Trump is all for repeal of FTC noncompete ban: slavery is back?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 4 weeks ago

   Living in Hawaii, hotel and motel owners used noncompete agreements to make it difficult for employees to leave for better pay and benefits. So much for the idea of people working to improve their circumstances. I understand the need for such agreements in highly technical fields and research, but at Jimmy John’s protecting trade secrets of making ham sandwiches? Obviously, the idea of free enterprise does not apply to everybody.
   
   Trump and his henchmen contemplating pulling the rug out from under worker people, opening them to exploitation is just another reason that I can’t  stand the man and his entourage.  He Sucks…….
   
   So, unless I sign your illicit contract, I don’t get hired. And if I am hired, who is to say that I am not reduced to not much more than slavery
   
   
   
   
   https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-ft … bc661e0e62

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Noncompete agreements have been around for hundreds of years, dating back to English common law, but their widespread use in the U.S. took off in the 1970s and accelerated dramatically through the 1990s and 2000s. Until the Biden administration’s FTC ban, there was surprisingly little national pushback, even as these contracts expanded far beyond executives to include low-wage and hourly workers. This article presents a strong case for the FTC’s noncompete ban and clearly illustrates how such agreements have often been used unfairly, especially against vulnerable workers. The argument that individuals should be free to change jobs or start their own businesses without being legally bound is compelling, and the potential economic gains from greater mobility and innovation make the proposal sound promising.
      
      That said, the other side deserves a fairer hearing. Many businesses, especially in highly competitive industries, rely on noncompetes to protect intellectual property and recoup investments in training. Moreover, the legal debate over whether the FTC even has the authority to implement such a sweeping rule isn’t just partisan obstruction; it’s a legitimate constitutional question. Perhaps rather than a total ban, a more tailored reform could better balance worker freedom with legitimate business protections.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Thanks for your reply, I still hold out hope for you yet.
         
         I always believed that we have had the fair balance of noncompete to protect intellectual property and recoup investment in training, but this applies to more than flipping hamburgers.
         
         Trumps is not likely to support the extension of the FTC non-compete ban. Why is that, the ban reflected a balance to me already. Once it is removed the balance goes away and capitalist class are free to exploit labor once again. Who would be against workers having the ability to change jobs and better themselves? How is that consistent with the American spirit of self-reliance, when the greedy and exploitative and ready to knock you down. Isn’t that what conservatives are always crowing about, how is Trump and his desire to undermine that consistent with Make America Great Again values?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            This is one issue we can pretty much agree on. I don't think Trump will address it. And, I believe he should.
            
            This is an important issue. I wish more would join in on this one.

            replyreport