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

181–190 of 222 posts

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

#181

Post by sdenton4 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #173
sdenton4 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I said? Reread the comment, you might learn something.

I did re-read. Quoting you: "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.)" Quoting me: "I did not compare raw counts, I compared per capita counts." I did not learn anything I did not know before re-reading.

You're using raw counts /of cities/ in a top ten list, when the actual leadership of cities is heavily skewed towards Dem mayors. I point out that this is similar to comparing raw counts instead of per-capita.

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

#182

Post by willcipriano »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #180
willcipriano wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. > refuse to sign the clause until you have sufficiently considered Sure, but you just told me to quit my job and sent me an offer letter with your terms and "forgot" that not working for X years unpaid after I leave is one of them. In fact you probably did the opposite, you called it "at will" when it clearly isn't, for me a…

> Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. Okay, problem solved then. You don't have a non-compete clause because it won't hold up anywhere. Still has no bearing whether your contract and its clauses have consideration. > Perhaps you don't sign and sue for promissory estoppel? Sure. Good luck.

They aren't implied. They are physical documents presented and signed after the 'employment contract' has already began to be executed.

Hell that 'employment contract' is at will 99% of the time, any party can end it at point for any reason, but that doesn't apply to the implied non-compete portion signed after employment? What?

It's nonsense all the way down.

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

#183

Post by daft_pink »

hyeonwho4 wrote: post #78
daft_pink wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, exce…

I understand your framing of this issue as judge vs FTC, but the reality is that delegation of authority the way this was written has never historically meant that they could create new laws, but simply that gave them the jurisdiction to enforce and create rules regarding existing laws related to unfair compeititon or deceptive business practices.

Since the FTC can’t point to an existing law that makes non-compete contracts illegal, it lacks the power to unilaterally declare them illegal.

Most observers didn’t think that this rule would pass court scrutiny.

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

#184

Post by flanked-evergl »

willcipriano wrote: post #182
flanked-evergl wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. Okay, problem solved then. You don't have a non-compete clause because it won't hold up anywhere. Still has no bearing whether your contract and its clauses have consideration. > Perhaps you don't sign and sue for promissory estoppel? Sure. Good luck.

They aren't implied. They are physical documents presented and signed after the 'employment contract' has already began to be executed. Hell that 'employment contract' is at will 99% of the time, any party can end it at point for any reason, but that doesn't apply to the implied non-compete portion signed after employment? What? It's nonsense all the way down.

If you sign a non-compete clause in the context of employment, even at will employment, the continued employment can serve as consideration for the clause. It's not without consideration.

If you sign a non-compete clause outside the context of employment, and there is no consideration for it, i.e. no continued employment or any other consideration, it's without consideration.

Good luck with the novel legal theories in court, but I don't think courts are too fond of equivocation.

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

#185

Post by flanked-evergl »

sdenton4 wrote: post #181
flanked-evergl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did re-read. Quoting you: "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.)" Quoting me: "I did not compare raw counts, I compared per capita counts." I did not learn anything I did not know before re-reading.

You're using raw counts /of cities/ in a top ten list, when the actual leadership of cities is heavily skewed towards Dem mayors. I point out that this is similar to comparing raw counts instead of per-capita.

Thanks for clarifying your objection. Here is a list of the most violent US cities, reckoned per capita, without first selecting for being the most high crime cities in absolute terms: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-viol...

Here is the political affiliation of the city governments:

1. St. Louis, MO: Democrat

2. Detroit, MI: Democrat

3. Baltimore, MD: Democrat

4. Memphis, TN: Democrat

5. Little Rock, AR: Democrat

6. Milwaukee, WI: Democrat

7. Rockford, IL: Democrat

8. Cleveland, OH: Democrat

9. Stockton, CA: Democrat

10. Albuquerque, NM: Democrat

11. Springfield, MO: Independent

12. Indianapolis, IN: Democrat

13. Oakland, CA: Democrat

14. San Bernardino, CA: Democrat

15. Anchorage, AK: Independent

16. Nashville, TN: Democrat

17. Lansing, MI: Democrat

18. New Orleans, LA: Democrat

19. Minneapolis, MN: Democrat

20. Chicago, IL: Democrat

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

#186

Post by lumb63 »

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…

I don’t mean it as a pejorative - I agree that these folks are (often) experts in the area they’re working in. I mean only that the creation of laws does not belong to the bureaucracy, nor the interpretation of laws. Bureaucrats are also not as accountable to the voter (how many execute branch employees have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate?) as the legislature.

I think that overturning Chevron should light a fire under the collective behinds of both parties in Congress to write more specific laws that legislate precisely. I am sure it will be mayhem for a while, unfortunately, as decades of laws will be interpreted by the courts for the first time, but in the end it should result in a structure that I believe conforms better to the intended structure (legislators legislate laws which are executed by the executive branch and whether or not those laws are upheld is judged by the judiciary).

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

#187

Post by razakel »

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.

In what world is "work or we'll make your life even more miserable" not coercion?

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

#188

Post by Uehreka »

shiroiushi wrote: post #43
Uehreka wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t want the government to prevent noncompetes, then they’re going to happen. Workers lack the collective bargaining abilities to force employers to do away with them.

That's certainly all true, but there's a good argument that it's really the responsibility of Congress and/or the state legislatures to write laws banning non-competes. Having a federal agency do it is basically an ugly hack. Of course, the counter-argument is that Congress and the state legislatures are too broken to write these laws as they should, because they don't really work for the people, but rather the corpo…

> But if Congress is too broken to pass a common-sense law like this, what does this tell us about the long-term viability of the US as a single political entity?

We’re already there, we’ve been there for over a decade at this point. It says nothing good about the future of the US, but nothing’s going to change, so in the immediate moment we need to play the hand we’re dealt.

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

#189

Post by runarberg »

daft_pink wrote: post #183
hyeonwho4 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, exce…

I understand your framing of this issue as judge vs FTC, but the reality is that delegation of authority the way this was written has never historically meant that they could create new laws, but simply that gave them the jurisdiction to enforce and create rules regarding existing laws related to unfair compeititon or deceptive business practices. Since the FTC can’t point to an existing law that makes non-compete co…

I feel like this framing is extremely convenient and ignores how things work in other aspects of when congress delegates power to a specialized committee. For example, OSHA doesn’t need to find a specific law to deem a certain work practice unsafe and prohibit it, FDA doesn’t need to find a law against arsenic poisoning to take unsafe food product of the market, and the TSA doesn’t need a law against liquids in an airplane before they prohibit passengers from taking them onto the flight.

In every other instance what is required is that experts in the field back up their reasons with adequate research. In this case the FTC has done that, they have argued that non-compete is an unfair practice and shouldn’t be allowed, just like the NHTSA has argued that Airbags are an important enough safety feature that all new cars should be required to have it. Both have plenty enough research to back up their claims, but only the FTC needs a specific law? I wonder why that is.

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

#190

Post by consteval »

kjksf wrote: post #156
tzs wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wi…

Congress already made the law. The law says "these guys make the rules". To me, that counts.

The issue is that congress are not experts. They also move really, really slow.

I don't expect my congressmen to know if Red 40 is safe to consume, how much can be consumed, if it should be reported as an ingredient, etc. There's thousands of ingredients in food, I imagine. If that was written into law the law would be very long, no?

And then wouldn't it go out of date remarkably quickly? Hence, we have the FDA. They know about Red 40 and also medication.

What level of specificity do we actually need here? Does Congress need to list out, specifically, what molecular compounds are and are not allowed? That seems absolutely absurd to me.

It seems to me that once we get to the FTC or , suddenly the rules change and congress does need to be absurdly specific.

Funny how that works.

Post reply on HN