Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#111

Post by bobthepanda »

bee_rider wrote: post #106
bobthepanda wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are talking about doing it in place of a non-compete, so you’re either * not working due to noncompete and not getting paid for the duration of time * not working due to noncompete and getting paid for the duration of time The point is to make noncompetes a hassle and only worth it if you’re actually trying to protect something. The status quo is pretty poor if Subway’s “sandwich artists” are getting tol…

But what’s the status quo? My perception at least is that non-competes almost never get enforced or are struck down if they do get enforced, usually, outside of really specific situations. I guess my assumption is that the companies don’t offer the latter because they don’t actually care very much about individual engineers going to do similar jobs at the competition, and they just try to get their employees to sign…

i can’t find the local news article because the link is dead, but here is a change.org petition about a Subway employee having a noncompete enforced: https://www.change.org/p/subway-restaurants-absurd-non-compe...

The NYT has more examples including a summer camp counselor: https://archive.ph/1BvoM

If the noncompete truly has no value, and it is also not worth paying out for, then it should just not be in the employment contract to start.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#112

Post by kika »

josephcsible wrote: post #103

Here's how non-competes could work that would be perfectly fair to employees: When you get a new job offer, you tell your old employer about it. Your old employer then has two choices: either let you take the new job, or pay you a salary and other benefits equal to what the new job would have paid, for the duration of the noncompete, except without you having to do any work. Then companies would only require noncompe…

Many jobs have pretty shitty base salaries (see traders above) and huge performance bonuses. These people would be at a disadvantage.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#113

Post by Retric »

granzymes wrote: post #65
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why they don't have that authority? Do you think Congress can't delegate its power through a statute? Or do you think that it hasn't done so in this speciifc (Section 5) instance?

The latter. Courts are skeptical of agencies "discovering" new powers decades later that are based on vague sections of their enabling statutes. Congress could of course directly ban non-competes or amend the FTC Act to give the agency this power.

This is hardly a new power, the FTC already regulates business contracts such as franchise agreements. This extends as far as Fortnight’s item shop.

It’s one thing for agencies to suddenly focus on some new area tangential to their mandate, but this seems to be exactly that they are supposed to be looking at.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#114

Post by wpietri »

granzymes wrote: post #75
wpietri wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts are increasingly skeptical of regulatory powers at all. Which, gosh golly, might have something to do with the increasing funding by the super-rich of groups that push for judges that think that way.

I think courts will be rightly skeptical of unelected agency commissioners preempting the laws of 50 states based on 9 words that the FTC has never before relied upon. I also think that this is obvious and should not be controversial.

I'm sure you do. I think that is obvious that regulatory agencies were established to solve complex and dynamic problems, and so broad language should be interpreted, well, broadly. If Congress wants something else done in response to changing circumstances, they can always change the laws. I think that should not be controversial. But we live in an age of billionaire-driven propaganda about this topic, so controversial it will be.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#115

Post by petsfed »

candiddevmike wrote: post #20
munk-a wrote: post #6

In the instance this change doesn't go through it is important to be aware that non-competes don't survive hardship tests. There is an extreme burden on the employer to prove that there are appropriate jobs available to the former employee that wouldn't violate the non-compete or (and this is much more common for "serious" non-competes in the modern world) provide partial compensation to the employee for the term of…

I'm trying to think of why the powers that be want this too, and the only thing I can think of is to expand their hiring pool/make poaching legal. Maybe I'm too cynical.

Yes, but another way to look at it is that the volume of successful strikes of the last few years are making the powers-that-be sweat a bit.

This feels like a sacrifice play to me. I'm sure that the cost of improving wages, hours, and benefits so as to retain staff is a lot less than improving all those things plus the overall cost to the business and/or economy of a strike.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#116

Post by ZoomerCretin »

claytongulick wrote: post #73
lostdog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "radical left" finally got some power. The head of the FTC is known to be someone who wants to enact progressive policies. For her and her staff, limiting noncompetes is driven by idealism that workers should have more rights. I believe that these changes are echoes of Bernie and other progressives getting lots of votes since 2016. They are now insiders in the government rather than outsiders, so they advocate fo…

You know, this is the exact reason why the "left" v "right" thing is do damned obnoxious. Good ideas are good regardless of political party. Barring several wedge issues that parties exploit to maximize outrage reaction in order to gain power, most people are pretty closely aligned on stuff like this. I feel like if you polled the US population on this, 80+ percent of folks would be in favor of eliminating non-compet…

>Good ideas are good regardless of political party.

This kind of analysis only makes sense if you completely disregard what "left" and "right" mean. The right is explicitly anti-labor.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#117

Post by claytongulick »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #116
claytongulick wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, this is the exact reason why the "left" v "right" thing is do damned obnoxious. Good ideas are good regardless of political party. Barring several wedge issues that parties exploit to maximize outrage reaction in order to gain power, most people are pretty closely aligned on stuff like this. I feel like if you polled the US population on this, 80+ percent of folks would be in favor of eliminating non-compet…

>Good ideas are good regardless of political party. This kind of analysis only makes sense if you completely disregard what "left" and "right" mean. The right is explicitly anti-labor.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

It's not a binary, it's limited thinking to say that someone is "pro-labor" or "anti-labor". Even that choice of words, framing the narrative and the associated emotional response is deliberate - and misleading.

Each situation is different, for example, I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a majority of "right" voters who believe that coal miner unions are a bad idea.

I think it'd be pretty easy to find a majority of them who believe that the NEA does more harm than good.

But it's a lot easier to just lump everyone together and demonize them, right? To find a few tragic examples of abuses to maximize outrage reaction, and make sure everyone is properly corralled into their tribes and casting the "correct" vote, so we can show those nasty out-groupers what's what.

In case you were curious, the distribution of political leaning in unions is a lot more complex than what you might think [1].

If someone asks me whether I believe in unions, depending on the day and how hungry I am I'd likely respond with something like "which union? which industry?", though I don't consider myself to be "right".

I am skeptical of laws that both protect and prevent unions, though. I think people should be free to assemble in whatever manner they choose, and to negotiate the same way.

I also understand that this gets really complicated when strikes or mass-firings threaten fundamental infrastructure and security. So, like most things - it's complicated.

[1] https://www.thestrikewave.com/original-content/complicated-p...

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#118

Post by bee_rider »

bobthepanda wrote: post #111
bee_rider wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s the status quo? My perception at least is that non-competes almost never get enforced or are struck down if they do get enforced, usually, outside of really specific situations. I guess my assumption is that the companies don’t offer the latter because they don’t actually care very much about individual engineers going to do similar jobs at the competition, and they just try to get their employees to sign…

i can’t find the local news article because the link is dead, but here is a change.org petition about a Subway employee having a noncompete enforced: https://www.change.org/p/subway-restaurants-absurd-non-compe... The NYT has more examples including a summer camp counselor: https://archive.ph/1BvoM If the noncompete truly has no value, and it is also not worth paying out for, then it should just not be in the employm…

Oh, mea culpa then. I guess I’ve made a popular incorrect assumption given that people keep signing these things.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#119

Post by josephcsible »

kika wrote: post #112
josephcsible wrote: post #103

Here's how non-competes could work that would be perfectly fair to employees: When you get a new job offer, you tell your old employer about it. Your old employer then has two choices: either let you take the new job, or pay you a salary and other benefits equal to what the new job would have paid, for the duration of the noncompete, except without you having to do any work. Then companies would only require noncompe…

Many jobs have pretty shitty base salaries (see traders above) and huge performance bonuses. These people would be at a disadvantage.

Okay, slight adjustment to fix that: the pay is the higher of the old job's pay (at its peak during your employment period there) or the new job's pay.

Re: The FTC plans to curtail the use of non-compete clauses

#120

Post by kika »

josephcsible wrote: post #119
kika wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many jobs have pretty shitty base salaries (see traders above) and huge performance bonuses. These people would be at a disadvantage.

Okay, slight adjustment to fix that: the pay is the higher of the old job's pay (at its peak during your employment period there) or the new job's pay.

huh. at the peak i was making $1M a year. now i’m not worse but im getting much less because have you seen the stock market? that’s the problem with government “regulations”: unintended consequences. and lack of personal responsibility: “ah, we didn’t think of that, well, sucks to be you”
Post reply on HN