[hnburnsy]

Not agreeing, but just posting the other side of the argument from the US Chamber of Commerce. Not a fan of legislation by fiat, maybe this will prompt Congress to do something. USCoC said they will sue...

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments...

>The Chamber and its membership are strongly opposed to the Proposed Rule. It would categorically ban nearly all noncompete agreements—regardless of individual circumstances, such as a worker’s skill, job responsibilities, access to competitively sensitive and proprietary information, bargaining power, or compensation—and require that organizations rescind all existing agreements and provide notice to affected workers of such rescission. Such a proposal fails to recognize that noncompete agreements can serve vital procompetitive business and individual interests—such as protecting investments in research and development, promoting workforce training, and reducing free-riding—that cannot be adequately protected through other mechanisms such as trade-secret suits or nondisclosure agreements. For centuries, courts have recognized the procompetitive benefits of noncompete agreements and balanced those benefits against any negative costs imposed by particular noncompete agreements. As perhaps acknowledged by the Commission’s request for comments on narrower alternatives, the Commission’s categorical ban would sweep in millions of noncompete agreements that pose no harm to competition, and in fact benefit the U.S. business community, economy, workers, and consumers.

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/u-s-chamber-to-s...

>The Chamber will sue the FTC to block this unnecessary and unlawful rule and put other agencies on notice that such overreach will not go unchecked.