I think this is good but the credit for this goes to unions imho, as being trapped with a noncompete makes organizing more attractive.
The agency estimated that the rule could increase wages by nearly $300 billion a year across the economy. Evan Starr, an economist at the University of Maryland who has studied noncompetes, said that was a plausible wage increase following their elimination.
. . .
About half of states significantly constrain the use of noncompetes, and a small number have deemed them largely unenforceable, including California.
But even in such states, companies often include noncompetes in employment contracts, and many workers in these states report turning down job offers partly as a result of the provisions, suggesting that these state regulations may have limited effects. Many workers in those states are not necessarily aware that the provisions are unenforceable, experts say.
A friend of mine got a non-compete clause in his contract as an SAT tutor, a job that also claimed he was an “independent contractor” and not an employee. Yes, it’s extremely contradictory and illegal to inhibit the independence of an “independent contractor” like that. Yes, they do it anyway.
I don’t see any angle where this policy wouldn’t increased labor mobility and pay, and therefore not get passed without a functioning left in the US. It’s a purely anti-bourgeois policy and therefore DOA without some big driving force.
It doesn’t need to pass anything. Just not get held up in lawsuits.
The public will be allowed to submit comments on the proposal for 60 days, at which point the agency will move to make it final. An F.T.C. document said the rule would take effect 180 days after the final version is published, but experts said that it could face legal challenges.
This is good and could become effective. This is the law right now in California and has been for some time. Companies HATE it and they have fought it a lot, but it remains the general rule and law. So it could become something on a federal level.
