comment: >
  
  This is a thing - it’s called “gardening leave”, where executives or people with corporate secrets are still employed, but all their access to the company is revoked. However, companies only use it when absolutely needed as it is expensive
context: The only non-compete that should exist is a five year ban on allowing a politician to go work for a lobbying firm. >
  
  Make it 10. >
  
  Permanent >
  
  Ban their children too >
  
  "These aren't just high-paid executives or scientists who hold secret formulas for Coca-Cola so Pepsi can't get their hands on it," Biden said in a speech about competition in 2021. "A recent study found one in five workers without a college education is subject to non-compete agreements. They're construction workers, hotel workers, disproportionately women and women of color." >
  
  HR guy here.  One dimension of this is that lots of companies broadly require non-competes as an idle threat.  
  They don't expect to ever have to enforce most of them.  And in many states they're simply unenforceable for all but those high-paid execs and scientists.  
  Speaking from just my professional experience, they're simply corporate kayfabe.  Companies pretend to make a threat, employees pretend to agree.  I'd love to see them go away. >
  
  Uh, scientists aren’t paid THAT well.  My non-compete isn’t valid in Oregon because they don’t pay me enough. >
  
  "The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan in a statement. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand." >
  
  Employer sponsored health insurance is inherently also anti-freedom and fascist.  
  No one is really free to chose their line of work if their well being is physically tied to the will of a corporation 
  There can be no “pulling of the bootstraps” until we are truly free from employer contributions and deductibles thst reset when we change jobs. >
  
  
  No one is really free to chose their line of work if they’re well being is physically tied to the will of a corporation
  
  ... and the well-being of their children. >
  
  Having a special needs child…it is fucked how much health insurance weighs into my job mobility. >
  
  Lina Khan is low key one of the best picks Biden has made to head a government agency or commission.  She’s incredibly smart and on the right side of most issues when it comes to monopolies and unfair business practices.  
  This is a great change.  However, we all know our corporately captured judiciary, especially SCOTUS, will be itching to earn their keep and invalidate this rule
  
  The FTC will likely face legal challenges, including on whether it even has the power to regulate noncompete agreements. The agency says the proposed rule is based on a preliminary finding that noncompetes constitute an unfair method of competition and therefore are a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. >
  
  we should be able to compete wherever we want.  If a business can't compete, why do we need that business? >
  
  I am an at Will employee, so why should my employer be able to restrict me after either of us has exercised “at will”.  Currently they can treat me like shit and underpay me, I can’t get another job in my chosen field for minimally one year.  Does this sound like indentured servitude?  If you quit, your family starves, so shut the fuck up!   I hope Biden and the Democrats are successful.  Now the rich control the House of Representatives, it might be difficult. >
  
  I am surprised more states have never restricted them. 
  I can understand some circumstances, like if you are still under contract being paid, but under most circumstances it seem like a no brainer and a easy compromise to make >
  
  I work in banking, and noncompete agreements are pretty standard in the industry, especially in sales related roles.  You can bet states with a heavy banking industry presence feel pressure not to outlaw these agreements, and that would obviously include even some more progressive states like NY, MA, and DE >
  
  Mass bans many noncompete clauses but banking is not one of them. >
  
  MA bans all noncompete agreements that don't have a garden leave clause in effect for the entire noncompete period, equal to half your highest pay for the past three years. >
  
  Didn't work for me anyway. My employer sued me in a different state and then moved it to federal court.  I had no chance, even though I was working in MA. >
  
  Here's my issue. All these companies want to pay starvation wages and then not allow overtime, but then also demand you not have a second job in the same field. If they don't allow overtime, my "specialty" is related specifically to that field, and I can't go work for a "competitor" on the side, how the hell am I supposed to make enough money? Noncompete needs to die. >
  
  Or …  require non-competes to pay salary during term … that seems reasonable
  Company gets value of not losing critical - time value with information that ex employee has as a privilege of their previous employment
  Ex employee has income to rely on while building new non-competitive book of business or move rolls based on skill not on privileged info