Interesting how you call it “stealing” to hire someone who worked at a competitor. They aren’t property, companies don’t own people.

If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay.

Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing, reducing the large power difference.

>> They aren’t property, companies don’t own people.

Ideas aren't property and they are stolen. You can steal a glance as well, but you know that has nothing to do with property either.

I also could have used the colloquialism poaching, but then I would be hearing about how people aren't big game and hunting is bad.

> Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing

We already know it doesn't have to: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/185051/judge-appr...

That fine was probably minor compared to the wage suppression.

> If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay.

Poaching all the staff away from a company is illegal in CA, it's called raiding. This change will not create laws out of thin air.

> We already know it doesn't have to: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/185051/judge-appr...

You argument is that this case demonstrates there isn't any problem and that companies don't have actually have a significant power advantage? Not very convincing.

> Poaching all the staff away from a company is illegal in CA, it's called raiding. This change will not create laws out of thin air.

This is only true in the specific narrow situation where there is intent to harm the company. There is nothing wrong with the general case where you simply want to hire those workers.

I believe it will die more because of the originalist/textualism of the supreme court rather than considerations to which big businesses benefit (or are harmed by) this the most.

The question will ultimately arise "by what authority can the FTC make such a sweeping judgement" and it would not surprise me to hear the SC rule that this is an overstep of the authority they were given by the laws creating and maintaining the FTC.

Previously, the FTC could have argued that the chevron doctrine gives them this right. However, that is almost certainly about to be completely abolished this term.

The right of contract is almost certainly going to be more important to most members of the supreme court than any other considerations. That's my 2 cents.

"Unfair" is an awfully vague term. This rule might be a test of the recent "major questions" doctrine. The SCOTUS appears poised to reverse the Chevron doctrine, which would have given the FTC a great deal of cover here. There are a lot of reasons that the Court might reject this rule or even the FTC's authority in general.

Given that these rules are very similar to those in California, and California has a big enough economy to be a good representative sample, I don't see this being a real issue.

Otherwise, why aren't well capitalized competitors in California hiring up the best people at their competitors and crippling competition, as it were? We just don't see this happen on a large scale like this suggestions.

Now, that's my take on it at charitably. My honest opinion about it is simply: who cares. If you want people to stay, give them reasons to stay that aren't the legal equivalent of holding a gun to their head

>> Given that these rules are very similar to those in California...

CA has a corresponding law that prevents this. The last time I looked the FTC wasnt creating at NEW law to prevent the other side of this coin:

Rule 3: Workforce “Raids” Are Illegal in California

Technically, poaching employees is not illegal in California, but restrictions on workplace raids are mentioned in the legislation. In fact, state law prohibits companies from acting in bad faith to solicit a mass amount of employees from their competitors to intentionally hurt their business. This is called “raiding,” and when your competitor does it, you can file a tortious interference claim against them. Most of these cases require an employment contract to be successful in pursuit of damages.

FROM: https://www.flclaw.net/is-poaching-employees-illegal-califor...

I did say similar, not exactly. There may or may not be some effective law preventing this type of thing specifically, but in my mind, this is an edge case[0] and doesn't detract from my overall point, which is that eliminating non competes will overwhelming not end up with this being a plausible scenario.

[0]: that the California government anticipated and defined, to their credit

It also favors workers. By increasing salaries. And forcing companies to compete for them.

Labor is a market. It is too often ignored in favor of private equity concerns.

I'd love for my company's competitor to buy me up. Shit let them all go to war for the privilege of employing my ass.

I doubt you are that valuable. Sure software developers are high priced, but without even knowing what company you work for I bet I can do your job at a competitor and after 3 years I'd be just as good - that is worst case when I have to learn a new programming language to expert level as well as the domain. There are only a few people who have special skills that it is even worth thinking about protected. Someone who hires you away from a competitor gains at most a couple months vs hiring someone with similar skill who doesn't work for a competitor (and thus doesn't have domain knowledge).

Then the person I responded to has nothing to worry about.

> This favors those with the most capital not the least.

So does the US Supreme Court lol

More seriously I think the issue is going to be whether it's executive overreach, not whether it's good or bad for a competitive marketplace.

> Without anti compete stealing your competitors staff becomes a valid business strategy.

And how would that not be an "unfair business practice"? Vague legal terms are problematic.

So employers end up competing with higher wages putting more money in the hands of employees, and talent goes to where it produces the most value, yeah that’s the point.