3 ms·

Labor laws are localized to the state you work from. That's already covered in case law. Just because a company is incorporated in Delaware does not mean they g

Labor laws are localized to the state you work from. That's already covered in case law. Just because a company is incorporated in Delaware does not mean they get to skirt local state labor laws when hiring employees from those states. If you lived in State A, where non-compete agreements are legal, and signed a non-compete agreement with your employer, then that should be enforceable, because the employer can always take you to court in State A. That's how everything is done in this country with regards to legal differences between states. I'm not sure why you're capitalizing the word TRADE. It's as if you think because the FTC has the word trade in it, that it has the authority to enact laws and invalidate legal agreements that have to do with any kind of trade.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
Regulating interstate commerce (trade) is one of the primary duties of the federal government. A ruling like this, especially in circumstances concerning interstate corporations, is probably the least offensive use of the interstate commerce clause you'll ever find.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  This is not a ruling. This is a proposal from a federal bureaucracy. They are not a court. They are not a law making body. And no, the FTC does not have God mode over anything that can be arbitrarily or dubiously defined as interstate commerce.
FireBeyond 4y ago
I never said the FTC has or should have the authority to enact laws, or invalidate legal agreements- I asked why a corporation in one state should be able to interfere with the business of two entities in different states? And your example is exactly why - corporations have a history of absolutely trying to enforce laws or contracts upon people that have no legal standing, knowing entirely well that (among other reasons) the complications of interstate commerce make things painful.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

Regulating interstate commerce (trade) is one of the primary duties of the federal government. A ruling like this, especially in circumstances concerning interstate corporations, is probably the least offensive use of the interstate commerce clause you'll ever find.

chrisco255 4y ago
This is not a ruling. This is a proposal from a federal bureaucracy. They are not a court. They are not a law making body. And no, the FTC does not have God mode over anything that can be arbitrarily or dubiously defined as interstate commerce.

FireBeyond 4y ago

I never said the FTC has or should have the authority to enact laws, or invalidate legal agreements- I asked why a corporation in one state should be able to interfere with the business of two entities in different states? And your example is exactly why - corporations have a history of absolutely trying to enforce laws or contracts upon people that have no legal standing, knowing entirely well that (among other reasons) the complications of interstate commerce make things painful.