<story><title>FTC announces rule banning noncompetes</title><url>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cjen</author><text>This seems incredibly important. I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m interested to see how this hits finance firms – I know people who were forced to take a year off between jobs (although they were compensated the whole time). Always thought that would be a pretty sweet deal.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>andthenzen</author><text>Page 83-84 provides some guidance on garden leave and suggests that it will still be allowed under the new rule:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission notes that an agreement whereby the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis would not be a non-compete clause under the definition, because such an agreement is not a post-employment restriction. Instead, the worker continues to be employed, even though the worker’s job duties or access to colleagues or the workplace may be significantly or entirely curtailed. Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule
even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation. Similarly, a severance agreement that imposes no restrictions on where the worker may work following the employment associated with the severance agreement is not a non-compete clause under § 910.1, because it does not impose a post-employment restriction.</text></comment>
<story><title>FTC announces rule banning noncompetes</title><url>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cjen</author><text>This seems incredibly important. I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m interested to see how this hits finance firms – I know people who were forced to take a year off between jobs (although they were compensated the whole time). Always thought that would be a pretty sweet deal.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bagels</author><text>I was denied a job I was well qualified for because, (paraphrased, besides the quoted part): Our CEO and your CEO have a &amp;quot;gentleman&amp;#x27;s agreement&amp;quot; not to hire people that work at eachother&amp;#x27;s company.&lt;p&gt;I have no idea why the recruiter was willing to put this in writing, and thankfully, I was able to find other work instead.&lt;p&gt;I know it&amp;#x27;s not a non-compete, but there are other ways that companies can illegally form cartels to suppress labor.</text></comment>