Any arguments against constitutionality?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47604744)

Thread closed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47614460)

Non-competes are essential if you want to do pretty routine things like bring a new doctor into a practice with a strong presence in a geographical area. The practice may front this person relocation costs, etc. Why should they be out because this ((doctor)) decides in 18 months he should strike it out on his own?

Coercive noncompetes suck, and they shouldn't be the rule rather than the exception--as they've come to be for some low-level people in the tech business--but businesses expend a lot of money bringing people into the fold and they shouldn't just be able to turn around and compete with lowered barriers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605649)

Why does an unelected group of 5 people make this "rule" that affects millions of people? Shouldn't Congress make a law defining it? Seems insane some 3 letter agency decides this vs an act of Congress. This should be in the hands of the people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47604766)

I don't think the Congress has passed a budget per the Constitutional process since maybe Obama was POTUS. The Senate has devolved from the de facto governing body of the US to a forum for frivolous people to make frivolous speeches and occasionally run for POTUS.

hence the battle for the White House is the battle for all the federal government because the WH ostensibly runs the administrative agencies. when a Dem wins POTUS the agencies have free rein to go lib. and on the occasions where a Republican wins POTUS the agencies stubbornly fight all changes.

so yes it should be for the Congress and POTUS to decide but that world disappeared a while ago.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47604796)

Edit: just checked and apparently the 25% threshold did not make it into the final rule, just needs to be a BONA FIDE sale of the business.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47608420)

xo Joe!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605280)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605467)

Eventually, I decided to sell the business to one of my customers. The manager and his noncompete went along to the new owner with the deal. After a short while, it became clear that things weren't working out, and the new owner closed the business, freeing the manager from his noncompete.

He was free at last to pursue his dream of entrepreneurship! The manager assembled some equipment and rented the old building. He had tons of inside knowledge of how to make the product, relationships with customers, etc. And how did he do?

He fell flat on his face. The business shriveled up and died within a couple of years. The guy just wasn't cut out to be his own boss. But here's my point: if it hadn't been for his noncompete, he would have gone out on his own sooner, and had the same result. The only difference is that the business wouldn't have continued profitably, producing jobs and helping customers, for as long as it did.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605494)

Then that guy can crawl back after his venture fails.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605617)

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule.pdf

Non-compete clause means:

(1) A term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from:

(i) seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or

(ii) operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition.

(2) For the purposes of this part 910, term or condition of employment includes, but is not limited to, a contractual term or workplace policy, whether written or oral.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605477)

They just have to be limited in duration and geography. It's not fucking rocket science.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47605667)

So for all practical purposes, they were enforceable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5520770&forum_id=2...id#47611699)