FTC bans noncompetes

[Boba Foot]

Haven’t been around these forums much lately, but here’s some good news unless you’re a mustache pod depending on cheap associate labor.

FTC bans noncompete agreements for workers

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[heybrother]

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.

 

[Boba Foot]

ideally be implemented by legislation through Congress (yeah, lol). Executive fiat type decisions can just change president to president

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.

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.

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.

 

[Feli]

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.

 

[heybrother]

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.

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.

 

[Hybrocure]

Noncompetes will definitely see an end within our lifetime.

 

[shadesofgrey]

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.

 

[HardRoadPaved]

few owners claiming that an associate was giving input into clinic decisions

The associate did pick pepperoni for the pizza for the end of the year holiday party in between surgery, clinic hours and after hours add-ons

 

[Feli]

Noncompetes will definitely see an end within our lifetime.

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.

 

[HardRoadPaved]

You'd be surprised.

For grunt workers (podiatrists)

Have you ever caught yourself making a small grunt after you crush down a dystrophic nail with a nipper?

 

[dtrack22]

They will always have NDAs, if not bona fide non-compete for those types of things.

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.

 

[Feli]

Have you ever caught yourself making a small grunt after you crush down a dystrophic nail with a nipper?

For sure... or a near ophtho consult.

 

[air bud]

You mustache pods should be more worried about time and a half on anyone making under $60,000 and working over 40 hours

 

[icebreaker32]

C'mon Man!

Noncompetes are a nothing burger. Having
one board will solve ALL things podiatry.

 

[shadesofgrey]

Have you ever caught yourself making a small grunt after you crush down a dystrophic nail with a nipper?

If you only knew... I'm like god-damn Serena Williams over here.

 

[Adam Smasher]

When we say every thread comes back to toenails, we mean EVERY THREAD

 

[LossToFollowUp]

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.

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.

 

[shadesofgrey]

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.

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.

 

[GreenHousePub]

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.

That would take a huge lawsuit that no lawyer is going to want to take up.

 

[icebreaker32]

Coming soon to PM News if this is enacted:

Competitive salary of $151,0001

Call, evenings, weekends and nursing homes required. Involved with policy making decisions.

 

[Feli]

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[icebreaker32]

Perhaps this will motivate a few mustaches to offer a fair buy in for partnership.

 

[GreenHousePub]

Perhaps this will motivate a few mustaches to offer a fair buy in for partnership.

Return of the 1million plus offer

 

[Boba Foot]

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.

Most PP pod owners are too cheap to actually take it to court, imo.

 

[Hybrocure]

Most PP pod owners are too cheap to actually take it to court, imo.

That and they don’t want the magnifying glass turned onto their practice