AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like free market.

---

This is said a lot, but free market doesn't mean anarchy. It doesnt mean no rules or regulations apply.

In fact, it means a market, where the government doesnt intervene. In this case, the market has allowed for non-competes to exist, and the Government is intervening...

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

If your entire business depends on a few key employees hanging around and keeping all of your customers from leaving, then you should give them some path to partner or equity holder in the business.

---

And another great point. Noncompetes operate out of a position of fear. When people are properly incentivized and given upward mobility, they tend to stick around. When they are undervalued or underpaid, they tend to leave.

I get that certain industries can have high onboarding costs and the company should have methods in which to protect themselves. The ruling outlines several of these, such as NDAs, non-solicitation, TRAPs, etc. But the idea of "you need to keep working for me or face financial ruin….. and oh by the way I can fire you any time and the same rule is in effect" is stupid and it needs to go.

---

Then Congress needs to pass legislation saying that. The FTC has no power nor authority to do so. Which is why I originally started this thread.

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

You think it's dumb that companies shouldn't be able to lay you off and also tell you who you can and cant trade your labor with for 6-12 months after you are gone?

---