That non-solicitation clause is interesting. My company forbids managers from providing references for employees. I wonder if that could also be considered an unfair labor practice since it negatively affect your ability to get a different job.

Honestly, I'm starting to see that my company is doing a lot of shady employment things. I guess most companies do.

> Salting is protected activity, lying about your employment history to salt is also protected activity, and firing someone for salting is an unfair labor practice.

Huh... TIL

Nice. Here’s hoping the extra freedom causes wages to rise and employers work to keep employees with benefits instead of handcuffs.

There's been moves by the FTC to ban non-competes as well.

I work in financial services so am often covered by these clauses. Firstly, it seems insane that unpaid non-competes are legal at all, to start with. Also, seeing them applied to very junior level and even hourly paid roles is overly onerous.

While my industry pays your base salary during your "garden leave" even this can be misleading in more senior roles where 50% or more of your compensation is bonus, plus some firms cut your healthcare coverage on resignation as well. Some companies have also extended the terms as long as 18 months or longer.

Further, I have been under non-solicitations with terms as long as 5 years which is frankly insane.

So all that is to say the free market is not exactly working here, and seeing some legal guardrails put in place would be good - pay required, terms limited, benefits defined, etc.

No need to ban it. Just automaticly award full salary for 2x the noncompete period they put in your contract, payable in full a week after contract termination.

This sounds reasonable. If you train as a plumber, work for ACME Plumbing Inc. and then leave, being told you can't work anywhere else in your trade for 24 months means you should do what exactly - become an uber driver for a couple of years?

How much authority/jurisdiction does this judge/ruling have? It seems like the kind of thing that might easily get appealed and lost.

If non-compete is must, you can always make garden leave contract.

Employee must stay away from work during the notice period, while still remaining on the payroll. 6 or 12 month garden leave is common in financial sector.

When you learn about enclosures [1] you cannot stop seeing them everywhere. The entirety of intellectual property is just an enclosure. Rather than promoting innovation it just promotes rent-seeking [2] or intermediation.

Noncompetes fit this bill. They've been weaponized by private equity to medical practices. A PE firm will come along and buy up all the medical practices in an area. It's hard to resist that large buyout offer. The staff will then be put on noncompetes that essentially prevent them from practising in their area at all if they leave.

This problem has gotten so bad that even places like Florida are seeking to ban medical noncompetes [3].

If you've wondered why your vet bills have gotten so large, well it's the same playbook [4].

Restraint on trade (such as noncopetes) is used to suppress wages and jack up prices for absolutely nobody's benefit other than the PE fund's investors. Absolutely no value is being created here so I'm glad to see the NLRB, the FTC and yes, even Florida take action here.

I've previously thought that noncompetes may make sense in very limited circumstances and, if so, companies should have to pay through the nose. Example: when you quit the company has a one-time option to exercise that noncompete. If they do, they have to pay you out for the entire term. That payout? Take your highest earning year in the last 10 years. Double it. That's how much you have to be paid per year. Then we'll see how badly companies really need noncompetes.

Even then I think I'd be just as happy if they were entirely illegal.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[3]: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/02/flori...

[4]: https://stateline.org/2024/03/29/vets-fret-as-private-equity...

Of course it is. Non-competes are unenforceable in the UK as you can’t stop someone earning a living and if their skill or knowledge is that specific or valuable that they may not be able to get a job anywhere not covered in the non-compete.

Want someone to not work for a competitor until their secret knowledge is out of date? Pay them gardening leave.

The Supremes have been on a tear vs administrative judges, so expect this to get swatted down. There are other agencies in the non-compete mix that are better suited to make these sorts of policy decisions. This court would rather have agencies and politicians do their jobs when it comes to this stuff.

There is nothing in this ruling that is new as it relates to non-competes or non-solicitation. Overly broad non-compete’s and non-solicitation clauses have always been unenforceable.

They must be specific and unambiguous.

I'm curious if the NLRB has ever ruled in favor of business.

While great, it's a huge blow to California who historically benefited from the innovations of non-competes being non-enforceable.

I agree that non competes are unfair but also think the NLRB has too much power and is effectively legislating.

If it goes like this the Supreme Court might declare water to be wet, much to the horror of corporate America. Of course it’s unfair to limit one’s employment options without just compensation for it.