Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 514 posts

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#81

Post by sailfast »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #26
LanceH wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal agencies Maybe it's overreach by federal agencies when they create their own law. There is a distinction between authorizing an agency to figure out how to get something done and letting one make new law. Dramatically limiting the power of agencies to make up their own new laws seems like a good thing.

It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws. It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The liberal obsession with process is what lets the far right make inroads everywhere, since they don't share it.

Agencies do not make laws, full stop. Agencies are empowered by congress via laws to regulate industries. These regulations can be challenged in court as to whether they have overreached the scope of their regulation written in the original law, but they are not making laws.

Agencies should not make laws (in the United States). Even good ones.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#82

Post by ghaff »

anon291 wrote: post #30
lambdasquirrel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's already illegal in many states

Aspects of non-competes are not enforceable in some places--and enforcement may require payments to the ex-employee in others (e.g. MA). But some non-compete conditions are generally enforceable even in CA as I understand it (e.g. if you sell a business, you can't set up shop the next street over and contact all your former customers). But they're not illegal as far as I know.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#83

Post by malandrew »

simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

I would say that this issue is the lack of consideration for the duration of the non-compete. If a company is willing to pay me my full salary for the entirety of the non-compete, they seem reasonable. That said, it should still be something that’s optional.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#84

Post by notch656c »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #41
tristor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is good law and what is bad law? This is subjective, and likely shifts with the context of the surrounding society. Law is not morality, even though it may derive from social mores. For this reason, process is crucially important to prevent tyranny.

Yes, it's subjective. The ones I like are good. The ones that help my allies are good. The ones that punish my enemies are good. Pretending that things are any other way is madness.

When the enforcers and courts are corrupted racketeers, even good laws are evil.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#85

Post by simplotek »

giantg2 wrote: post #60
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. I'm not saying these things are necessarily good or bad. Just saying that most laws around income, taxes, and land have their roots in feudalism. And of course the ruling class still make themselves well to do off of the hard work of their subjects, just not to the same degree as kings. And…

> There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc.

Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line. These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come in play to pull the focus away from the one-sided social arrangement between employers and employees in the US which his highly exploitative and outright resembles feudalism.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#86

Post by Pet_Ant »

alistairSH wrote: post #69
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

...the most anti-american... I dunno, they seem pretty spot on for the US. In the US, "free market" generally means one of two things... 1 - a fictional market with no externalities and perfect information symmetry. Ayn Rand fans think it's real, but it only exists in an ECON-101 textbook. 2 - code for "rules for thee, not for me" as said by the billionaire class. Or, really anything that keeps them rich and the rest…

> perfect information symmetry

FTFY. I believe that is what you meant to see or

> perfect, no information asymmetry

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#87

Post by cryptonym »

donatj wrote: post #50
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

Depends on your definition of "free". Market that favour free competition between economic actors?

> No one telling anyone what to do.

Sounds like a good way to get mafia.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#88

Post by throwayyy479087 »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #20
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

[flagged]

The state where all the oligarchs live - NY - doesn't explicitly ban them but treats them as a joke in court.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#89

Post by starwind »

donatj wrote: post #50
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

Upvoting cause I agree in principal with where you're coming from in the sense that employers and employees should be able to bargain in their contracts and include clauses like non-competes as long as they square with the public policy of the state.

My issue (and probably yours) is the way non-competes get handled by employers * Every non-compete I've signed has been sprung on me while filing out paperwork on my first day. What am I supposed to? Walk out and be unemployed while I look for a new job? * What do I actually get for a non-compete clause? Judges routinely rule that continued employment is enough consideration for near-anything including non-competes. But if some companies don't have non-competes, to me that isn't true consideration. Me signing a non-compete that isn't worded in this-for-that like standard contract clauses should be should be treated as a gift on my part by the courts that can be revoked * Many states have restrictions on non-competes but most non-competes for national companies are boilerplate and often too broad. Combine this with a mandatory arbitration agreement and employers are doing an end-run around state labor laws either through arbitration or just strong arming employees

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#90

Post by notch656c »

mywittyname wrote: post #73
notch656c wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.

They'd hire for a different role and "transfer" the person.

That just sets the precedent the non-compete bound employee can be hired in the same manner. Reciprocal.
Post reply on HN