Federal regulators on Tuesday [April 23, 2024] enacted a nationwide ban on new noncompete agreements, which keep millions of Americans — from minimum-wage earners to CEOs — from switching jobs within their industries.
The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday afternoon voted 3-to-2 to approve the new rule, which will ban noncompetes for all workers when the regulations take effect in 120 days [So, the ban starts in early September, 2024!]. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. For all other employees, existing noncompetes are not enforceable.
[That's right: if you're currently under a noncompete agreement, it's completely invalid as of September 2024! You're free!!]
The antitrust and consumer protection agency heard from thousands of people who said they had been harmed by noncompetes, illustrating how the agreements are "robbing people of their economic liberty," FTC Chair Lina Khan said.
The FTC commissioners voted along party lines, with its two Republicans arguing the agency lacked the jurisdiction to enact the rule and that such moves should be made in Congress...
Why it matters
The new rule could impact tens of millions of workers, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist and president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.
"For nonunion workers, the only leverage they have is their ability to quit their job," Shierholz told CBS MoneyWatch. "Noncompetes don't just stop you from taking a job — they stop you from starting your own business."
Since proposing the new rule, the FTC has received more than 26,000 public comments on the regulations. The final rule adopted "would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses," the FTC said in a statement.
The agency's action comes more than two years after President Biden directed the agency to "curtail the unfair use" of noncompetes, under which employees effectively sign away future work opportunities in their industry as a condition of keeping their current job. The president's executive order urged the FTC to target such labor restrictions and others that improperly constrain employees from seeking work.
"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," Khan said in a statement making the case for axing noncompetes. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand."
Real-life consequences
In laying out its rationale for banishing noncompetes from the labor landscape, the FTC offered real-life examples of how the agreements can hurt workers.
In one case, a single father earned about $11 an hour as a security guard for a Florida firm, but resigned a few weeks after taking the job when his child care fell through. Months later, he took a job as a security guard at a bank, making nearly $15 an hour. But the bank terminated his employment after receiving a letter from the man's prior employer stating he had signed a two-year noncompete.
In another example, a factory manager at a textile company saw his paycheck dry up after the 2008 financial crisis. A rival textile company offered him a better job and a big raise, but his noncompete blocked him from taking it, according to the FTC. A subsequent legal battle took three years, wiping out his savings.
-via CBS Moneywatch, April 24, 2024
--
Note:
A lot of people think that noncompete agreements are only a white-collar issue, but they absolutely affect blue-collar workers too, as you can see from the security guard anecdote.
In fact, one in six food and service workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's right - one in six food workers can't leave Burger King to work for Wendy's [hypothetical example], in the name of "trade secrets." (x, x, x)
Noncompete agreements also restrict workers in industries from tech and video games to neighborhood yoga studios. "The White House estimates that tens of millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements, even in states like California where they're banned." (x, x, x)
The FTC estimates that the ban will lead to "the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade." (x)
Clearer explanation of noncompete agreements below the cut.
Noncompete agreements can restrict workers from leaving for a better job or starting their own business.
Noncompetes often effectively coerce workers into staying in jobs they want to leave, and even force them to leave a profession or relocate.
Noncompetes can prevent workers from accepting higher-paying jobs, and even curtail the pay of workers not subject to them directly.
Of the more than 26,000 comments received by the FTC, more than 25,000 supported banning noncompetes.
2K notes
·
View notes
Okay but, imagine. Oliver and Felix.
They had the 💫maze moment💫 but after Felix says the magic words (you make my fcking blood run cold) Oliver freezes. He thought Felix was mad at him but he realizes he hurt him. Oliver never thought for a second that Felix would care enough to actually be hurt by him. He not only hurt him but he is scaring him. And so, he lets go, he mutters an "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry Felix" and he's gone.
Felix is UPSET, cause after all that he can't keep denying that he's in <something> with Ollie (was? is?). And he's mad cause Ollie is right. He wouldn'v care at all about him if he hadn't been interesting enough from the beginning. How did Ollie knew him that well? How did he know what lies to tell to keep him intrested? (Doesn't this just proves how much of a good friend I actually am? How well I actually know you?)
He needs space, he needs to simmer whatever all of this is. But not tonight.
So he gets out of the maze and drinks and smokes and fucks whoever and then Duncan is waking him up, giving him some tylenol or something and taking him to his room.
When he actually wakes up is late in the afternoon, he moves instinctively to the dining room, still dizzy. When he gets there all eyes are on him. What happened? It's not the first time he passed tf out after a party. Elspeth seems upset.
After he ate and is a little bit less dead Duncan informs him that Oliver is gone. He took all his belongings and left at some point during the night or morning who knows. No one saw him leave.
Felix gets up and goes back to his room, through the bathroom and... empty bedroom. No signs of Oliver. The room was clearly recently cleaned. He opens the closet, nothing. Back to the bathroom, empty too.
Fuck.
Duncan tells him that the only thing he left behind was the costume and the black suit Felix lend him. Oh, and a blue button up that was still in the laundry room.
The rest of summer Felix tries to get a hold of Oliver but is impossible. He texts, calls and leaves voicemails, nothing. He finds the phone number of Oliver's house but when he calls Oliver's dad tells him that he's not home, he's probably back at Oxford. Felix packs and leaves Saltburn early. Back at Oxford he goes straight to Oliver's dorm, he knocks but nothing, he stats pounding the door "c'mon Ollie, I just want to talk!" he tries the knob, the door opens, the room is empty.
He learns quickly that Oliver moved. He didn't just moved rooms, nope, he moved colleges. He's gone.
That night Felix cries holding Ollie's shirt :)
54 notes
·
View notes
Does lawlu have a kid too that plays with zosan kid?
In my opinion, Lawlu isn't a couple who are going to have kids... relatively, at the very least. Who knows if I can think of any setting or AU where they might have children, but in a modern domestic AU or canon/canon-compliant settings, I don't exactly see them as having kids. I see them as a couple whose idea of settling in begins and ends with each other. Don't get me wrong, they adore children, but they're not necessarily interested in having their own. Them playing uncles for their friends' kids is more than enough for them.
What I do see them having, in modern setting, are dogs. I totally see Law as a dog person and Luffy is just jolly enough to have any pet companion around. I think it paints a pretty funny picture to see Law trying to wrestle both of his overexcited dog AND boyfriend to take a bath after their 2-hour frolicking in the muddy grass.
A couple that I see having kids in modern AU is actually Frobin! My personal headcanon is that they adopted, and it has to do with how I love the idea of Robin, who was abandoned as a child but gradually found love and healing in her found family, would want to try to be a mother for children who went through the similar thing she did as a child. Robin canonically adores children, so I think it's not much of a stretch for her to want them regardless of how she acquires them. And Franky is just supportive all around - he'd be a great dad.
24 notes
·
View notes
Another little inconsequential red hood thing and I'll admit that I'm decently biased but it irks me to see the whole "Jason can't shut up about his death/he makes his death everyone else's problem" take really frequently because he simply does not do that enough for it to be a thing in like any actual Red Hood story.
It's a thing you see sometimes in modern annuals/comics with large casts, particularly if a writer doesn't seem super confident with writing all of the characters that they're working with or if he's just a background character in this one, because with comics it's quicker to reduce a character to recognizable landmarks than to try and work out a whole new complex voice if you don't really need to, so it's tire iron, Jane Austen, Joker, and death, and it's all written out in dialogue because every character in a group event can't have their own internal monologue, but like. That's pretty much it. UTRH is the establishing event for Jason Todd post death so of course a lot of it is about his death, although it's arguably about the lack of response to his death more than his death itself, and he certainly makes it Bruce's issue but one beef doesn't make a trend. Plus if his death is anyone's issue beyond his own Bruce and Joker are like the number one guys whose issue it is. He THINKS about his death a ton in Lost Days, but it doesn't really reflect externally on any of his interactions besides with Joker, which again, that's justified and relevant beef. Teen Titans 29 is more about his place in the hero community/feeling like he was an outsider even before the bomb/Tim being the new robin than about his death, and side note, that being counted as an attempt on Tim's life also bugs me. He beat him up and then left of his own volition. That's not an assassination attempt its called a fight, albeit a sneaky and unfair one. But anyways. I can't speak on Battle for the Cowl because i haven't read it, both that and Batman and Robin 2009 don't really compel me, but it's entirely possible that's an outlier to my point seeing as I kinda sorta haven't read it and don't care to lmao. Even New 52 (although HIGHLY unpopular) and Rebirth/Dawn of DC/Whatever we're doing now Red Hood content don't really have him talking to people about it besides the occasional little quips. He might make stances that were developed because of his death other people's problem, like in the Mia Dearden Green Arrow situation with the "getting involved in other people's business" issue, but acting like he makes specifically his death everyone else's problem is ignoring all of the perfectly valid actually canon things he makes other people's problem. Most of the unpleasant traits he brings to the table are a result of his death and the sense of abandonment and betrayal that came with it, but that doesn't mean he's bringing his death into it when he acts unpleasantly any more than he's bringing his birth into it when he shows up in the first place. The consequences do not equal the event. All this to say it's irritating when people say the character is grating because he doesn't stop whining about his death when that kinda just indicates to me that they're working off fanon based on fanon based on kinda mid batman annual.
24 notes
·
View notes