FTC bans non competes

It's a race to the bottom. So I'm taking it if someone signs your broker contract now they can go around it. And if owner operators sign a no compete back to a company now they can get their own authority and go after your customers.?

 

I can understand to a point, having a non-compete for executive positions. Never understood the logic of an employee agreeing to work for a company that have non-compete against employees.

 

Are you sure back solicitation and non-compete are the same thing legally? TQL is notorious for making their employees sign a non-compete and they will pursue legal action if an employee quits and violates it. If that's what this FTC ban ends it's a good thing.

 

It would be even better if the ban ended TQL, but I digress...

 

Not sure this is helps us as owner operators. I think it really is applying to Employee's and not so much contracts from brokers. You may have a better chance at going after direct clients if leased to a carrier to me. I would need to see more than what was posted as it says nothing between Company's that I read. Also I am tired so maybe missed something on it as well. Ha Ha

 

This is meaningless for owner operators, it is for employees of companies where they are abused.

What this means is when a company, say ABC Widgets hires someone who has a common skill, like book keeping, the company tells them they have to sign a 'non-compete' contract with them in order to be employed.

So little miss bookkeeper signs the contract, then goes to work. She works hard but is privy to all the sales info and so on. However one day she is offered a better job at XYZ Widgets inc as a book keeper with a huge bump up in pay, she puts her two week notice in at ABC Widgets and they tell her that if she goes to work for;

1 - someone else doing book keeping, she will be sued.

OR

2 - XYZ Widgets, she will be sued.

These are the two most common threats.

The former is used for things like medical billers who want to advance by moving to another company, my wife was threaten with this crap when she went to work for the VA, the owner of her previous company actually had their lawyers call her saying she was going to be sued because she was taking another job in the medical field. It got nasty until my lawyer contacted the owner directly and told her that by the end of the month, she will be buried in legal fees and court costs so she better drop the crap.

The latter is used in sales a lot, the old adage that the most important thing anyone in sales takes when they leaves is the Rolodex. Contacts are very important in sales and in this industry. This can be a legitimate use for a non-compete clause.

So with trucking, a broker/owner relationship IS NOT COVERED under this ruling. It does not preceed a contractional obligation not to take a customer from a broker if there is such a clause in the contract (which I have not seen it used much).

With a carrier's lease agreement, you are already considered a business entity, you are providing the driver and truck and in doing so as a contractor (lease holder), you can terminate the contract and find your own work without the carrier. The FTC decision (which I think needs to have Congressional approval) seems to address employee issues not contractor/lease holder issues and doesn't seem to want to go there either. The loss of the lease with a carrier does not stifle revenue creation because of the level of competition and the amount of work avalible.