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

Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#31

Post by BadHumans »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #20
jandrese wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO we already have good evidence about the harm to corporations we can expect to see by banning non-competes. California banned them in 1941 and everybody can see how no big business, especially tech businesses, want to be in California.

Not that I believe this, but it’s always possible there would have been even more economic success, and that the historical success is despite the ban not because of it.

How much innovation and small business is happening in industries where noncompetes are commonplace and how do salaries look?

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#32

Post by specialist »

AlbertCory wrote: post #15
specialist wrote: post #6

From TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision,…

> federal policy is best determined by life time appointees Prove you wrong? For sure. It's best determined by elected officials. Second best is judges. In last place we have bureaucrats never elected by anyone nor even appointed by someone who was.

Sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion. For future, I'll add a "/s" suffix when I'm mocking reactionary talking points.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#33

Post by bhelkey »

ceejayoz wrote: post #12
monero-xmr wrote: post #8

I don’t like noncompetes but I don’t like unelected officials making economy-wide decisions even more. Congress can do their job and pass laws. I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats.

> Congress can do their job and pass laws. They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things. > I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats. They're not faceless, but a group of nine (well, six) unelected bureaucrats are currently making a whole bunch of law.

>> Congress can do their job and pass laws.

> They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things.

What law gave the FTC the authority to regulate employment agreements?

I appreciate the lack of non-competes in California. That being said, it is the responsibility of Congress to either write employment laws or to delegate that authority.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#34

Post by ceejayoz »

bhelkey wrote: post #33
ceejayoz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress can do their job and pass laws. They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things. > I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats. They're not faceless, but a group of nine (well, six) unelected bureaucrats are currently making a whole bunch of law.

>> Congress can do their job and pass laws. > They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things. What law gave the FTC the authority to regulate employment agreements? I appreciate the lack of non-competes in California. That being said, it is the responsibility of Congress to either write employment laws or to delegate that authority.

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 states:

> The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#36

Post by ceejayoz »

AlbertCory wrote: post #15
specialist wrote: post #6

From TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision,…

> federal policy is best determined by life time appointees Prove you wrong? For sure. It's best determined by elected officials. Second best is judges. In last place we have bureaucrats never elected by anyone nor even appointed by someone who was.

FTC commissioners are appointed, and approved by the Senate, just like judges.

The distinction you’re trying to draw doesn’t exist.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#37

Post by jauntywundrkind »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #30
kogus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for a thoughtful summary of what really happened. So many people are focused on outcomes that they would destroy the plumbing of government to get where they want to be.

For all the talk of a politicized Supreme Court, I'm not so sure that the net result has been to empower authoritarianism, even if it limits their personal liability to later prosecution. Shutting down Chevron principal empowers the Legislature, it seems to me.

Well, they allowed kings to run the nation, that's scary.

But Chevron is about a different project. It's ambition is to fulfill the Federalist Society fantasy of de-governance.

What comes from that isn't direct authoritarianism by government. It's unchecked corporate greed control & influence, with a government maimed and without ability to respond or act. Making rulemaking & regulation impossible, preventing defense of consumers, is the plan for Federalist Society's unchecked economic totalitarianism.

Maybe perhaps possibly we see a legislature better able to wield and use power, after this redefinition of government. But with the shape of the Senate favoring small states >> 10x big states, it seems unlikely that the will to govern will finally get upper hand over the will to de-govern.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#38

Post by AlbertCory »

ceejayoz wrote: post #36
AlbertCory wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> federal policy is best determined by life time appointees Prove you wrong? For sure. It's best determined by elected officials. Second best is judges. In last place we have bureaucrats never elected by anyone nor even appointed by someone who was.

FTC commissioners are appointed, and approved by the Senate, just like judges. The distinction you’re trying to draw doesn’t exist.

> The distinction

does exist. We're just arguing about the metes and bounds of their legislatively-granted authority.

I can't tell you don't agree about SCOTUS but I believe there were over 1,200 comments about that this week and there's no point in adding to it.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#39

Post by sitkack »

delfinom wrote: post #26
granzymes wrote: post #14

The question before the Court in this case was whether the FTC has the power to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition. The Court concludes[0] that the FTC does not have that power, and that Section 6(g) of the FTC Act permits the FTC only to issue "housekeeping" rules related to agency organization, procedure, or practice. That follows from three main statutory and historical clues: 1) Sect…

I honestly believe the FTC action was a corporate lobbied event. Why? There were various states where campaigns were ongoing to ban noncompetes. The FTC ruling basically derailed them.

Absolutely could have been, it would take months to get them going again.

If only legislators would legislate!

Post reply on HN