[dwaltrip]

Interesting how you call it “stealing” to hire someone who worked at a competitor. They aren’t property, companies don’t own people.

If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay.

Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing, reducing the large power difference.

[zer00eyz]

>> They aren’t property, companies don’t own people.

Ideas aren't property and they are stolen. You can steal a glance as well, but you know that has nothing to do with property either.

I also could have used the colloquialism poaching, but then I would be hearing about how people aren't big game and hunting is bad.

> Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing

We already know it doesn't have to: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/185051/judge-appr...

That fine was probably minor compared to the wage suppression.

> If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay.

Poaching all the staff away from a company is illegal in CA, it's called raiding. This change will not create laws out of thin air.

[dwaltrip]

> We already know it doesn't have to: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/185051/judge-appr...

You argument is that this case demonstrates there isn't any problem and that companies don't have actually have a significant power advantage? Not very convincing.

> Poaching all the staff away from a company is illegal in CA, it's called raiding. This change will not create laws out of thin air.

This is only true in the specific narrow situation where there is intent to harm the company. There is nothing wrong with the general case where you simply want to hire those workers.