Trump judge?
sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets
Wtf. You could say this about literally any law. Outlawing murder-for-hire sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. Making people pay income tax sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. Speed limits set a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. What a terrible argument.
No kidding. Even regular staunch capitalists recognize that regulation is sometimes necessary. Regulation against anti-competitive practices exists because a market left to its own devices will devolve into monopolies that will be much less efficient than a competitive market. Non-competes are just employers establishing monopolies over their workforce.
a market left to its own devices will devolve into monopolies
I would posit it devolves into either slavery or serfdom based on historical records. We all started “in free market” lol
Even regular staunch capitalists recognize that regulation is sometimes necessary.
Most people can’t the differentiate between capitalism and free market on conceptual level
Ha ha, I came to see who you were replying to but I can’t because I already blocked them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Odds are good I didn’t find their style or content particularly edificatious)
Lmao the irony “I didn’t find their style or content particularly edificatious.” My partener in christ you are the unedificatious one!
Is there any legal argument besides this?
This sounds like a personal opinion lol
Yes.
Under employment laws you can quit basically at any time with given notice and you can apply to any job no matter who you are or what you did before. The non compete clauses are always part of the employment contract. Usually, what’s in the contract is binding, but: there’s things that might be voided upon examination. Here things like consideration and unconscionability come into play. I assume this clause would be ruled unconscionable against employment laws, therefore the clause is basically removed from contracts after the fact and precedent allows for it to be voided upon future use.
employment laws > contract law. That’s all it boils down to I assume, just what weighs more.
A lot of European countries allow only very limited non compete clauses or none at all. Moving in that direction is not really without precedent, so there’s your legal argument.
Also obligatory IANAL, if you think I’m wrong and you got sources, please correct me. I wanna learn what I don’t know.
I think we are talking about two different things. I was mainly asking for legal reason for the judge’s injunction, looks like it is not a ruling but a stall tho.
She will rule later. That’s what I was getting, what is the reason to disagree for the judge here.
I think you described how employment law works correctly though. non compete clause is hard to enforce in many places and for most jobs maybe save of some super red states.
But I also don’t think that is their primary goal either, I would posit the goal is to “send a message” or “chill employees will to shop for work”
