This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

This new rule, new Title IX and new OT payroll rules by Raoul

all have been modified and expanded in a way that most don't appreciate.

I am sympathetic to the arguments against most non-competes. I am concerned this is overly broad.

I hope all three get struck down and Congress has to vote them in. I suspect the OT changes will mostly hold. Title IX? Maybe not. And this too could be viewed as an overreach.

Pretty activist regulatory regime which is always my biggest issue with academic Dems.

P.S. FTC has lost in court on some M&A. But not deterred.

P.P.S. There have to be some non-competes that can be allowed on a go-forward basis if paired with negotiated compensation as an offset. Perhaps that carve is buried in the new rules.