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

141–150 of 222 posts

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

#141

Post by tzs »

> You might think these things are only a pain for people like me who work in the tech and creative space. You’d be wrong. Employees also locked into their jobs include hairdressers, janitors, security guards, and fast-food workers. Who knew that the ability to say, “Would you like fries with that?” was proprietary? Not me.

The Judge says they can't enforce their new ban.

But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law? For example the Sherman Act can cover non-competes. If the FTC started suing hair salons and fast food restaurants under that it might cause enough problems for those businesses that they'd stop using such agreements.

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

#142

Post by vundercind »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #140
vundercind wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) In part because most cities of any size are run by democrats. 2) “over 100,000 population”. This is the factor that prevents these from mostly being “red”. I assume this is because smaller cities and large towns are both more likely than large cities to be run by Republicans, and also more likely to have bad economies, which (the latter) is a pretty good predictor of crime. 3) The second graph with per-capita gets…

Republican state government is not preventing Democrat cities from enforcing the law in red states. My point is that criminals are too coddled, not that they are not coddled enough. Preventing democrat cities from coddling criminals even further does not somehow make them less coddled. The Democrat cities coddle criminals as much as they legally can.

Why are so many Republican-run areas way worse than nearly all democratic-run cities, then, as far as violent crime?

I’d say it’s all the poverty in those places, but maybe you’re right and it’s the Republican governments’ fault.

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

#143

Post by flanked-evergl »

amalcon wrote: post #132
flanked-evergl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People loosing their liberties because of breaking the law — as determined by due process — is not slavery. They may feel enslaved, but again they cannot feel enslaved in any meaningful sense of the word because they are not enslaved in any meaningful sense of the word. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/the-my...

The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution seems to facially disagree with you. It specifically permits criminal punishment as an exception to its ban on "slavery [or] involuntary servitude".

You would still have to show instances of it happening to support a claim that it's happening.

Making society pay for room and board of those that have committed a crime against it is inhumane. At the bare minimum, criminals should be required (not forced) to work, as is the case in some small number of states. In addition, criminals should be expected to make some restitution to society above and beyond this.

Criminals are not the victims, by definition. Society should stop treating them like victims, especially at the expense of actual innocent people.

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

#144

Post by throwup238 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #131
lumb63 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term “unfair” is extremely vague, and now (as it probably should be, IMO), laws are interpreted by the judiciary. If Congress wants a specific practice banned, then they can make a law to do so, rather than allowing unelected career bureaucrats to interpret the law as they see fit.

It seems you are using the term career bureaucrat as a pejorative. Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where pre…

Unelected career justices that make really dumb mistakes when it comes to basic facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...

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

#145

Post by wizzwizz4 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #111
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The study examined 62 private prisons contracts in 21 states. It found that the majority of these contracts guarantee that the state will supply enough prisoners to keep between 80 and 100 percent of the private prisons’ beds filled. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/do-p... (2013)

The US does not falsely convict and jail innocent people en masse as policy. If anything. A much bigger problem is that the US does not convict and jail criminals en masse as policy. There is no better time and place to be a criminal in the US than today. Criminals are being coddled, which is why most Democrat cities are so crime-ridden.

> Official misconduct contributed to the false convictions of 54% of defendants who were later exonerated. In general, the rate of misconduct is higher in more severe crimes.

> We tried to determine whether official misconduct that contributes to false convictions has become more or less frequent over the past 15 to 20 years. For most types of misconduct, we won’t know for years to come, but we already see strong evidence that a few kinds of misconduct have become less common: violence and other misconduct in interrogations; abusive questioning of children in child sex abuse cases; and fraud in presenting forensic evidence. On the other hand, the number of federal white-collar exonerations with misconduct by prosecutors has been increasing.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Gove... (2020)

> According to the cybernetician, the purpose of a system is what it does. This is a basic dictum. It stands for bald fact, which makes a better starting point in seeking understanding than the familiar attributions of good intention, prejudices about expectations, moral judgment, or sheer ignorance of circumstances.

— Stafford Beer (2001)

> It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

— William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England book 4: Of Public Wrongs (1768)

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

#146

Post by willcipriano »

tzs wrote: post #141

> You might think these things are only a pain for people like me who work in the tech and creative space. You’d be wrong. Employees also locked into their jobs include hairdressers, janitors, security guards, and fast-food workers. Who knew that the ability to say, “Would you like fries with that?” was proprietary? Not me. The Judge says they can't enforce their new ban. But does that stop them from trying to stop n…

Most non competes are signed on your first day of work after you quit your previous job (under duress) and provide no consideration. Basic contract law should have thrown these out long ago.

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

#147

Post by JaimeThompson »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #143
amalcon wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution seems to facially disagree with you. It specifically permits criminal punishment as an exception to its ban on "slavery [or] involuntary servitude".

You would still have to show instances of it happening to support a claim that it's happening. Making society pay for room and board of those that have committed a crime against it is inhumane. At the bare minimum, criminals should be required (not forced) to work, as is the case in some small number of states. In addition, criminals should be expected to make some restitution to society above and beyond this. Crimin…

Rosa Parks and those who got arrested simply for their skin color aren't victims?

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

#150

Post by flanked-evergl »

willcipriano wrote: post #146
tzs wrote: post #141

> You might think these things are only a pain for people like me who work in the tech and creative space. You’d be wrong. Employees also locked into their jobs include hairdressers, janitors, security guards, and fast-food workers. Who knew that the ability to say, “Would you like fries with that?” was proprietary? Not me. The Judge says they can't enforce their new ban. But does that stop them from trying to stop n…

Most non competes are signed on your first day of work after you quit your previous job (under duress) and provide no consideration. Basic contract law should have thrown these out long ago.

In my experience, "non competes" form part of an employment contract, as a clause of the employment contract, and are not an entirely separate contract.

In contract law, the requirement for consideration applies to the contract as a whole, not to each individual clause. An employment contract, as a whole, definitionally provides consideration.

Can you give some examples where "non competes" are signed independently of your employment contracts without consideration? The quoted article refers to them as clauses, and the FTC rule in question is also titled the "Non-Compete Clause Rule" [1].

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09...

Post reply on HN