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

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#161

Post by themitigating »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #152
themitigating wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"high state spending for mediocre outcomes" "NIMBY housing policy in every major metro" Prove it and show me it's not an issue in other states "Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert. " According to ABC https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-ongoing-water-crises-happening... This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't…

> This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't happened in CA " California gets preferential use of the Colorado river. https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/08/colorado-river-wa...

So you're moving the goal post from "water issues " to "unfair control of water sources"?

I assume you'll have an argument about why their preferential control of the Colorado river is wrong?

It must be difficult for you right now after you've continually digested right wing opinion that "California is bad" not asking if there was substance behind that premise.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#162

Post by themitigating »

nulbyte wrote: post #159
themitigating wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be an issue elsewhere, remember Jackson? https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-ongoing-water-crises-happening...

Jackson has water. Flint has water. They simply lack trustworthy infrastructure. This can be fixed by upgrading. California has infrastructure. They simply lack water. This cannot be fixed by upgrading.

Proof?

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#163

Post by Mountain_Skies »

smeagull wrote: post #122
steveBK123 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paid noncompete (gardening leave) is pretty common on Wall Street. It has gotten much more prevalent in the last 5-10 years, with companies ratcheting up the length and enforcing it on lower and lower level employees. Think - IC software engineers working on some random UI with no idea of current positions or trading strategies, making like $300k total being put on a 12 month leave. The problem even with paid noncomp…

I'd love that so much. I get paid a noncompete and can go on to work for someone else and how are they going to find out?

The Work Number, an Equifax service that a shockingly large number of employers provide data to. If your new employer is one of these, and it probably would be unless it's a startup or a small family business, your old employer can see that you're now employed and who with.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#164

Post by themitigating »

umeshunni wrote: post #60
themitigating wrote: post #25

[flagged]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_... Someone should compile a listicle of the "10 worst California propositions" or something like that

Are they worse or more numerous than other states?

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#165

Post by themitigating »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #135
themitigating wrote: post #25

[flagged]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-st... https://www.cbs8.com/amp/article/news/local/california/study... https://www.businessinsider.com/california-worst-quality-of-... I can go on but tonight I have to deal with a flood situation that the SF Bay Area infra is struggling with.

Was Florida ready to be flooded last year? What infrastructure changes does the bay area need to do that are feasible?

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#166

Post by dragonwriter »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #152
themitigating wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"high state spending for mediocre outcomes" "NIMBY housing policy in every major metro" Prove it and show me it's not an issue in other states "Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert. " According to ABC https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-ongoing-water-crises-happening... This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't…

> This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't happened in CA " California gets preferential use of the Colorado river. https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/08/colorado-river-wa...

> California gets preferential use of the Colorado river

So, it has relative (compared to upstream users, of which Mississippi is not one) security for about 11% of its annual water supply, due to having established need and uses earlier.

Not sure what your point is, though.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#167

Post by nkrisc »

SideQuark wrote: post #72
nkrisc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the specifics of any regulation, the burden should be on the company and should err on the side of the employee’s benefit. It’s never fair to pit an individuals livelihood against a corporation.

Can a salesman leave and take all his clients with him, even if there were given to him by the company?

That's different than what non-compete contracts are used for, so that's a different discussion entirely. A corporation that abuses non-competes can destroy an individual's life. There's no real reverse of that, and stealing trade secrets is already covered by law (see what happened to Anthony Levandowski).

It's completely unfair to pit an individual against a corporation. For the individual, a lawsuit related to a non-compete can consume their entire life for years while everyone working at the corporation has no real skin in the game. They'll go home and night and live their lives. Worst case they have to work late. It's not comparable at all.

It's better for a corporation to be wronged by an individual, than for an individual to be wronged by a corporation. So the law should err on the side of the individual.

To answer your question directly: frankly I don't see why not. Why can't the clients choose to change vendors? Is it not a free market? Are clients really going to change vendors just to still have the same sales rep?

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#168

Post by anonymouskimmer »

themitigating wrote: post #161
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't happened in CA " California gets preferential use of the Colorado river. https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/08/colorado-river-wa...

So you're moving the goal post from "water issues " to "unfair control of water sources"? I assume you'll have an argument about why their preferential control of the Colorado river is wrong? It must be difficult for you right now after you've continually digested right wing opinion that "California is bad" not asking if there was substance behind that premise.

I'm not the OP. I actually like the initiative system.

I'm saying that water issues in other states is a result of California's preferential rights. Which explains why "this hasn't happened in CA". If you fully read the article I linked you'd see that water restrictions have indeed happened at various times over the years in California.

Part of the reason California hasn't "run out of water" like Jackson Mississippi are these water use restrictions imposed during droughts: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/05/24/california-adopts-more-agg...

And I'll point out that the person you originally responded to wrote "Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert". You goal-post moved this true statement (plus or minus the "mostly desert") to a comparison to other states which also have water problems, one of which had a city actually run out of water.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#169

Post by dragonwriter »

nulbyte wrote: post #159
themitigating wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be an issue elsewhere, remember Jackson? https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-ongoing-water-crises-happening...

Jackson has water. Flint has water. They simply lack trustworthy infrastructure. This can be fixed by upgrading. California has infrastructure. They simply lack water. This cannot be fixed by upgrading.

> California has infrastructure. They simply lack water. This cannot be fixed by upgrading.

Yes, it can. Look at a map of California. Look west. Plenty of opportunity to use infrastructure spending to increase fresh water supply through desalination. (Which, in fact, California is doing.)

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#170

Post by anonymouskimmer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #166
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't happened in CA " California gets preferential use of the Colorado river. https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/08/colorado-river-wa...

> California gets preferential use of the Colorado river So, it has relative (compared to upstream users, of which Mississippi is not one) security for about 11% of its annual water supply, due to having established need and uses earlier. Not sure what your point is, though.

See my reply to themitigating below.
Post reply on HN