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

161–170 of 222 posts

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

#161

Post by Laaas »

hyeonwho4 wrote: post #80
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.

I assume you mean the FTC Act. Indeed it gives broad authority, but it isn’t unlimited.

FTC says “[..] it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of section 5” in their rule.

Indeed, the act gives them the ability to regulate unfair practices, but it’s not clear that this is unfair. Is it unfair if I get paid a good salary in return for not working for competitors? If they pay me for the years I can’t work after resigning, I would very much say no. If they don’t pay me for those years, I would say it could be seen as being unfair. But the rule is a blanket ban on all noncompetes essentially, even for senior executives! (Unless I’m reading it wrong.)

I’m for banning noncompetes, but I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the FTC has this ability.

I do think they could ban the subset that are clearly unfair without any issues FWIW, and I do hope they switch to this direction.

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

#162

Post by flanked-evergl »

batch12 wrote: post #153
flanked-evergl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Incorrect. You don't get more time in prison. The sentence is the sentence, and refusing to work does not increase the sentence.

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

#163

Post by sdenton4 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #138
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest cities have the most crime, because they have the most people. And most large cities have Democratic mayors. You could break it down per capita instead, which shows that urban area have the highest violent crime rates, and rural areas have the highest property crime rates. I haven’t been able to find a comparison of cities with Democratic mayors vs cities with Republican mayors.

> You could break it down per capita instead, The source provided does break it down per capita, and when done so, the 10 most violent cities in the US, measured per capita, are either democrat (9) or independent (1) controlled.

There are far more cities with Dem mayors than Republican mayors, so comparing raw counts is pretty meaningless. (Similar to counting comparing total homicide instead of per capita.) There are 10 Republican mayors amongst the 50 largest cities, and furthermore, these are heavily concentrated at the low end.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_lar...

It turns out the relationship between crime and population is non linear, and that nonlinearity is also true outside of the US and it's political context.

https://crimesciencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11...

So, what you're seeing is bigger cities with higher per capita rates due to the underlying relationship between population density and crime. It also happens to be the case that in the US, urban areas strongly prefer Democratic mayors.

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

#164

Post by kjksf »

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

Dear god.

Do you understand what you're advocating for? You're advocating for literal lawlessness. For anarchy. For giving the government absolute power.

Given that government abuses non-absolute power you can bet that when they get absolute power it'll take about a second to turn any country into Putin's Russia.

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

#165

Post by flanked-evergl »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #145
flanked-evergl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 evi…

Morality is not defined as things that come out of William Blackstone mouth.

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

#166

Post by amalcon »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #160
amalcon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're going to contend that solitary confinement is "denial of privileges" rather than a punishment designed to compel labor, then we just aren't going to agree and I don't see much point continuing. "Do this work, or I will take an action that is costly to me in order to worsen your life" is forced labor in any definition I can come up with.

You are not required to work one, specific job that can be changed at a moment's notice without your consent to afford soap. Almost any work one might do in the market economy is sufficient to pay for basic hygiene products for one person.

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

#167

Post by flanked-evergl »

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…

> Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians.

This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.

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

#168

Post by flanked-evergl »

amalcon wrote: post #166
flanked-evergl wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're going to contend that solitary confinement is "denial of privileges" rather than a punishment designed to compel labor, then we just aren't going to agree and I don't see much point continuing. "Do this work, or I will take an action that is costly to me in order to worsen your life" is forced labor in any definition I can come up with. You are not required to work one, specific job that can be changed at a…

Solitary confinement is used in many other cases where people are not even convicted yet. If it was considered a right for the incarcerated to not be in solitary confinement, then it would be illegal to put someone in solitary confinement for refusing to work.

I can't have any job I want either, nobody can. Criminals are not entitled to free room and board just because they have injured society. Criminals are not the victims, they are the criminals. They should pay for room and board and make restitution to society.

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

#169

Post by flanked-evergl »

sdenton4 wrote: post #163
flanked-evergl wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could break it down per capita instead, The source provided does break it down per capita, and when done so, the 10 most violent cities in the US, measured per capita, are either democrat (9) or independent (1) controlled.

There are far more cities with Dem mayors than Republican mayors, so comparing raw counts is pretty meaningless. (Similar to counting comparing total homicide instead of per capita.) There are 10 Republican mayors amongst the 50 largest cities, and furthermore, these are heavily concentrated at the low end. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_lar... It turns out the relationship between crime and…

I did not compare raw counts, I compared per capita counts.

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

#170

Post by flanked-evergl »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #135
flanked-evergl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bias does not change facts. 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.

While I dislike your arguments, I have to agree with their correctness. Most of them. Having had relatives had relatives in jail, they are not coddled. Yes, it is better than the past, but in all ways jail, let alone prison, is much worse than being on the outside.

I don't mean to suggest people are coddled in Prison. I don't particularly like law enforcement, or prison staff. I think the majority of them are crooked, either by direct action or by indirect action. However, prosecutors in many cities refuse to prosecute many classes of crime, and are elected on this basis [1].

In my view, this just contributes to what makes them crooked. They refuse to enforce the law as it is on the books. This is not justice.

[1]: https://thefga.org/research/soros-district-attorneys-make-ci...

Post reply on HN