Okay, in a hypothetical scenario, let’s just say I work for a huge thought-leader in my industry and many of the employees are incredibly talented, educated, and passionate.
In order to protect their reputation, my hypothetical employer has forbidden employees from making podcasts related to the field, pursuing side-gigs, or publishing anything without prior permission.
I think this is hypothetically bs and outrageous behavior for a business with such a sterling reputation.
I’m not sure this is the same as a non-compete clause. I think it’s insane to think they could have any say in what I do with my personal time and energy. I’m hugely passionate about my industry and I love discussing it and the idea that I have to check with my boss about a hobby project absolutely grinds my gears.
Yea, this is huge. I love how the two people that voted against it are saying nooooo we should just leave it to congress. Nothing like this would ever happen if they did, so I’m glad the other 3 are getting things done.
The commission’s two dissenting members argued that the agency was stepping beyond its authority in issuing the ban, saying such powers should be left with the Congress.
Was there a different article you had read where they said SCOTUS?
If the courts are going to determine the FTC hasn’t actually been granted the authority to do this (idk if they actually will, just speculating), then it doesn’t get done and the act could rather amount to wasteful political grandstanding. So I think at least the question of whether they can do this legally is important.
Add comment