This should have happened years ago...

The FTC did a very important thing. Noncompetes are finally illegal. And y'all are about to get angry at me about politics.
SOURCE
www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/...
Check out my Twitch, Twitter, Discord more at t3.gg
S/O Ph4se0n3 for the awesome edit 🙏

[@cassiothird]

Here in Brazil, if you add a non compete clause to an employee's contract, you also have to add a compensation value for the time defined (usually the salary x time).

[@xelaxander]

Same here in Germany. That's how people get 6mo gardening leaves

[@Nodsaibot]

they do, its called golden parachute

[@Kabodanki]

In france you have non compete rules by default. The company can decide to enforce it or not, if they do, they have to pay you for it, and nobody does it

[@robiaster]

Brazil mentioned

[@MrDragos360]

@@xelaxander that sounds great :))

[@LaughingOrange]

"Land of the free", where until recently you couldn't work for the competitor of your current employer for multiple years after quitting.

[@bill_and_amanda]

Is the biggest lie we tell ourselves here

[@senbonzakura662]

But not for thee

[@SoHawful]

Theo you're only looking at this from a tech perspective (duh) non competes aren't only in the tech world, I know a masseuse who signed a non compete to work in a spa in Ohio and she's literally starting to kick her own business off now hoping that these rules will protect her. I think 8500 is a conservative estimate of the number of companies created.

[@ukaszkos8233]

It don't surprise me at all that R tend to maintain laws that only benefit employers and the system's silent beneficiaries. I saw similar things couple of times in Poland. Far-R always talks about taxes and that they try to help ordinary people. But in practice those who always benefit something from their decisions are big companies and those who have money to exploit loopholes in the system to make even more money at the expense of ordinary people.

[@stevenismart]

I think the 8500 new business per year number is right since it's not only talking about tech. I know a few people who pretty much run a blue collar business and the boomer aged boss is keeping them from creating their own business in the area and the start up cost isn't much. It's more about territorial claim and expecting that the worker won't be willing to move his family and start over somewhere else in order to start a business.

[@johansmith2840]

It was in my contract, not allowed to work with similar company that was within a radius of 50km. I said no, he asked why. I replied then I can't use what I have learned from other companies because they were inside your radius. If I can 't use what I learn/see here then I can't use what it learned/seen by other companies. I work as cnc miller where every companies manufacture similar products.

[@ivantorresedge]

This is great!!! This is a much needed change in the right direction, where competition is the rule!!!

[@wienans2927]

In Germany such rules need to be time restricted. For example 3 month after leaving (max 2 years, which normally is only used in extremely high management classes). And then you are free to choose. While this time you at least get 50% (minimum by law) of your old salary without even working for the company anymore. If you get a job in a non competing company you may not get the full compensation anymore depending on the new salary but you will always get some compensation. In Germany the standard engineer doesn’t have such clauses anyway. I signed one for 3 months after joining a startup, where already many others said you shouldn’t that isn’t the standard.

[@BeheadedKamikaze]

I think they are always time-restricted; the problem is that most of the time it's 12 months and that makes it incredibly difficult to find work in your area of expertise.

[@wienans2927]

Banning such rules is always better. In Germany, company’s normally don’t use this on engineering level it’s more highest management.

[@BeheadedKamikaze]

@@wienans2927 Oh I agree. But it's also extremely common here in Australia to use on the general workforce (especially in software companies). I wish they would ban this stupid clause here too.

[@wienans2927]

@@BeheadedKamikaze problem is if it gets common. I think in Germany that never took of because in the last couple of decades engineers where very loyal to companies working over 10 years for them anyway. Which is now shifting. And if you can simply reject the offer because other companies don’t have such a clause (as it is not so common) pressures the companies who want to enable such a clause to convince people to sign 😅

[@BeheadedKamikaze]

@@wienans2927 That last point of yours is a good one - I'll try to remember that next time I apply for a job, and make sure to let them know why I'm turning it down if that's the case. Thank you! Edit: er, that is, assuming I'm not prevented from applying for that job in the first place 😅

[@lkjhoiuy97yjhgghfyrthgvjhguty]

This is great news! Now employers have to compete for labor in a fair way

[@Wasabi37a]

I dont fully agree with your take about startups. You are right when you consider founders, but I expect having better access to more qualified people will have a positive impact.

[@tomaAlex2001]

Although a positive impact may be felt, I am also higly skeptical about actually new businesses being created which would have not existed prior this ruling. The only real actual benefit is indeed regarding the employees. Starting a company from scratch is bananas level of stress and effort, so this tiny light improvement is not going to spawn any legitimate business imo.

[@SimonDickerman]

The single governing principle of any political party should be "deliver meaningful improvements to our constituents lives'". Forget ideology or "the constitution" or any of that: use whatever power you have to deliver wins. This ruling is an obvious win to small companies, many of whose founders vote R.

[@MartynPS]

I think you are being a bit blinkered to the software industry - non competes go much further. They can be used to stop a mechanic opening a garage in the same city, even as a side hustle. Not every business needs VC founding...

[@srikaka]

The FTC follows the same definitions as the SEC when it comes to defining 'senior executives' but with even more restrictions so that the exception can't be exploited.

[@davidwhatever9041]

NDA's are very hard to do in europe, The only successful long term non-compete i ever came across was a pharma chemist.... he was paid more than anyone at the site, he could retire anytime he wanted on a 100% salary pension, whilst on the pension he could work for any non-pharmical business without any deductions on his pension. If he did work for a pharma, or disclose anything about his work... he would loose the lot. His employer was bought by glaxo, he wasn't happy and decamped to be very very happy head of a chemistry department at a London university collage. For me this is an acceptable NDA arrangement, and good value for money for the business; if those secrets are genuinely valuable. One of the problems with the US, is all those freedoms and rights you have are seen as property you can give up/sell with a contract...

[@shapelessed]

An NDA is a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, not a non-compete, If you sign one, you can still "compete". What you sign off is the right to "disclose" what happened at your work, hence it's called a non-DISCLOSURE.

[@davidwhatever9041]

@@shapelessed you are right. i do tend to mix them as they are both the same ‘crimes’ a restriction on trade. and that us what is banned in europe, you cannot unfairly restrict your employees freedon to conduct trade. the worst example was a prominent American company i was visiting with some colleagues. to everyone annoyance i refused to electronically sign the companies ‘nda’ without reading it. it was 30 pages long, read it and we were agreeing the we and our employer would not work a competitor of the business in perpetuity. promising not to sue them if if were injured by their negligence… and some wording that could gave been used to prevent us working for any other it company ir client of our employer… this was just to get past reception. i faxed it to our lawyers and we were told not to sign it and return to the office. ultimate compromise was they came to us first meetings. American businesses do seem to be unique.

[@hughmungusbungusfungus4618]

I've gotten offers from companies that required a non-compete agreement. I always turned them down. Always.

[@thomassynths]

Noncompetes have some niche places. Selling your business is a good example where a noncompete can make sense. That said they are bs for most employment roles

[@DanWolf-codeNerd]

Edit: I think I overrated to your comment and you mostly agree with me. Original: A company has a lot of money and might have in-house legal counsel. I don't make a ton of money and am not an attorney. A non-compete being unenforceable doesn't mean I'm going to feel comfortable interviewing with other companies that I think are very similar. Saying that I should just move to California is quite condescending. It's not an option to just change my whole life to change jobs. You're taking the side of companies because it's hard to start a company without thinking about how it's harder to be an individual and if your company needs to lock down someone from doing the same type of work in the future to have any hope of success, then that probably means the company idea isn't very innovative. As you mentioned, an NDA is still enforceable. If you have a startup, I'm never going to work for you if I think it's going to limit my future potential. Meanwhile, if you really think a small startup that's also fledgling is going to be able to sue someone that just took a Microsoft job, then that's also ridiculous. When you're talking about power dynamics, the employee is the person with less power, regardless of how small the company is. This is true even without a non-compete.

[@jonno081]

In South Africa companies sometimes have non-compete rules but they're rarely enforceable. What they really do is scare employees into thinking its a real thing, I mean, who wants to go to court... But if you went to court the court would usually take the stand that a company cannot prohibit a person from earning a living. The only time a non-compete might win in court if it was very reasonable, eg, if it was for 3 months... If it was for 3 years, no way it would stand

[@ZerqTM]

also this reminds me of the d-list super villain series... which also start out as combined patent dispute with a rather nasty non-compete action taken to intimidate and discourage other engineers from leaving the company driving said engineer to take up a career in super villainy... (he was working for some ironman-ish type super hero that was frankly a bit of a arrogant asshole) good series... also a good case study of why non-compete is a tool of absolute dush-nozzels. Good book series btw i can warmly recommend it!

[@EgonFreeman]

"Why do they all talk like this; why is this this long, why is there this much citation": a) because they want to sound profound and important (and most laws do as well, so they're good), b) because this is something that will affect more people than _the entire population of Poland_ (something like _38 million people_ all in all - about 18% od the about 200 mln working people in the US); c) because there's about 250 years of lawmaking preceding this, and the US uses a common law (precedent) system.

[@tyrabjurman3584]

In Sweden, Non-Compete has been ilegal for decades. The argument is that you can not prohibit someone from making a living.

[@luisliz]

You mention a lot the engineer perspective which is one that I had too when reading this (because it's relevant duh). But the thing is that there was non competes for blue collar workers for things like salons and even some fast foods where you couldn't go to another in the area. So the growth might be measured from that perspective not the one where huge start ups are created that generate billions in the economy. I also think that's why the number is $524 and not like a few $1000 for an engineer.

[@bill_and_amanda]

To be fair, the FTC release didn't say anything about whether or not the new businesses would be successful, they just estimated that more new businesses would be created. It is also probably the case that they have to talk in very positive (in the sense of certain) ways about what they expect the effects to be because ultimately they do have to justify the reason for the rule creation in the first place. The rule has to be a net benefit in order to be legal. Also, one of the biggest non-tech/s software areas this is going to affect is the medical field. Doctors and especially nurses and other specialists who work for hospital chains and other large medical systems are often subjected to extremely stringent and stringently enforced non-competes. You may remember the case of the hospital up in the Midwest during the pandemic that sued I believe several of its nurses during the pandemic and it became a big thing.

[@paxdriver]

7:58 to correct you, they didn't promise successful businesses, they claimed "business formation". More businesses forming is still good, that's education for the failed business, which leads to better workers when they go back to working for someone else, or a more successful second try at something else down the road. It's very good to encourage young people to invest in themselves and try starting their own businesses.

[@MrDragos360]

For contractors too or just employees ? Also as contractors, you can hide where you work now. Your past client can't find where you work without asking you. Anyway, as contractors is very hard to prove for who they work.

[@Cahnisama]

What happens if the competition starts poaching your devs? Whichever company has deeper pockets wins, this will give another tool for monopolies to dominate a market.

[@anon_y_mousse]

It's somewhat ironic that California would not allow non-competes when both the state and non-competes are essentially anti-capitalism. I agree with you regarding a free market, and non-competes are definitely bad. I also agree that the creation of more patents is bad, as they also denote a micro-monopoly on an invention which used to be required to be novel and non-obvious. All I have to say about modern patents is that the USPTO has horrifically dropped the ball these past 40 years and allowed many things to be patented which should not have been. I don't understand these RINO's that want to prevent competition. It should be a requirement that you are a proponent of free markets if you want to call yourself a Republican.

[@bioburden]

"They could move to California..." 😂

[@Fanaro]

Here in Brazil we don't have a culture of NCAs, thankfully.

[@muhamadrafipamungkas4465]

Non-compete is just dumb

[@Nethezbet]

This will get overturned, more than likely. It is not within the scope of the FTC to make laws.

[@penguindrummaster]

Really dumb thought, but the way you said "theoretically" made me think you should host a one-off podcast with Rhett from Rhett & Link to do a show called "Theo-Rhett-ically" I'll go now, lol

[@LaughingRam]

"Move to California" - Hahahahaha

[@cornheadahh]

I always just ignored non competes anyways

[@kobibr9362]

I think here in Belgium you can add one if you pay the guys more than 42k euros which always in tech

[@light1867]

The Hot Take that theo just gave at 04:32 🔥

[@privacyvalued4134]

8,500 companies is probably a very low number. "Hard to make a company. Hard to make a business." No its not. Thousands of businesses are started up every day across the U.S. How else do you have a failure rate of 90% of all new businesses? 10% of all businesses fail in the first year and I'd wager that number is only the ones that even manage to get started in the first place. If you mean by "hard" as in getting something viable long-term going, well that's always been a given. It takes hard work, determination, sweat, tears, and a little bit of "right place, right time" luck.

[@ThugLifeModafocah]

man, this is great indeed...

[@allie-ontheweb]

5:57 onwards is an absolutely appalling example lol. I get where he's coming from, but have you seen half of the popular streamers/KZbinrs? Money spent is barely correlated to popularity. The tech sphere is an exception, not the pattern

[@haraldbackfisch1981]

Everything that doesnt just affect you is inherently political. Thank u for pointing out FTC spoilers - it is worth noting that there are also showstoppers in the democratic party too, tho (like kyrsten sinema was). But every day a little better

[@rochellerochelle1488]

How do you stop juniors from just using a smaller company, like mine, as a stepping stone to greater things? I wasn't using non-competes anyway, but I genuinely do not have a solution for this. It's all a stressful countdown to the unknown moment they leave...

[@JimCretney]

I think this is just a risk you take by hiring juniors, honestly. You pay them less as you expect less output and you expect your seniors to be spending more of their time mentoring. If you can't invest in them and then pay them we'll enough when they're more experienced for them to stay, then it might have been a bad bet in the first place, and it might have been better to get someone more senior in and take the extra cost. Just my 2 cents, obligatory not a business owner but have worked as a junior/mid/senior and mentored my own juniors - paying them what they're worth has always been a major factor why they've (and I) have found other opportunities to pursue.

[@pehclark7256]

At least they realised the problems caused by NDAs.

[@Brolexios]

lol they could “move to California”… 😂

[@pramuseq]

Finally 'the greatest country in the world' catches up with the rest of it, kudos 😂

[@ZerqTM]

the patent system excists for a reason noncompete is unessesary and should not be tollerated! if they wanna retain their engeneers pay them more lol

[@BeheadedKamikaze]

I really wish we could import this policy into Australia 😞

[@einrealist]

One can argue that banning non-competes will actually backfire for smaller companies, who then cannot compete with salaries and perks of big companies. I hope the FTC will organise research into the long-term effects of that ban. Also, this ban will be litigated and probably reach SCOTUS for a decision. SCOTUS, being compromised by the Republican Party and obviously political, might overturn the FTC and worse.

[@Sammysapphira]

Small companies would have no employees because those employees would be barred from signing up to a lower credential job after leaving their corporate job.

[@dancarter5595]

I think this is great, but what about sales or fund/asset management situations where a disgruntled employee can just move to a competitor with their entire portfolio of clients?

[@pureconex]

Maybe don't disgruntle your employees.

[@pureconex]

If the clients are willing to move with a particular employee, then the employee was the one creating the value; not the entity as a whole.

[@dominiccogan945]

Sad to see big R’s trying to push back make you think

[@TimHoekstra]

Finally!

[@user-qe2nv5dg2x]

theo-retically haha

[@jarrodhroberson]

this is a rule not a law. it will be challenged in court by the fascists and never be an actual law

[@Oscaragious]

Hear me out. If you're a startup who created something innovative, would this allow big companies to poach your employees?

[@RobertFletcherOBE]

It's really nice to see the US finally making a positive change to labor laws, rather than constantly undermining them. I remember admiring America when I was growing up, now it seems like the world is racing past while you folks are gaslit by billionaires.

[@100timezcooler]

ive seen plenty of watchable videos with headset mic quality audio. Depends on the content.

[@Jalovi.]

6:45 I might be misremembering but I think Hasan started his streaming career by streaming Fortnite directly from his PlayStation. Also jynxzi I think also streamed just using his xbox and he is a pretty relevant streamer I would say.

[@cariyaputta]

it's amazing to be an american

[@SadsArches]

I agree that streaming from a console is not the best thing, but Hasanabi literally started streaming from a ps4 wit the shit camera

[@ewwitsantonio]

21:50 "I hate that this is gonna become a political video, I didn't want it to..." but this is a video about policy! It's a video about policy! It's okay to be 'political', but I suppose what you said is more to be taken as, "I hate that we are now talking about political parties and potentially inflaming people sensitive to words like 'republican' and 'democrat'."?

[@andrillaf]

I vote republican. It’s so sad to see the corruption in the party. This is something the Republican Party should back 100%

[@cosmo5805]

Never have I seen a group fight against getting paid more, or having a better quality of life than conservatives.

[@jeebusk]

i haven't watched this whole video, but you seem to be missing part of the original point.

[@erikslorenz]

I had a cowrorker in the medical industry that my boss got a letter. He was like f off

[@erikslorenz]

This is so good

[@TacticalFrontline]

@@erikslorenz blud forgot to change alt accounts

[@DefenderPuma]

Whether you're into socialism or free markets 🤣

[@minikame2272]

Regarding that 3%, it's not necessarily just that the founders themselves are not pursuing their ambitions because of the non-competes. Arguably the bigger issue is that their entire network of contacts who they might consider hiring will also be under non-competes.

[@RiversJ]

Happened a year ago in many European countries. Can still have a non-compete but the terms you have to compensate the worker with for it are so heavy no sane company will do it for a regular worker and those it applies to are compensated well for it. Essentially they have to pay for the commensurate time, ending up as a really long end of contract period.

[@Kabodanki]

It already existed in many European country, the EU have legislation for it that all EU countries have to transpose in their national law

[@Giga1337]

FIGHT!

[@gljames24]

Socialism or Free Market? As a Mutualist that is not at all a dichotomy. You can have Capitalist closed markets like what is down under oligarchies. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism is whether or not capital can be owned by non-stakeholders contrasted by worker or consumer ownership.

[@dunhoppe]

👍

[@Sindoku]

I'm not a true red Republican, more of a center of the road type person, but I voted for Trump the last election (I voted for Hillary and Obama before that), but I think the fact that this can happen is absolute BS, like you said. I feel like the only people who should be beholden to a non-compete are those who are in leadership positions in which they receive a significant amount of money like nearing 1 million/year and are essentially inventors of the core product (but if they have a product that is even a little different, they should be able to work on the other thing), but not engineers who are hired on mid journey or even early in the journey (as in they didn't invent the idea), or if they own significant ownership in stocks or future stocks in the company (not including options for now b/c I haven't thought about that enough to give a valid answer.)

[@LunarLambda]

L trump voter

[@linuxguy1199]

​@@LunarLambdaIgnorant loser who just shoots perceived insults at anyone they don't agree with.

[@linuxguy1199]

I don't know how anyone red or blue could be for non competes, but since the Republicans (and democrats) were bought out by lobbyists decades ago it wouldn't surprise me that there would be pushback against this.

[@linuxguy1199]

I don't see how red or blue could be for non competes of any sort, but considering the Republicans and Democrats we're bought out by lobbyists decades ago I can see why there could be pushback against this.

[@paxdriver]

15:50 also, $151k in New York city is very different from $151k in Montana... That's such a dumb number. That's a grounds keeper at an apartment complex in Queens if run by your brother who trusts you to speak on his behalf. It's still dumb. 20:02 very very good call on the Republican FTC members 😂nailed that one blind

[@Elesario]

I'm reminded of the consequences of when divorce law was changed to be more permissive, and the sudden influx of divorces where unhappily married couples could suddenly separate. Wonder if there's going to be a rush of people leaving certain companies because they've been locked into toxic relationships.

[@user-uo5eu6yk1b]

Only in America would people want some geriatric group of people who have little to no knowledge to decide on things rather then a commission of people who actually have the knowledge to decide these things. I also think non-competes are extremely anti-fair market and anti-worker, no republican or democrat should be against this ruling.

[@astral6749]

I feel like this could also have the opposite effect. It would release more supply to companies looking for talents, making the job market even more competitive especially for junior devs without much experience.

[@tropicbliss1198]

I'm a younger dev trying to look for a job, and honestly if that competitiveness is a result of something positive, I'm fine with that, as opposed to all the other negative stuff workers are constantly plagued with

[@coder_117]

The thing I don't like about this is it's not a law. It's the executive branch effectively making a law which they're not supposed to have the power to do. This should've been legislated.

[@stephenjames2951]

You don’t think that investors will be more likely to invest without non-competes.

[@nicejungle]

who cares ? NCA are anti-workers

[@almicc]

i don't like noncompete, and yet I'm understanding the potential for a major problem when executive branches can interpret the law and make new laws. If the law isn't clear about noncompete, the FTC should be petitioning congress about that, or the courts. but here, they're going to do all three branches, they're interpreting another law, making policy, and will be enforcing it. sucks that republicans were the ones to say "no, we can't do this," but at the same time, it's kinda the democrat way to write laws when they feel like it, especially when they don't technically have the authority to do so. this is just a slippery subject, where you have to draw the line between interpretation, enforcement, and policy making, which in this case is difficult. But I'll be honest, this is a welcome thing to everyone, I doubt that any courts will go against this, and I wouldn't be surprised if congress writes a law that allows the FTC to legally enforce this policy. Maybe this is more a concern that technology moves too quickly for Congress to keep up with, who are focused on very wide reaching laws, and not something that appeared in the last decade or so.

[@manout234]

Hear me out: By removing non-compete agreements, highly skilled engineers would have more freedom to move between companies, potentially leading to increased competition for their talents. This could result in higher wages for these skilled individuals as companies compete to attract them. However, it could also lead to downward pressure on wages for less skilled engineers if there is a surplus of available talent in the market. Additionally, companies might indeed be more inclined to hire highly skilled engineers on a temporary or contract basis rather than permanently, which could affect job stability and benefits. I urge you to consider the broader implications for both skilled and less skilled workers in the engineering field.

[@manout234]

Two long term effects: 1. Everyone becomes a gig worker. 2. Small and Medium sized companies collapse as capture rate, will prove to be more important than intellectual property(no point in investing in a startup, when I can hire their best engineer/product people), and focus my efforts on convincing you to buy my product vs theirs.

[@TheDanVail]

If this would put downward pressure on wages, then as a business owner, I’d be stupid not to oppose noncompetes. I’d hire my couple top engineers for a lot and then a bunch of meh engineers that know how to take direction for much less and pocket the money I’d save.

[@manout234]

@@TheDanVail What's to stop your 'top' engineers from leaving for a competitor, or starting their own company that does the exact same thing you do ? What if they start that new company, and take away your customers ? With falling revenue, and increasing competition from all sides, how will you inspire your top talent to stay with you and your dying startup when you can't pay them what softbank can ? Consider the flipside, what if you are engineer, who has the knowledge to disrupt multi billion dollar companies. There is a ceiling on how much any company would be willing to pay you, if you know to much, they may fall back to 'accidental deaths' to prevent you from disrupting the market. It's a very complex issue.

[@sarjannarwan6896]

I'm right leaning, I 100% agree with this rule. However I think there is a good procedural argument that this should be passed by Congress instead of the FTC.

[@iangrant4756]

Congress passed the responsibility to the FTC. It’s the basis of the modern state… have experts make many decisions instead of politicians!

[@chrisdaman4179]

​@@iangrant4756 Congress does not have the right to delegate their powers to another branch. That violates the entire point of the three branches in the first place. They have far too much free time to be public celebrities now. THEY should be taking these rules forward into law. That's the entire reason they exist.

[@almicc]

the hardest thing is that the branches are intended to be given power and they compete with each other to enforce what their power means. it's a natural consequence that executive branch tries to interpret laws so they can effectively enforce a different law that doesn't technically exist. I don't think that either the courts or congress will fight against this, but they will certainly get their turn to explain to the FTC that what they're doing isn't technically within their power. A business owner will probably ignore this and take it to court, then the court says that the FTC can't enforce their own law, but then the court turns it into a law by ruling that the business owner violated a law, and surely Congress will "pass" this as a real law in the future.

[@chrisdaman4179]

@@almicc oh 100%! Another example is terms of service agreements aren't legally binding or enforceable at all. The issue is that any company that puts one out also has an army of lawyers to illegally bully your resources out from under you. Once they have bullied your resources you can't fight the fact that the lawfare was illegal itself.

[@iangrant4756]

@@chrisdaman4179 Congress isn't delegating anything. Congress makes the laws, decides substantive national policies and so on. But they don't implement or enforce any laws! That's the bit they turn over to the folk with expertise. If you want Congress to do that as well, you'll need start with a massive change to the Constitution... And there won't be any other steps because that bit won't happen.

[@supriyomonndal6199]

In India you don't worry about non-competes , government has our back

[@krityaan]

It's more subtle than that. The courts will throw out any non compete that a company pursues to seek to terminate your employment with a competitor - that use of non-competes is not consistent with the fundamental rights. However, non-competes are still legal, primarily to allow prosecution of cases where the employee in question has taken business secrets or IP to the other company.

[@LyrenBrown]

Banning non-compete agreements is an intrusion into voluntary actions taken by individuals. U.S workers have never been forced to take jobs that required non-compete agreements. They choose to accept the non-compete agreements in exchange for better compensation than they could get anywhere else. If companies can't protect their IP by requiring non-compete agreements, we all lose: lower investment into business practices since they can be easily stolen, thus lower business productivity, thus lower product quality, thus lower profits, thus lower ability to offer high wages.

[@nicejungle]

NCA are just modern slavery

[@dxhelios7902]

This is bad. This will be exploited. Small start ups, that figured out smart ways to do things will lose the advantage and their innovations will be stolen by employees or by bigger companies.

[@HUEHUEUHEPony]

or small companies that move faster will outrun giants?

[@rudyorre]

I disagree kinda with ur take on non-competes and starting businesses. Sure its a small piece of puzzle, but in aggregate these sorts of things will increase the number of new businesses, even successful ones

[@tomaAlex2001]

I actually kind of agree with his take. Building a company from scratch is literally beyond insanity level of effort. You probably know if you tried building one before yourself. Figuring out a starting detail like this should honestly not be a break in creating a business.

[@rudyorre]

@@tomaAlex2001 not saying its a deal breaker for those starting businesses, but even the smallest changes to streamline or ease a process will make a difference at scale

[@drew21t]

Voted Bush twice, Obama once (cringe), Trump twice and will a third. This rule does nothing but good and those two should be ashamed to call themselves Republicans. There may be some merit to the idea that the FTC is generally useless, but not in this case.

[@thomassaunders580]

Not republican. Not even American (yet... 2025 maybe). However, I sit more on the libertarian side of most things. Government is bad at doing things, so give them as little to do as possible. This feels like an overreach, but if it can be shown to drive competition, I'm in favour of it. Thanks for testing the waters, America. We'll import it, if it works ;)

[@ItsTheSameCat]

Well you sure managed to get political with your dig about the dissenters on the decision.

[@almicc]

yeah, maybe the editing made it look worse, but he kinda looked up the two who disagreed and said "of course it's the republicans" who made the very real argument that the FTC cannot make policies, but then didn't check to see the political party of those who did this. I can say the same thing in the other direction, "of course it's the democrats" who are interpreting laws so they can enforce new ones that didn't technically exist. i like this decision though, and I hope they get supported by the courts and congress, although I'm sure both might have some strong opinions about the FTC stepping into their domain

[@Nodsaibot]

1 year non compete is FINE, stealing talent is considered a dik move

[@infinitebeast5517]

No, you don't own my skills or knowledge

[@avneet12284]

Not for long. The FTC is being sued. This is a huge violation of contract rights by Lina Khan' FTC

[@RexPilger]

Yup. FTC does not have this power. This is for Congress to determine, not the Administration. (I don't like the idea of NDA, either.)

[@avneet12284]

@@RexPilger It's not even for Congress to decide just as the first amendment is for nobody to revoke.

[@gljames24]

​@@RexPilger Congress delegates this power to the FTC. That's how agencies work.

[@LifeWithRilla]

@@RexPilgerthis is literally their domain, you guys are so delusional it’s crazy.

[@RexPilger]

Khan has been a complete failure in multiple actions that have been challenged in court, whatever you think about this particular issue. Check Patrick Boyle's FTC piece, kzbin.info/www/bejne/poDEgmd_j5usZpI. If we want NDA's banned, we need to get Congress to explicitly ban them. (No, NDA's are not covered by the Constitution or any amendment.)

[@thunderstein5041]

10+ grand for a setup is sooo unnecessary 🥲

[@skylerdjy]

i have to wake up in an hour but new Theo vid just dropped 🫡