FTC bans noncompetes

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Non-competes are trash, but the Chamber of Commerce has already announced their intention to sue. I see a multi-year lawsuit ending at the Supreme Court. Major societal impacting changes like this should ideally be implemented by legislation through Congress (yeah, lol). Executive fiat type decisions can just change president to president.

My real hope on this (other than that it stays) is that it brings attention to non-competes and turns public opinion against them so that individual states will pass laws on it thereby making people less dependent on the FTC ruling.
 
heybrother said:
ideally be implemented by legislation through Congress (yeah, lol). Executive fiat type decisions can just change president to president
Click to expand...
Sure, but also ideally congress wouldn’t be controlled by corporate donors essentially paying them to not allow legislation like this through. Not to split hairs, but the FTC ruling was by a bipartisan board, not an executive action. They did vote along partisan lines though FWIW.
heybrother said:
My real hope on this (other than that it stays) is that it brings attention to non-competes and turns public opinion against them so that individual states will pass laws on it thereby making people less dependent on the FTC ruling.
Click to expand...
Also agreed in theory, except you have states like Texas, which is an oligarchy in disguise that will never allow legislation that will help us normies over corporations.
 
I love the "requires companies with active noncompete agreements to inform workers that they are void" part.

Me doubts that the red heads in Utah and Texas and Kentucky will be rushing to send out an announcement to their DPMs that they're free to work for nearby competitors or start their own biz? 🙂

...yes, this will almost certainly get overturned and hung up awhile. It is (and has been) largely up to the states. It's a wake up call, though.
 
Boba Foot said:
Sure, but also ideally congress wouldn’t be controlled by corporate donors essentially paying them to not allow legislation like this through. Not to split hairs, but the FTC ruling was by a bipartisan board, not an executive action. They did vote along partisan lines though FWIW.

Also agreed in theory, except you have states like Texas, which is an oligarchy in disguise that will never allow legislation that will help us normies over corporations.
Click to expand...
Kathy Hochul killed a non-compete bill in NY so Texas isn't the only place where corporate interests come before people.

Perhaps in the future people will vote on state ballot referendums to ban non-competes.
 
Noncompetes will definitely see an end within our lifetime.
 
The ban excludes people making over 151k and that are in policy-making positions. Won't apply to most pod associates, but I could see a few owners claiming that an associate was giving input into clinic decisions and trying to still enforce the ban.
 
Hybrocure said:
Noncompetes will definitely see an end within our lifetime.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised.

For grunt workers (podiatrists, laborers, ER docs, bartenders, construction workers, etc), there is just not a ton you can take away. Most factories, restaurants, ERs, clinics, etc run pretty much thew same. Sure, they could take a few customers/patients with them, but that's of little consequence in the grand scheme.

...However, for biz with serious intellectual property (engineer, design, security, software, patents like Rx or chemicals, etc), those people going to a competitor is detrimental and worth millions or billions. They will always have NDAs, if not bona fide non-compete for those types of things.
 
Feli said:
They will always have NDAs, if not bona fide non-compete for those types of things.
Click to expand...

There are still plenty of ways to protect intellectual property and current client contacts/contracts without non-competes. The employee can be free to work for a competitor with a non-solicitation agreement, for example. No business needs to completely ban former employees from working for a competitor.
 
You mustache pods should be more worried about time and a half on anyone making under $60,000 and working over 40 hours
 
shadesofgrey said:
The ban excludes people making over 151k and that are in policy-making positions. Won't apply to most pod associates, but I could see a few owners claiming that an associate was giving input into clinic decisions and trying to still enforce the ban.
Click to expand...

Not sure if "clinic decisions" would equate to "policy-making" unless they were a partner. I think this ruling at the very least would strengthen negotiating power for associates, IF it stands.
 
Last edited:
LossToFollowUp said:
Not sure if "clinic decisions" would equate to "policy-making" unless they were a partner. I think this ruling at the very least would strengthen negotiating power for associates, IF it stands.
Click to expand...

I agree and hope that the ban is upheld. However, all I'm saying is I can imagine a scenario where a PP owner states that the associate was heavily involved in setting policies at the clinic and therefore the non-compete is enforceable.
 
shadesofgrey said:
I agree and hope that the ban is upheld. However, all I'm saying is I can imagine a scenario where a PP owner states that the associate was heavily involved in setting policies at the clinic and therefore the non-compete is enforceable.
Click to expand...
That would take a huge lawsuit that no lawyer is going to want to take up.
 
shadesofgrey said:
The ban excludes people making over 151k and that are in policy-making positions. Won't apply to most pod associates, but I could see a few owners claiming that an associate was giving input into clinic decisions and trying to still enforce the ban.
Click to expand...
That is under 1% of non-owner/partner podiatrists, though... any DPM employed MSG or hospital is still just a hospital/corporate yes-man.
A pod would have to somehow be hospital CEO or CMO - or at least chief of pod or chief of surgery - to even be considered to possibly fit that description (still debatable). They'd basically have vote at policy meetings, re-write dept and facility bylaws, get profit-sharing, stock shares, etc tied to productivity of the hospital/corp... which almost no DPMs do receive.

Any associate in PP is obviously not a decision maker and is now free as a bird. That'd be easy for any attorney to squash.
"Partners" for PP/MSG without true ownership and true DM abilities and true profit sharing (the "partners" who basically just bought a higher % of their collections and ancillary services the group owns) could also probably go solo nearby with no regard for non-compete after this ruling, but most such partners are likely ok where they are (doing a good bit better than avg DPM).

LossToFollowUp said:
Not sure if "clinic decisions" would equate to "policy-making" unless they were a partner. I think this ruling at the very least would strengthen negotiating power for associates, IF it stands.
Click to expand...
I agree. All pod PP associates (or 99% of DPMs who are MSG/hosp employees) are free to go.

It'd be worth doing a quick consult with a local employment attorney, but the jail cell is now open for 99.x% of any employed DPMs wanting to go to a competitor or start their own practice.

The loophole will likely close by the end of the year or much sooner, though.
By the time most employed pods with a non-compete realize this, get the confidence and means to take advantage, and make a plan.... it'll probably be gummed up in a lawsuit from US COC vs FTC. Clear communication and individual area attorney review is the key.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this will motivate a few mustaches to offer a fair buy in for partnership.
 
shadesofgrey said:
I agree and hope that the ban is upheld. However, all I'm saying is I can imagine a scenario where a PP owner states that the associate was heavily involved in setting policies at the clinic and therefore the non-compete is enforceable.
Click to expand...
Most PP pod owners are too cheap to actually take it to court, imo.
 
heybrother said:
Unfortunately, yesterday's decision on Chevron deference likely spells the defeat of the FTC's non-compete ban.

Click to expand...

Can’t read the WSJ article but…

The removal of Chevron deference doesn't mean that the Administrative agencies cant make regulations. So it doesn’t automatically reverse previous EPA, FTC, ATF, etc regs. It just means if they make a regulation that may overstep their statutory authority and they get taken to court, their interpretation of the statute is no longer given deference. So the courts will hear from the EPA experts and will hear from the AC company's experts (for example) and will decide if the action was within the agency's powers. Chevron allowed the 3 letter agencies to decide themselves whether or not they had the authority to make regs when there was legal ambiguity and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Now, those instances will require legal interpretation from the courts if challenged. It could make the FTC non-compete ban less likely to be upheld (it was always going to be challenged in court), but only if their authority to do so is ambiguous. I have no idea what authority they have been granted by congress.

This decision doesn’t do half of what prominent media outlets are scaring people into thinking it does, however.
 
dtrack22 said:
Can’t read the WSJ article but…

The removal of Chevron deference doesn't mean that the Administrative agencies cant make regulations. So it doesn’t automatically reverse previous EPA, FTC, ATF, etc regs. It just means if they make a regulation that may overstep their statutory authority and they get taken to court, their interpretation of the statute is no longer given deference. So the courts will hear from the EPA experts and will hear from the AC company's experts (for example) and will decide if the action was within the agency's powers. Chevron allowed the 3 letter agencies to decide themselves whether or not they had the authority to make regs when there was legal ambiguity and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Now, those instances will require legal interpretation from the courts if challenged. It could make the FTC non-compete ban less likely to be upheld (it was always going to be challenged in court), but only if their authority to do so is ambiguous. I have no idea what authority they have been granted by congress.

This decision doesn’t do half of what prominent media outlets are scaring people into thinking it does, however.
Click to expand...
But muh ritez
 

FTC Non-Compete Rule Blocked by Federal Judge​

After much national fanfare following the FTC’s announcement of a ban on non-compete agreements in April, a federal court in Texas has put a halt on the change that was supposed to take effect in September.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
FTC Non-compete ban
Replies
7
Views
1K
Feli
Feli
FutureDPM123
What's the best multiple choice question bank for ABFAS?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Flip-flop-flerpity
F
M
  • Locked
Junior investment bankers vs medical residents
Replies
11
Views
909
Weirdy
W
I
Alberta, Canada - Private Hospitals Bankrupt
Replies
5
Views
3K
IVlamisil
I
Top