Banning noncompetes discourages companies from training workers, since they can leave immediately after their training is over. It also impinges on worker freedom. Currently I can apply for jobs with and without noncompetes, and if the job with the noncompete pays substantially more or is more attractive in some other way, I can take it. The FTC rule would deprive me of that choice.
I have been hired to write software to implement investment strategies. My noncompete prevents me from leaving and immediately taking a job at company that invests in the same markets. That is a reasonable way for the company to protect its intellectual property.
Using investment strategies developed at Company A to make money for Company B would likely be a violation of your NDA. Even if you didn't use anything you learned at Company B, you might still expect a trade secrets lawsuit if they really suspect you did (printing out docs, storing docs off network, etc.) There already is plenty that companies can do to protect trade secrets from leaving with employees that don't require you to find a new career field. Like maybe Company A can better separate the work so that every software engineer doesn't need to have access to the secret sauce or simply making the job more attractive so that the ones with the secret sauce don't feel the need to leave at all. Why would a company bother to work hard to retain you if they know that leaving would involve taking a pay cut, relocating, or having to restart your career elsewhere? Employers may offer more initially when hiring non-compete workers but there's little incentive to grow their wages. As for training costs, many companies already require extra years of service for educational assistance. Simply make the employee pay back any training costs if they voluntarily leave for a new job within 6 months after initial training is concluded.
> My noncompete prevents me from leaving and immediately taking a job at company that invests in the same markets. That is a reasonable way for the company to protect its intellectual property.
Eliminating non-compete doesn't mean you can steal intellectual property; it just means that they can't prevent you from working at a competitor. The IP is still protected under existing laws.
I see the point, but wouldn't this new rule also force employers to pay more to prevent workers from leaving in the first place? Employees won't leave if they are well compensated.
You can have training repayment and non-disclosure clauses in contracts, leaving cost recovery and legal remedies for employers.
Takee your investment industry example - a non-compete could prevent you from taking a lucrative position in a competitor of your current employer, doing completely unrelated work like writing software for their settlement system. I would rather have the freedom to choose where I work.
I have been hired to write software to implement investment strategies. My noncompete prevents me from leaving and immediately taking a job at company that invests in the same markets. That is a reasonable way for the company to protect its intellectual property.