comment: >
  
  I’d be ok with a non-compete clause if it was part of an actual employment contract where the worker received something on their side. In an “at will” employment situation they shouldn’t exist.
context: Noncompetes are already illegal/unenforceable in a few states and have exemptions for specified professions in many other states. They serve no purpose other than to exploit labor.
  It's about time these are eliminated on a federal level. >
  
  The only place it’s appropriate is when someone is working on developing a proprietary product. Trying to prevent someone, who has no access to actual proprietary knowledge (not just operational work flow) from working in the same field is laughable >
  
  It is, but that doesn’t stop companies from doing it all the time, even when they know it’s likely unenforceable. They are assuming that the fear of enforcement by the employer will make it de facto binding.
  EDIT: Employer, not employee >
  
  Oh, you’re absolutely right. That’s why this legislation is good. >
  
  As someone stuck in non compete hell. This would be life changing. For the love of god let this happen >
  
  I like the general idea as I think there are too many restrictions on American workers and the free flow of labor. 
  Curtailing state licensing rules would also be something I'd like to see tackled by regulators. >
  
  There has been a long running fix to noncompetes proposed based off the old British officer system.  That being if your between wars but want to keep an officer around you can call back up, you "beach" him and put him on half pay so he can be called back at a moment notice but is still under the rules as they are still on the payroll.
  So let's set noncompetitive agreements to the same clause.  If I'm not allowed to work in X field for Y years you have to pay me 50% of my salary for the same time period.
  I imagine 95% of noncompet agreements would vanish overnight. >
  
  If the control your employment, then they owe you 100% of your salary. >
  
  Can we ban forced arbitration clauses while we're at it? >
  
  The FTC is moving on this and other stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if that at least gets curtailed. >
  
  If your economic model depends on exploiting labor, it needs to be overhauled. >
  
  But but...  this is Murica!! >
  
  For anybody worried about industrial espionage (hiring a competitor's workers so you can find out what cool shit they do behind the scenes), NDAs can still cover that, so that Apple employee can go work for Microsoft and use their skills, but can't reveal Apple's secrets to Microsoft.