Maybe this will happen. If approved, 120 days after approval it obliterates most non-compete agreements.
11 replies (most recent on top)
Post ID: @lha+1scW2Md3 There are millions of Employees who are Not in a Policy-making role who make $150,000 + in salary. The FTC langage is vague. It only states $150,000 and key roles. Citi and other Employers will exploit this loophole and vagueness to force employees making $150,000+ regardless of whether or not they're in a "key role" to sign a Non-compete. Citi and other Employers can claim that anyone making $150,000+ is in a key role. Unfortunately, the FTC does Not define what are key roles.
Just my estimate: Citi had about 260,000 employees in 2022. From what I witnessed because I know some of the people who got Laidoff, Citi started laying off in 1Q2023. Throughout 2023 Citi Laidoff about 8,000 employees worldwide. In 2024, Citi is looking to Fire 10,000, and in 2025 another 15,000. The sale of Banamex will get rid of about 40,000 employees. This leaves about 187,000 employees. With hiring for newly posted roles, Citi may end up with about 200,000 employees in 2026. In conclusion, Citi wants to get rid of approximately 25% of its current (current as of 2023) workforce to end at about 200,000 employees. Meanwhile, its envied rival JPMorgan Chase has 310,000 employees, is profitable and successful, and is looking to hire more employees, Unlike failing, dysfunctional sinking CitiTitanic. So sad and pathetic. LOL!
All the more reason to Get Off the Train or Out of the Sinking CitiTitanic ! LOL!
Utah's Employers are or were some of the worst abusers of the Non-compete Agreements basically owning their Employees' A$$ES with a Ball and Chain and making their Employees indentured servants for life !!! There are several other US States that are also extreme abusers and offenders. Anyone with half a Brain can see that the wealthy and successful US States are where Non-competes are unenforceable, weak or non-existent (California, NY, NJ, CT, etc.).
LOL. The “Get off of the train” message delivered with a smirk, knowing that 1/3 of your options are possible due with a noncompete. Now, not so much. Maybe we can take Jane’s advice and “get off of the train”.
Policy maker - -Existing noncompetes for senior executives - who represent less than 0.75% of workers - can remain in force under the FTC’s final rule.
This is not most people .
if the person is in a policy making role and compensation is one $150K non-competes would still be viable. heard this morning during a discussion on one of the morning shows.
No, it applies to existing noncompete.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes
Under the FTC’s new rule, existing noncompetes for the vast majority of workers will no longer be enforceable after the rule’s effective date. Existing noncompetes for senior executives - who represent less than 0.75% of workers - can remain in force under the FTC’s final rule, but employers are banned from entering into or attempting to enforce any new noncompetes, even if they involve senior executives. Employers will be required to provide notice to workers other than senior executives who are bound by an existing noncompete that they will not be enforcing any noncompetes against them.
Depending on the depth of what is covered in the rule, will make a difference for those of us who were recently let go.
This ban is only for New Non-Competes, Not existing ones. But at least it's something and a start.
I too saw this on the news this morning. While I’m sure Citi management will try to minimize the impact on their strategies, the truth of the matter is, is that Citi heavily leans upon noncompete to retain talent.