The Federal Trade Commission narrowly voted Tuesday to ban nearly all noncompetes, employment agreements that typically prevent workers from joining competing businesses or launching ones of their own.

  • @Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    4•2 months ago

    IMO that should be legal, but only if they pay you your full wages for that period of time after you quit or are fired.

    Let’s see how eager they are to really protect those precious company secrets.

    • @ours@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3•2 months ago

      And by full wage, it’s either the wage you had or the one you could get at the competitor. Otherwise, it’s too easy to lock people in at non-competitive salaries.

    • @uis@lemm.ee
      1•2 months ago

      Why not both? Full wages as damages + EU-style fine of maximum between some amount and some % of global turnover. Or fixed amount + % of global turnover.

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        1•2 months ago

        Full wages only makes the victim whole and only in financial terms. Like any other controls on the market, the financial penalty needs to exceed any benefit the corp might get out of it, then let the free market do its thing

    • @AA5B@lemmy.world
      1•2 months ago

      No, that’s not enough to make it legal. I wouldn’t want to be out of work that long and potential employers would wonder how rusty I was

      Yes, compensation needs to be a minimum requirement: isn’t that basic contract law? However contract law also requires that you be in a starting position to bargain or refuse and employees really aren’t: the imbalance of power is too great.

      More importantly, things that block the functions of a free market like this really need to be weighed for societal good, fairness, and market efficiency. This fails all three. It also needs to be narrowly defined, because leaving it to legal action is the definition of failing market efficiency