this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
213 points (100.0% liked)

news

23464 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] buh@hexbear.net 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

counterpoint: "I signed an NDA" is an easy cop out if I don't remember or don't feel like talking about what went on at previous jobs in job interviews

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Non-competes aren't non-disclosures. Your cover story is safe.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The poster said "now do NDAs", which is what the parent is referring to

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I read a couple of comments before getting to this and completely forgot there was a title.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is good, but iirc I seem to recall being told in business law years back that most non competes were unenforceable in court

Still, I suppose that's 1 point for this admin, 533,256 against

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And companies kept using them anyway, because how many employees know it's unenforceable, or would be able to fight a much larger company trying to enforce it?

I'm expecting more of the same here.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah...the wording of 'nearly all' non competes being voided worries me as well. I wonder if we'll just see corporations weasel a way around this to keep using them

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the official FTC release it looks like existing NCAs for senior executives are still enforceable but new ones can’t be written.

Really curious if this ruling applies to public employers as well as private.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I finally got curious and went digging, looks like public and private; at least, I don't see anything distinguishing between the two in either this text or the proposed rule

Also looks like the two conservative chairs voted against the rule lmao, shocking

Ed, I did find this in the finalized rule under part E, Sect 1 , 'Generally'

For example, the Act exempts “banks” and “persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act.” And the Act excludes from its definition of “corporation” any entity that is not “organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members.” The NPRM explained that, where an employer is exempt from coverage under the FTC Act, the employer would not be subject to the rule. The NPRM also explained that State and local government entities—as well as some private entities—may not be subject to the rule when engaging in activity protected by the State action doctrine.

So probably just certain contractors/researchers could still be bound by NDAs under this ruling, likely ones for government work (as mentioned below)

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suspect it's an exception for matters of national security, ie the MIC.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that typically be an NDA, not a non-compete?

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Generally, I'm thinking of the scientists and engineers that do the researching and designing, where it's not just that the company doesn't want them to blab about their internal secrets, but the government also doesn't want them using that knowledge for a foreign competitor.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

That's a fair point

[–] regul@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They've been unenforceable in California and New York for several years now, but I think in other states they were still valid.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

I was thinking less along the lines of being outright nullified by definition, and more them not passing the basic tests, but that's good to know. Looks like a lot of other states also already had conditions outlining their use (at the bottom of that link)

[–] mkultrawide@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can go steal all my former clients from my prior employer now lol

EDIT: actually nevermind, that's a non-solicitation agreement which is different from a non-compete.

[–] HexBroke@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can go steal all my former clients from my prior employer now lol

Actual free market

porky-scared-flipped not like this!

[–] mkultrawide@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I actually can't do this, I forgot I have a non-solication agreement with my former employer for 2 years (meaning I can't poach clients) versus on non-compete (meaning I can't go to a competitor)

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's funny, I can't help but think Adam Smith would come around to socialism if he saw what capitalism has become in the 21st century.

Behind every socialist is a disappointed free-market enthusiast.

[–] HexBroke@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

I reckon that's possible

Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions…Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

[–] POKEMONGOTOTHEGULAG@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

not if the supreme court has anything to say about it

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-labor-board-limits-gag-clauses-severance-agreements-2023-02-22/

At least the NLRB did put some limits on certain NDA/non-disparaging in severance agreements.

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

Now that we only have a handfull of monopolies running the country....

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An agreement you’re forced to sign when starting a job saying that if you leave you can’t work for a competitor for x number of years.

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

So its the free market

Edit: people really cant grasp irony here

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago

Freedom is when you have to sign your rights away to make a wage

[–] TheLastHero@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

free your hog and post it post-hog

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

Sounds like the opposite of a free market to me but what do I know

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

You think NDAs are a selling point for the free market?

michael-laugh

this is why "free market" is an incoherent concept

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

If I put a gun to your head and made you sign yourself into slavery, that’s the free market

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you ever shit yourself from embarrassment?

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Embarassed by how people cant understand irony, yes

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ooooh woaw sorry for not understanding your unindicated social cue

Neurodivergent people exist fuck you

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't seem to grasp how many idiots we get that absolutely hold this line of thought unironically

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

This is hexbear, i thought it would be obvious. But yeah, thats my fault

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It basically means you can't go work for a concurrent of your current company for a set period of time after you leave your job.

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The free market manifesting itself

[–] LibsEatPoop@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Good, good👍

[–] VILenin@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

Self-manifesting so hard it requires the employer to force it to happen

The free market is when you're not free to work for whomever you wish

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

They probably did this for companies so they can take labor from others easier. Side benefit to the workers

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

This just allows the fed/sec full reign to move to Goldman/etc lol

This will be horrible for fraud in America

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

So that smarmy youtube guy with puppets is illegal now?

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Fucking based.

The only way capitalism can work in any feasible way is if capitalists are doing all the competing, something capitalists promise they're all about but they historically will do anything to avoid competing as much as possible.

[–] StalinStan@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So what is the evil thing that is allowed now that this has passed?