Should noncompete agreements be legal or illegal for US employees below the senior executive level?

👍 Legal (27%) – "The action by the FTC is just another example of where the bureaucratic state is making rules and assertions without approval of the people (approved explicitly through an elected official). Non-compete is a contract with compensation tied to it. A company may find it necessary due to trade secrets that enable it to thrive. That's not anti-trust - that's smart business."

• "Non compete agreements are just that. An agreement you make to secure a position at a company. They are made to protect a companies investment in personnel and their intellectual product from 'poaching' by other companies. People do not have to make that agreement and companies do not have to require it... that is what freedom and independence is all about. That said, the agreements should be carefully screened to be sure they are protective rather than predatory... let the signer beware and read the fine print (or notice there is none) as they should. And companies need to stay aware that agreements need to benefit both signers if they want any quality intelligent personnel. ANY government regulation or protection only restricts everyone's freedom and should only occur in instances of exceptional harm to society at large."

"Legal, but not required. The protections should be in the quid pro quo of the non compete agreement. If I hire someone and say they cannot work at a competitor for 6 months after leaving my company, the employee should be paid for that 6 months. There is risk on both sides, there needs to be more protection on both sides."

👎 Illegal (54%) – "People should be able to work where they want. Having noncompete can allow big companies to bully employees into staying in a hostile work environment if they are unable to get a different job in their field due to the agreement. If trade secrets are a concern, it seems an NDA would be more appropriate."

• "An employer should not have the right to what an employee knows or knows how to do or what the employee has learned doing their job. In essence that is what a non compete agreement is doing."

"I don't pretend to be an expert in this area so I'm very willing to hear other arguments, but from my understanding non-disclosure agreements and the like can still protect industries without overstepping the bounds and locking employees unfairly into agreements that limit them without helping anyone except the business. I'd far rather see aggressive enforcement of minimal limitations like non-disclosures in order to protect industries, rather than far-reaching and unhelpful non-competes."

• "Noncompetes make it difficult to find new opportunities. If people are worried about proper training being provided, then there should be a law requiring training. In my experience, companies already fail to provide training for anything beyond the most basic duties of the job."

"Companies already own the intellectual property that employees create while in their employ, the non-compete clause is overkill and unnecessary to protect their interests. If you're worried about your employees going to work for a competitor, try treating them well and rewarding them!"

• "This law would give the little people more mobility and power over their own career. A bit of research would shed some light on the evidence that the US companies have been handing trade secrets overseas (esp China) for a long time now in exchange for cheaper workforce, so the pro-non-competitiveness argument won't stand. Why not empower the US workers for once by giving them a fair and equal chance to be competitive and develop professionally without so many restrictions that should maybe apply only to exec level roles?"

🤷 Unsure/other (19%) – "Non-compete agreements are beneficial in certain situations, such as protecting trade secrets or intellectual property. But they should be illegal when used by companies to prevent employees from leaving for any other reason. However, I agree that the FTC does not have the legal authority based on the outcome from the SCOTUS ending the Chevron Deference. This should be brought up in Congress in order to be made into law. Though, going the Congress route would introduce many more obstacles and politics into creating that law."

• "It seems really unfair for workers to be stuck out of a job if they leave their current company. Like, how are they supposed to support themselves in the meantime? But at the same time, I guess the whole “trade secrets” deal is important to protect companies’ profitability. I dunno, it’s clear that the workers are being shoved around by corporate America, but there’s also solid logic on the business side."