Thoughts?
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246655366/ftc-bans-noncompete-agreements-lina-khan
Discussion
Actually a good idea since ex-employers arent paying someone to not compete.
🤷♂️
No government has the right to interfere with a human's right if association.
That being said, if you're an employee and you sign a dumb contract like that, shame on you.
What does one do if all of the companies in a given field requireme employees to sign a non-compete agreement?
The result of such a situation would be those companies divvying up the labor pool, then locking employees in, which disrupts free competition on the job market.
That would open up the market to more competition, if it's an open market.
If.
This idea that people may come up with any contract, and it is the State's duty to uphold it, is baffling. So the state must use violence to enforce any agreement that might be written down between two people? Of course it is the State's prerogative to decide what it is willing to enforce and what it won't. I wouldn't enforce non-compete agreements either, simply because I think the world will become more interesting if such agreements become moot.
What recourse would a person have if one party fails to uphold a written contract? Upholding binding contracts is a basic function of a civil government, as it is a matter of justice.
That said, I think forbidding non-compete agreements is a net good, because it removes coercive tools employers can use to disrupt open and fair competition in the job market.
That word "binding", what does it mean?
When I call a contract "binding," I mean that the parties involved have obligated themselves to fulfill the agreed terms of a contract.
Once such a contract is made, failure by one party to fulfill it would be an offense against justice. When an one party fails to act justly, the wronged party must be able to take recourse to some legitimate authority to ensure the demands of justice are met. Oftentimes, that would be a judge of a civil court.
Who is going to run a service that figures out and enforces any contract without limit? That would be like having a blockchain without any block size limit.
No one needs to run such a service all the time. All that is needed is an authority to which the wronged party can take recourse when another party has broken a contract.
That's why courts of law were invented.
"to ban nearly all" is the disturbing part. "nearly" should be cancelled.
They think that at least the managing level of big enterprises is capable of negotiating their contracts as they see fit.
Not like the stupid plebs that are forced to sign a contract.
Somehow Schroedingers people can vote and go to the army but at the same time are not responsible enough to sign a contract on their own without a nanny state protecting them.
Another step to fight free contracts that where negotiated without coercion.
First a nanny state, then daddy state, then socialism.
"Negotiated without coercion" is not necessarily true. If all of the employers in my field of expertise require employees to sign non-compete agreements, I am effectively coerced into entering into such an agreement, simply due to a lack of other alternatives.
Nobody ist coercing you.
The same like nobody is coercing you to sign a NDA for example.
YOU sign voluntarily, because you KNOW, that it is the best way for you to make money. Of you could make better money at another place or of your own, you wouldn't sign.
I mean, what's next? Are they coercing you to work, because food and housing isn't free?
If you don't live in socialist countries, nobody is forcing you. Just do your thing, of someone OFFERS a job for you, you don't have to take it.