>With respect to existing non-competes, i.e., non-competes entered into before the final rule’s effective date, the Commission adopts a different approach for senior executives than for other workers. Existing non-competes with senior executives can remain in force; the final rule does not cover such agreements.

>The final rule allows existing non-competes with senior executives to remain in force because this subset of workers is less likely to be subject to the kind of acute, ongoing harms currently being suffered by other workers subject to existing non-competes and because commenters raised credible concerns about the practical impacts of extinguishing existing non-competes for senior executives. For workers who are not senior executives, existing non-competes are no longer enforceable after the final rule’s effective date Employers must provide such workers with existing non-competes notice that they are no longer enforceable.

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

Yes this is what top hedge funds do.

Non-competes are enforceable while working for the company (obviously lol), so they just ... keep you working for the company, paying you salary+bonus! (E.g. 1 year+ for Citadel, 3 years for RenTech... old info though...)

It's called "gardening leave".

They were banned in Ontario in 2021, with only a couple exceptions for executive roles or after acquisitions.

https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standa...

570 pages of rule making, which addresses garden leave agreements...

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

>With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission notes that an agreement whereby the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis would not be a non-compete clause under the definition,350 because such an agreement is not a post-employment restriction. Instead, the worker continues to be employed, even though the worker’s job duties or access to colleagues or the workplace may be significantly or entirely curtailed. Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation. Similarly, a severance agreement that imposes no restrictions on where the worker may work following the employment associated with the severance agreement is not a non-compete clause under § 910.1, because it does not impose a post-employment restriction.

I think you meant to link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40136010 (which was already linked on this page yesterday).

It’s not the FTC you have to worry about. It’s Congress - if business interests can bribe enough Congresscritters, then that rule is effectively dead.