D. William
jack the nonabrasiveHey! US folks! Those noncompete clauses you signed? Just banned.
Celebrate!
Go work for a competitor. Go found your own competition.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes
Wizarth@karabaic Companies are going to be scrambling so hard over the 120 days before this comes into effect
Mélani (Melanie) Bjornsdottir (she, ŝi)@karabaic do both at the same time!
i mean what
Joe ❌👑@karabaic I live and work in California, where noncompetes have been banned for many decades. It's a big part of the state's success.
ferricoxide@karabaic
Maybe wait for the litigation to shake out before doing something you might get sued for?
Maybe wait for the litigation to shake out before doing something you might get sued for?
@ferricoxide always talk to a lawyer if you have an even glancing resemblance to the strategic class of employee!
Joel Housman@joelhousman @Meyerweb Anyone who cites my post as legal advice has deeper problems.
@joelhousman @Meyerw corrected in posts elsewhere in the threadz T̸h̸e̸ ̸c̸o̸m̸m̸e̸n̸t̸ ̸p̸e̸r̸i̸o̸d̸ ̸h̸a̸s̸ ̸a̸l̸r̸e̸a̸d̸y̸ ̸p̸a̸s̸s̸e̸d̸.̸ ̸I̸t̸ ̸w̸a̸s̸ ̸p̸u̸b̸l̸i̸s̸h̸e̸d̸ ̸t̸o̸d̸a̸y̸.̸
Collin Kreklow@karabaic @joelhousman @Meyerweb it was not published in the Federal Register. The rule text was released by the FTC, but it must go through the official publication process.
@cjkreklow @karabaic @Meyerweb Yeah, what @cjkreklow says. The FTC have announced their decision, but now the paperwork starts where the FTC's staffers send the language over to whatever government agency manages the federal register to publish it in the register. That has to happen first, and then 120 days after that happens, it goes into effect.
@cjkreklow @joelhousman @Meyerweb You are correct, I thought today was announcing publication. I clearly says in the FAQ that the effective date is 120 days after publication.
Interpipes 💙@karabaic @molly0xfff well, maybe do those things 120 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register.
Right now the clauses are still valid, no?
@interpipes @molly0xfff F̵i̵n̵a̵l̵ ̵r̵u̵l̵e̵ ̵m̵e̵a̵n̵s̵ ̵i̵t̵'̵s̵ ̵p̵u̵b̵l̵i̵s̵h̵e̵d̵.̵
The above is inaccurate. See later in the thread.
@karabaic @molly0xfff then, 120 days from today! The wording on the ftc page about the final rule implied that publication in the Federal Register was a distinct process, it was not clear to me as a layperson that it’s immediate.
@interpipes @molly0xfff It's not today, I was incorrect. The rule is supposed to have the Federal Register Publication date in it, which should be no sooner than 60 days after this publication. So maybe as soon as 180 days, maybe longer?
RedPandaLiz@karabaic so say I work at a chain, and I learned that I can't have a second job at another chain because they are a "competitor" and my first job will fire me, is this going to protect me from being fired if I do that or is that something different? I'm pretty ignorant to this kinds of stuff 
@RedCyberPandaz @karabaic No, it does not apply to concurrent employment.
@cjkreklow @RedCyberPandaz If you know a labor lawyer, I might ask them. Don't rely on legal advice from Mastodon. If your employment allows other jobs, I'm not sure how excluding competitors could be carved out in that instance, particularly if you're not in a strategic position.
The purpose of this rule was to prevent cases where low-level employees were being unfairly subjected to these terms, particularly fast food workers.
@karabaic @RedCyberPandaz While I don’t disagree that it’s always good to get an expert opinion on your own situation, it’s also not terribly hard to look at the plain language of what’s being regulated. The rule defines the subject clauses as those applicable “after the conclusion of the employment”.
@cjkreklow @karabaic yeah well I'm autistic and put my knowledge into computers and technology so when I read things like that in "legal speak" it seems like a line of word spaghetti with nothing pointing to what it actually means. I'm sure its not hard for you to understand it but to me it makes no sense, probably the same way a hex editor and a DLL injector and a real time ram editor would make no sense to you.
@RedCyberPandaz @karabaic Absolutely understand, I have spent way too much time parsing regulatory language. I was only trying to provide the context for my interpretation in response to the other commenter, but it read a bit more terse than I intended.
@cjkreklow @karabaic its okay, tone and expressions are hard to convey over text on the internet and its really easy to interpret what's being expressed incorrectly. I appreciate you clearing that up.
@RedCyberPandaz @cjkreklow As I said, don't rely on Mastodon randos, even ones who claim to have regulatory experience, for personal legal advice. Consult a professional.
@cjkreklow @RedCyberPandaz Also unclear if a part-time, nonstrategic employee could even be subject to this kind of constraint at all. That's why I say chatting up a labor lawyer is a good idea. They're good folks, generally, and I have gotten short questions of this sort answered for the price of a drink
@karabaic @cjkreklow I appreciate you clearing that up for me. I struggle understanding what anyone says when it comes to legal things.
@RedCyberPandaz See below, talk to a labor lawyer about this.
Dieu@karabaic that's fantastic
DLS@karabaic I'm going to happily take the salary I was offered to not work for the next few months instead of hopping into the control of my next employer.
@forensicgarlic Be sure to have a lawyer double-check your separation agreement! And, if they're paying your healthcare, have them gross it up properly!
Mark Gardner@karabaic @talexb Don’t quit your day job yet. Non-competes aren’t banned until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register have passed: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes#:~:text=The%20final%20rule%20will%20become%20effective%20120%20days%20after%20publication%20in%20the%20Federal%20Register
Plenty of time for your employer to file a lawsuit.
@mjgardner @talexb Indeed, don't take career advice from Mastodon randos. Consult a labor attorney with a practice in your state of residence.
Remember that this effort is focused on the bullshit NC's that low-level employees at employers like fast food franchises are being forced to sign. Not high-value employees who make strategic decisions.
Other aspects of timing are referred to in the thread.
Carlos Solís@karabaic I wonder how many companies in the US will straight-up refuse to provide employees with trade secrets, and how will they bend themselves backwards to keep their business afloat while compartmentalizing their knowledge pool. Gonna be a fun time
@csolisr Unclear at this point. Is the way McDonalds makes its fries and organizes its back room a trade secret? They have to teach employees how to make fries and serve customers.
@karabaic Yeah, either they will have to rethink what to consider a trade secret (most probable), or have employees for each step of the fries-making process locked into a room (less probable, unless the CEOs are paranoid about the competition stealing their employees' vital business knowledge)
Greg BurnettJust an addendum to this and a reminder that this rule doesn't have the force of law for another 120 days. So the rule is final, it's published (or going to be published) in the Federal Register (the actual book of federal law) but the effective date is 120 days from the date of publication. So yes non-competes are out the window...in another 4 months.