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

71–80 of 222 posts

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

#71

Post by daft_pink »

hansvm wrote: post #33

I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers? Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable…

I don’t think this is really an argument for or against non-complete agreements in the United States.

It’s basic United States separation of powers. If Congress passed a law eliminating or banning non-completes, then it would be legal.

As an asdie, it seems that the Biden administration is positioning itself to overstep it’s authority with things it feels would be popular with specific voting blocks that will obviously be overturned by the courts and then position that the courts are too partisan. They are satisfied with how this works with voters even if the actual policies cannot actually be implmemented.

I don’t think most serious observers felt this would make it through court review.

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

#72

Post by lionkor »

amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job.

Firing on the spot is only legal in exceptional circumstances, e.g. when they can prove you simply didnt work your hours, or something (outside of paid and u paid leave, paid and unpaid sick leave).

We also get maternal and paternal leave which is very nice.

Overtime, health insurance, etc. are also dictated to some degree by law in a lot of countries.

The fact that you (Americans) feel enslaved is because you choose to elect a government that doesn't care about any of that.

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

#73

Post by fallingknife »

dangus wrote: post #11
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?

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.…

[flagged]

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

#74

Post by Propelloni »

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.

Under the rule-of-law, after such a ruling, you can sue the state for damages. If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified.

I, for one, am looking forward to companies showing how and how much they were damaged by the ban of non-compete clauses in working contracts. Should be some interesting numbers.

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

#75

Post by kortilla »

amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

And you get paid. People that say that kind of shit are privileged morons.

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

#76

Post by linotype »

lionkor wrote: post #72
amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only leg…

No, six to ten states (mostly small, red states with shitty economies) that aren’t aligned with the majority of Americans elect the President and inflict their misery on the rest of us. Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave.

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

#77

Post by quartesixte »

lionkor wrote: post #72
amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only leg…

>The fact that you (Americans) feel enslaved is because you choose to elect a government that doesn't care about any of that.

It really depends on the income-strata that you occupy, I feel. Hourly, physical laborers and service workers seem to suffer under a system that prima facie makes you wonder what century you're in. On the other end, salaried and technical knowledge workers enjoy quite a flexible arrange of time off policies, relaxed working times, and great health benefits. And then everything in between. I would like to think that only one of these camps feel enslaved.

Americans do have this problem of not taking enough vacations though. But I think there is some cultural component to that...

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

#78

Post by hyeonwho4 »

daft_pink wrote: post #71
hansvm wrote: post #33

I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers? Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable…

I don’t think this is really an argument for or against non-complete agreements in the United States. It’s basic United States separation of powers. If Congress passed a law eliminating or banning non-completes, then it would be legal. As an asdie, it seems that the Biden administration is positioning itself to overstep it’s authority with things it feels would be popular with specific voting blocks that will obvious…

In this case the US Congress has delegated to the FTC the power to regulate competition in interstate trade and markets. The relevant law is as follows:

" (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. (2) 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."

The FTC has argued noncompetes constitute unfair or deceptive practices which affect commerce. The judge has disagreed.

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

#79

Post by quartesixte »

dangus wrote: post #41
spacephysics wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges. At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.

Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice.

That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives.

I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy.

And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state.

Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).

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

#80

Post by hyeonwho4 »

Laaas wrote: post #61

FTC can not make laws. It does not matter how much you want this to be law. It must be passed by Congress. Even then, it wouldn’t hold in intrastate cases since the Commerce clause doesn’t provide for that.

There is a law, and it gives FTC broad authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices in most "commerce", with carveouts for a few industries like airlines, packers and shippers, and finance/banking.
Post reply on HN