Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increasing innovation, and fostering new business formation.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Thoughts?
That’s amazing. Wondering how would it impact the existing legal contracts / clawbacks for employees?
Fuck big corporations that set these in place. Only the second time I've agreed with Lina Kahn's decision.
And it’s getting immediately sued by lobbying groups lol
Delete
If this holds, it will have a negative impact on M&A, especially in the MM and LMM. Often times when you acquire those smaller companies, the senior-level people are the Company. If those people can cash out and subsequently leave to start a competitor, what is an acquiror really buying? Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Theoretically, if this ruling holds acquiring multiples should come down because there is inherently more risk in every acquisition in the smaller end of the market.
Agreed, it may lower volume of LMM / MM deals. But at the individual employee level, I do think people should have unlimited control over their career.
Very curious how this will affect industries like healthcare. Providers having non-competes are a huge issue in that industry. This may lower their salary in the long run as there will be more providers able to change jobs. Huge turnover at large healthcare hospitals / practices may happen and rapidly raise costs as a result.
Talking to my doctor friends, apparently this ruling may not extend to non-profits which most hospitals fall under. I'm sure there will be litigation around this
If only there was something you could do to incentivize them to stay......
NAHHHHH THAT WOULD MAKE FUCKING SENSE WOULDN'T IT
It probably wouldn't take that much legal maneuvering to simply design a new contract that doesn't violate the non-compete ban, but still legally obligates executives and other valuable persons to stay with the company for X number of years for the precise reason you mentioned. That plus some significant financial incentive to stay would likely eliminate most of that risk. Not to mention the reputational loss that those who do join competitors after selling their company would suffer, since they would likely be disregarded in all future dealings as too much of a risk, which lowers the incentive to do so in the first place. In addition to legal maneuvering (a battle which private companies will practically always win), there's also the matter of enforcement. If this does in fact increase the risk of deal-making and companies design new contracts to reduce that, even if they did technically violate the ban there's little chance the FTC would have the power to enforce it when the entirety of the private sector is against them. Point being, I just don't see this being a major change for large transactions when there's too much on the line. If it's really that detrimental, deal makers would fight back with something more innovative.
Exactly right.
You should always, always be skeptical when someone limits your freedom to reach an agreement with another party, and tells you that your freedom is actually being enhanced somehow.
Lina Khan is the most arrogant and out-of-touch regulator I've ever come across, and that's saying something.
If by "reaching an agreement" you mean "company unilaterally shoving a non compete up your ass".....sure?
The rule excludes both senior executives AND has an M&A exception.
I believe senior executives are only excluded from having their currently existing non-competes invalidated. The rule will still ban new non-competes for everyone, including senior executives.
Hilariously, it defines senior executive as someone making over like $152k per year. But again I dont' think that definition matters much because for new non-competes, the rule will apply to everyone.
One has to really be an aggressive disbeliever in free markets to think it will add value to take a negotiating point away from two parties. Non-competes are valuable to companies in many situations, and that value accrues somewhat to the employee. We will all be poorer for this over the long run. Of course, the bureacrats who make these rules have never been valuable enough to be offered a non-compete before.
As long as you are not setting firm policy, which god knows most people even above $151k in compensation are not setting any policy - then you are in the clear. This is a win.
Non-competes are market interference.
No matter how unenforceable a noncompete is, a potential employer will not want to deal with it and will tell you to just wait. That's interference.
There's a carve out for non-competes related to M&A. Those are still kosher
this line of thinking makes no sense since executives are explicitly not included in the rule
You can achieve similar effects using golden handcuffs. It obviously wouldn’t be perfectly identical, but you can get it close enough
This was a draw for HF ngl a nice 1 year paid gardening leave vacation every few years sounds nice
Not when you get senior and it becomes a major potential cluster with big implications for sitting out that long
Does this mean I can work as a janitor at RenTech, steal their trading strategies and then go sell them to the highest bidder?
It's not that I innately disagree with banning non-competes, but I don't think it's good for regulators to act as legislators. This is not some arcane rule that requires expertise to concoct and implement, which is the purview of regulators; this is a policy that is hotly contested and is different depending on the states and the determination of state legislative bodies. The FTC has no right to step in and just "decide" what is right and wrong, good and bad public policy. They don't possess special expertise that empowers them to make these rules.
The federal trade commissions act and Clayton act were put in place long ago stating the commission is empowered to prevent unfair methods of competition and charged with preventing and eliminating unlawful / interlocking contracts
they absolutely have the right to act and if you think only "legislators" and the elected should act, see the Supreme Court
Non-competes are not necessarily "unfair" methods preventing competition. That's my point. This is a hotly debated topic with lots of different positions taken by various state legislatures. Regulators are supposed to make rules and regulations about items surrounding their expertise (e.g., making arcane rules about water management). They are not supposed to settle policy debates that are easily debated by elected bodies. That is not within the purview of regulators. In fact, this very principle is before the Supreme Court as we speak--the Chevron doctrine is a terrible doctrine and is being challenged.
In fact, what you posted actually proves my point. According to what you posted, the FTC has had the power to regulate this for decades and hasn't, and it hasn't because it was perfectly well regulated by state legislative bodies. Nobody and nothing compelled the FTC to issue this regulation.
Ever heard of major questions doctrine
Legislators gave the FTC this regulatory authority. Congress very explicitly passed a law that authorizes this
It's like you people aren't even attempting to listen to or comprehend the other side of the argument. Congress passed a law that gave the FTC the power to make rules against unfair competition. For 110 years since the FTC was formed, states have regulated non-competes just fine. The FTC, which has never before asserted this power, has stepped in and ended debate among all 50 states + D.C. and said, "No, the debate is over; we've decided to blanket ban non-competes, with some rare exceptions, and your laws that were hotly debated among your elected bodies--yeah, those are no good." That's a really ugly way to govern--you strip the public of its ability to vote for people to make laws, especially laws on hotly contested policy. Bureaucracies are supposed to make rules and regulations on arcane topics that are outside of the educational capacity of legislative bodies; they are not supposed to end debate on public policy.
Frankly if you're sr. enough to qualify for garden leave, I feel like you'd want to have it. A 6-12mo vacation with a clear, articulated reason sounds good to me lol
Not good, especially for traders IMO. Now your comp will be tied up in deferred bullshit, or they will place crazy clawback shit on your bonuses.
No one forced anyone to sign a non-compete, don’t think the gov should be getting involved with a contract between two consenting parties.
Please tell us about the last job you got after refusing to sign a non-compete?
You are not understanding what I am saying. No one is making you work somewhere that requires a non-compete.
Jefferies in shambles
Tempora quos molestiae rerum id et. Nemo et possimus et eligendi porro est optio. Nisi quis provident modi. Quam est reprehenderit quaerat ut amet at aliquid. Inventore eius consequuntur sit molestiae quisquam. Inventore odit aut corrupti quo quasi.
Non ullam voluptatem assumenda et eum officia atque. Sit quo porro magni sint aut consectetur architecto. Sed distinctio aliquid eligendi minus. Earum accusantium at velit molestiae deserunt voluptatum officiis quae. Aliquid qui officia perspiciatis autem non veritatis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Iure voluptate quam at eius similique. Sed et voluptas qui autem. Impedit magni perspiciatis aperiam sint. Dolorem et atque adipisci dolor hic fugiat.
Qui iusto quas qui qui. Aut molestiae ut eligendi molestiae quia dolorem et.
Perferendis dolores ipsum quos vel rerum hic. Dignissimos qui exercitationem aperiam quis quod et.
Id voluptate sint et quibusdam et quia magnam. Et pariatur non voluptas nobis. Debitis consequatur harum voluptas et aperiam. Quasi eligendi magnam nostrum hic aliquam laudantium laborum dolores.