The Federal Trade Commission narrowly voted Tuesday to ban nearly all noncompetes, employment agreements that typically prevent workers from joining competing businesses or launching ones of their own.

  • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)
    19•2 months ago

    It was my understanding is that non-competes are a grey area and depended on the context. For an example, an indefinite non-compete clause isn’t enforceable, but a 6 month clause might be. A non-compete clause for someone working in a highly-specialized position where they’re working with trade secrets, confidential information or patented technology might be enforceable, but a non-compete clause for a normal web developer probably isn’t. If you’re in Texas then it’s more likely to be enforceable, but if you’re in California then it might not. If you’re trying to work 2 jobs for competing companies then it would probably be enforceable, but if you get fired and immediately go work for another company then it’s unlikely they could enforce it.

    That was my understanding anyway.

    • @[email protected]
      7•2 months ago

      A non compete clause should be justified, limited in time, limited geographically AND be compensated.

      This is the regulation in France. A person who has a non compete clause should receive a financial compensation for the duration of the clause, usually between 25% and 50% of their salary.

      This way to do seem fair to me