Apparently the case that <i>really</i> ticked off the FTC was a security company threatening to try to hit security guards for $100K if they left for a competitor.<p><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3-companies-that-prevented-employees-from-leaving-for-competitors/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=196144602#app" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...</a><p>Not highly compensated employees. People who were likely making less than $20/hour <i>(possibly under $15/hour)</i>, being threatened to be smacked for $100,000 which would be absolutely life ruining for such workers.
Noncompetes should be illegal but it's a bit absurd to claim the FTC suddenly discovered they have the authority to unilaterally and retroactively modify contractual terms for tens of millions of contractors and workers - especially deciding whether it is "unfair competition" depends on whether the particular labor market segment votes reliably Democrat or not.<p>Under this reading of their authority they equally have the power to <i>impose</i> noncompetes on workers - it's all readable as "unfair competition", right?<p>Given the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on the major questions doctrine I'm skeptical this holds up in court.
A easier way to limit non competes to a minimum would be to require companies to pay a full salary to workers while the noncompete is in effect. No matter if they quit or are fired.
Good. A company shouldn't have the right to tell me I can or cannot work elsewhere based on their own arbitrary definition of competition that I'm forced to agree to in order to possess a livelihood.
Big discussions from a few days ago:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34260577" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34260577</a>