization industry here in Florida. I built years long relationships with clients who prefer only me on their property but going to start my own business I’ve had to sign non competes with my employer and now people can start a business with a trusted system and customer base backed by a good already existing relationship. This is big news for a lot of people I know!
Ah congrats! Good luck with ya good will
It will still for the top brass, but not regular workers.
At the Bureau of Labor we all did a little dance at the office when we heard about this.
Pearson Specter Litt will never be the same again.
Lmao
This is what capitalism is about. Competition to increase quality of the product while having competitive pricing. I love every bit of it
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No it isnt
Yeah it's working out great eh.
Capitalism is about owning property and increasing profits. Competition is the enemy of capitalism because competition reduces profits, which is the only thing capitalism values.
And competition only increases quality to a point because R&D is incredibly expensive and have diminishing returns in more-developed capitalist economies. It’s better to cut costs and quality than to compete and improve.
Based & Underrated comment
@@NoName...... You don't know what the @#$% Capitalism is.
Chat rules: keep things safe for work.
Me: “I’m gonna commit so many OSHA violations!”
HOLY SHIT! Thank you for making this video! I would never have even thought to look this up! I totally wouldn't have known this happened with you
Holy shit, I didn't know we were capable of supporting the actual GOOD elements of a free market.
To be fair, most non-competes wouldn't hold up to being challenged legally. They were more so used by unethical business owners to scare employees from leaving.
My company has brought in employees with non-competes and had our lawyers look at it, and they are completely unenforceable if they ever attempt to pursue a lawsuit. There is a difference between having some secret recipe or formulation for a product that cost millions of dollars in R&D being stolen and given to competitor for next to nothing, and an employee doing in general what their skill set is (programmer, construction worker, etc.) IP theft is one thing, but you could never deny an employee's learned skills moving to another company.
I mens yes but one some of them do two the ones that don’t are hard to sniff out
Three they will take you to court whitch most people can’t afford
The capacitor plague is a great example of that secret recipe stuff, when they don't know all of it.
This is what I've heard too. Judges throw out most non-competes because the government wants you working and paying taxes.
There's a massive difference between 'probably illegal, I'd have to pay a lawyer' and 'so clearly illegal I could prove it myself'.
@@btf_flotsam478 "the perspn who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client and an a*s for a lawyer," as the saying goes. There's pretty much zero instances where you would want to go against a corp without a lawyer.
Yes please, I can't stress enough how much I support this!
“Everyone liked that”
Damn, that's a big change. I'm surprised it's not widely covered yet
Unfortunately it might take way longer for it to start being enforced, some companies are already drafting appeals to courts and this will likely be drawn out for a couple of extra months, potentially even more depending on how many economic and political elites join the side of the companies, but hey, here's hoping!
As someone who is now just getting into coding/programming with aspirations of going into game development. This is fantastic. I remember my mom struggled with a non-compete in her last job and it really limited her options, even though she had a high corporate position.
I interviewed at a company that wanted me to sign something just to interview. It had all kinds of crazy stuff in it, including non-compete and taking ownership of things produced during the interview, even if it was made before the interview (that mainly revolved around artwork.) I wouldn't sign. They asked me to leave but I had been at a party thrown by the guy that started the company the previous weekend, he wanted me there... I dropped his name so they proceeded with the interview and hired me. They then came at me with another NDA/contract that I did end up signing after many edits, including the removal of the non-compete. (I'm fine with NDAs, but non-compete is BS...)
I 100% agree with you, this will force companies to change their ways or their ship will sink. Hope it stands! 👍
My lovely supervisor at WH was poached (recruited) by IHOP. She went from being an hourly manager in training with us, to being fasttracked into a General Manager role on salary making so much more money. I'm still sad she's gone, but she really deserves the money and responsibility.
How are noncompetes even a thing to begin with??!?!? Love ur content man keep up the amazing work❤❤❤
Because it's a consensual obligation. You weren't forced by gunpoint to sign the non-compete. It's no different from the company including stipulations that say they can fire you if you bring bad rep to the company through outside actions. You don't HAVE to sign that contract.
brother YALL signed the contract...
@@davecave141bootlicker mentality
@@beluga2342 Comments like this represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts work (totally understandable, its kinda weird)
Just because someone agrees to something, that does not make a legally enforceable contract.
"Contracts" can be invalidated for a number of reasons, often because of a lack of consideration (which I suspect is the reasoning behind banning non-competes, I haven't done the research to back this up, though)
@@davecave141non-compete agreements are not consensual and you are forced to sign them. If they were consensual then nobody would ever sign them.
About to share the krabby patty formula fr
I knew people are married to their work, but this takes the cake and a pie
Dont neglect how much this can also impact healthcare. Nurses, doctors, etc can now easily start transferring between rival institutions when one doesnt adequately compensate or respect them. Massive all around
Freeest thing our market has ever done.
Non-competes also drive down wages. They prevent employees from saying "Hey, the market rate for the sort of labor I do is 'x' and they are paying that across the street at our competitor. I'm going to work for them unless you can match that rate."
In theory, non-competes should make wages higher - the employer needs to give you a reason to take the non-compete risk.
I am not from USA, but it sounds like you guys had no regulation how it can be used at all (most countries have some laws about how and when a non-compete can be applied)
The first good decision in 30000 years
Especially wild as this comes on the heels of mass layoffs and a general deflating of the gaming bubble.
Hey @piratesoftware, do you, and the goblins, think this will lead to more NDAs (non-disclosure agreements)?
Non-compete clauses are anti-free-market, anti-capitalism, and anti-democracy. Managed or otherwise.
Non-compete agreements are peak capitalism and are fully compatible with free markets.
Since they can be used to keep wages down and decrease competition they are ideal tools of capitalism.
Since they protect company profits they are beneficial to the free market, you just don’t have the same understanding of free market as the ruling class does. We are lead to believe that a free market is one that’s open to competition and free from unnecessary regulation, but to the capitalist a free market is a market that they can freely manipulate.
No, banning them is anti free market.
The government is telling a business how to run now.
As a worker - you AGREED TO IT. If you don't want a NCS then don't sign it.
Find another employer, make your own company, or gain more talent such that you can afford to demand it taken out.
*THAT is a free market.*
@@Shyhalu how those boots tasting?
Exactly! A free market requires free movement of the factors of production, and a cost of labor determined by supply and demand. If workers are tied down by these abusive contracts, the economy is less efficient, which hurts everyone. It is pretty much impossible to achieve perfect competition in real life, but the closer we can get, the more efficient the economy is and the better everyone's life will be. I'm glad that the government is not letting companies take advantage of the economy like this anymore.
Non-competes are pro capitalism since it screws over the people who don't own capital, ie. Workers.
Let the unchecked corporate espionage begin.
As a government contractor, I greatly welcome this news. Working a job where new companies(more as in didnt have a foothold in the field rather than up and coming companies) had better conditions for their new guys, and offering salaries as much as mine, if not more, when I have 10+ years experience and also supposed to be their technical lead. Couldn't jump companies because of the noncompete, and the only reason I went with this company in the first place was because they had a chokehold.