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

131–140 of 514 posts

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

#131

Post by Klinky »

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.

I agree, absolute freedom doesn't mean a desirable outcome will occur for individuals or society, or that freedom even remains the defacto standard. Free markets are often a vacuum waiting for a bully to fill & exploit.

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

#132

Post by Rayhem »

notch656c wrote: post #51
ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

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.

It is always interesting to me how much 'morality' (in the sense that an individual/corporation 'should' abide by these rules) can be derived from applying symmetry principles.

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

#133

Post by prottog »

duped wrote: post #107
prottog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Executive decrees or questionably legal actions of government agencies are fundamentally bad - but have become commonplace and a necessity of life since Congress is fundamentally broken. Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone involved should remember that the US is a federation of fifty states that share sovereignty with the federal government, and that nothing stops the various states from enacting their own nonc…

> They can even do that in cooperation with other states This is actually super interesting in that Article 1. Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval. I'd also that the US is a de jure federation of independently sovereign states, whereas we are a de facto central government with weak provincial governments. States cannot act independently or as a peer to the federal government or with each other, a…

> This is actually super interesting in that Article 1. Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval.

The UCC is not an interstate compact in the sense of Article 1 Section 10. They're merely the same code that each state chose to adopt, with no legal ability for any other state to question if one state chooses to deviate from it in part or whole. It absolutely does not require Congressional approval. Interstate compacts are more like treaties that states make with each other.

You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage. As in your example, just because states' rights were once used to champion the evil cause of slavery then later Jim Crow, does not mean that the whole concept of states' rights is wrong.

Besides, tort and contract laws are historically the primary domain of state law. I don't see why the US Congress has to be the one to define it for everyone.

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

#135

Post by ericmay »

bumby wrote: post #127
horsawlarway wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power The idea is well known for hundreds of years, but here's a particularly salient quote for your line of thinking. ---- "In so far as the reduction of costs of production and distribution thus achieved is reflected in reduced prices, society as a whole ultimately benefits from the use of standard contracts… The use of contracts has, however, another aspect wh…

Workers have mechanisms to balance that power. E.g., forming a union, which could ensure the contract is more fair. I don't know what to make of the fact that they don't use them. In your opinion, is there a reason why something like a union couldn't be used to negate or modify non-compete clauses?

You are right, they do. But in practice it doesn't materialize. The other problem with "just create a union" besides the risk involved and inequality of bargaining power in starting a union in the first place is that you typically create a bureaucratic institution which has its own drag on economic efficiency. Banning non-competes has no clear downside, but does have clear upside. It makes sense to allow workers to form unions and to also ban non-competes.

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

#136

Post by notch656c »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #119
notch656c wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unless they're corrupt in my favor!

Lets be honest, the common American does not have the bargaining power to corrupt anyone powerful in their favor unless they move to the third world where their dollars go further and corruption is even more accessible.

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

#137

Post by 0xAFFFF »

eclipsetheworld wrote: post #27

In Germany we have non-competes, however, the employer has to continue paying the ex-employee (a part of) their salary for the non-compete to have any effect.

In France a non-compete clause must be attached to financial compensation or it is considered void.

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

#138

Post by a4isms »

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.

> the free market ideal

I don't think that's the free market ideal. Let's switch away from employers vs. employees and ask, "Would an ideal free market allow companies to collude to fix prices? Would an ideal free market allow consortiums of companies to set up exclusivity contracts with vendors to block competition from entering the market? Would an ideal free market allow companies with profits in a monopoly to run other businesses at a steep loss to prevent competition?"

"Freedom from regulations" is a very thorny problem, it rarely leads to what people imagine are "free" markets.

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

#139

Post by thwayunion »

IMO the link should be changed to the FTC's press release, which has no paywall and provides a better summary: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...

You can read the proposed rule and the full notice and factsheet here: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no...

Of note, an FTC commissioner (Trump appointee, so a minority voice in the executive atm) released a dissenting statement outlining the strategy that will be used to defeat the proposed rule: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p201000noncompe... (warning: pdf). In her dissent, she speaks eloquently about how darn important noncompetes are to Business and Competition, and "encourage[s] all interested parties to respond fully to all parts of the NPRM’s solicitation of public comments."

Which, well... I'll also encourage all interested parties to respond fully to all parts of the NPRM’s solicitation of public comments! You can do so at regulations.gov

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

#140

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throwayyy479087 wrote: post #126
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is all ownership is a legal concept. Congress can abridge many property rights, including real estate, and the only thing keeping them from going further is the custom enshrined in our Constitution.

That's the point of the Second Amendment. If you try to take my property, I will shoot you.

> you try to take my property, I will shoot you

Now map this attitude to intellectual property and you see the problem.

Post reply on HN