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

Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 222 posts

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#11

Post by dangus »

desert_rue wrote: post #3
colechristensen wrote: post #2

[flagged]

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

With possibly a lifetime appointment, too.

IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives.

Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks.

The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus.

The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, which is not surprising since they’re the ones that made dark money campaign contributions illegal via the citizens united ruling.

The administrative state is the only place where people actually get into their position on their merit and suitability for the job alone. Everyone below a certain level isn’t a political appointee, they’re hired off a job board based on their accomplishments and proficiencies like everyone else. There’s no donor money involved, the only reward for your service is a stable salary.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#12

Post by monero-xmr »

desert_rue wrote: post #3
colechristensen wrote: post #2

[flagged]

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies.

I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it.

In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat.

I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way.

It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#13

Post by throwup238 »

lolinder wrote: post #10
throwup238 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.

[flagged]

You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best."

How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#16

Post by [deleted] »

spacephysics wrote: post #5
desert_rue wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

At least with a judge you’d have representation in some form, and have an actual argument for-against it. Agencies will just write whatever they want, enforce it, then after have the legal system involved. At that point the damage is done. Lets try to get closer to laws and rules that have some semblance of representation, even if its not “perfect” yet.

[deleted]

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#17

Post by lolinder »

JackYoustra wrote: post #9
lolinder wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rul…

...a federal judge is a rule by expert. That's the whole point: you have to pass the bar and are insulated from feedback for life. The alternative, bureaucratic rule, is subject to democratic feedback: if people don't like it, they can vote to change it. Rule by expert sounds good until you realize that by insulating invasive systems from election cycles, you end up with a permanent opposition and a disillusioned pop…

> if people don't like it, they can vote to change it.

Correction: if the people don't like the entire collection of administrative rules, foreign policy, and general vibes put forward by a single person (the President) they can vote to change that single person. They don't get a say on the rules themselves.

Laws passed case by case by a diverse governing body elected to represent smaller groups of people are more democratic than laws penned by bureaucrats who are accountable to a single person whose election hinges on the marginal vote tallies in a half dozen states.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#19

Post by lolinder »

throwup238 wrote: post #13
lolinder wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as…

Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility.

Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#20

Post by Dalewyn »

desert_rue wrote: post #3
colechristensen wrote: post #2

[flagged]

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

>in the matter of law?

The question is a matter of law.

If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power.

That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.

Post reply on HN