Without anti compete stealing your competitors staff becomes a valid business strategy. Buy up the competitions best people and cripple them.
This favors those with the most capital not the least.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
[0]: that the California government anticipated and defined, to their credit
Labor is a market. It is too often ignored in favor of private equity concerns.
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.
And how would that not be an "unfair business practice"? Vague legal terms are problematic.
