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

151–160 of 222 posts

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

#151

Post by flanked-evergl »

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…

> But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law?

It's not a judge's job to do that. The plaintiff will have to make the case.

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

#152

Post by amalcon »

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…

I mean, I could do that. Or I could just spend 30 seconds googling and let the ACLU do it for me: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/2022-06...

"More than 76 percent of incarcerated workers report that they are required to work or face additional punishment such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation, or the inability to pay for basic life necessities like bath soap. They have no right to choose what type of work they do and are subject to arbitrary, discriminatory, and punitive decisions by the prison administrators who select their work assignments."

You might claim that "incarcerated workers report" isn't solid evidence, but if you read the report you'll find that much of it was confirmed by responses to FOIA requests.

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

#153

Post by batch12 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #137
razakel wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you refuse?

They may lose privileges and good time credits, and it may impact their parole. They do not lose rights as one may happen when one is convicted of a crime.

> They do not lose rights as one may happen when one is convicted of a crime.

So you get more time in prison, losing all rights, which is what happens when you're convicted of a crime? Just because you don't want there to be legal slavery doesn't mean there isn't legal slavery.

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

#154

Post by sdenton4 »

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…

Hey, turns out there's a whole book about this!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

And if moving pictures are more your thing, there's a movie, too!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film)

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

#155

Post by ellisv »

advael wrote: post #56

I really think federal authorities should start ignoring rulings from Texan judges. The amount of corporate bankruptcy venue shopping alone should tell us the appointment process has corrupted the supposedly impartial nature of the judiciary there

It would be better if they put pressure on the Senate to act.

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

#156

Post by kjksf »

tzs wrote: post #134
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.

> 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. As opposed to unelected judges who, unlike the bureaucrats, have lifetime appointments, almost no political oversight, and are very difficult to remove. The heads of federal agencies are appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate…

Well, yes, because separation of powers.

Congress makes the laws.

Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law.

Judges decide if government enforces the law correctly.

The important part is not how bureaucrats or judges get their job but that bureaucrats were de facto creating laws exceeding their authority.

Because the authority to create laws belongs to congress.

It's not a perfect system but it would be even worse without separation of powers.

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

#157

Post by anal_reactor »

easyThrowaway wrote: post #116
eurg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe is not a single country, and even a single country would usually not have perfectly homogenous laws in all is regions.

...But in the near future they will have to agree on the common directive on this topic, which for now considers them as nonbinding, except for very specific corner cases, if even: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ad...

I have signed a two-year non-compete as a part of my contract in the Netherlands. The official government website says basically "yeah so non-competes are binding, but if you go to court, you have a decent chance of voiding it, no promises though, good luck".

Regarding the EU document, there's a very long way between "EU noticed a problem" and "EU fixed a problem".

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

#158

Post by anal_reactor »

foobarkey wrote: post #83

In Europe if you want to force a non-compete you need to pay full salary for the duration, so if someone enforced non compete for 5 years I could sit home and play games while earning salary

There's no EU-wide law about this.

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

#159

Post by flanked-evergl »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #147
flanked-evergl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Rosa parks was arrested more than 60 years ago. I'm talking about today, not 60 years ago.

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

#160

Post by flanked-evergl »

amalcon wrote: post #152
flanked-evergl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean, I could do that. Or I could just spend 30 seconds googling and let the ACLU do it for me: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/2022-06... "More than 76 percent of incarcerated workers report that they are required to work or face additional punishment such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation, or the inability to pay for basic…

Being denied privileges if one does not do something is not the same as forcing someone to do something. I get many privileges for being employed, I'm not forced to be employed.

I also have to work to afford soap. That does not make me a slave.

Post reply on HN