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

NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

natlawreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#21

Post by fnimick »

CrimsonRain wrote: post #19
drpossum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear: Your is stance that non-compete and stay-or-pay agreements do not interfere with employees' labor rights and that broadening their applicability is good ? Because that is what happened.

Do you have to sign noncompete before joining the job or after? If before, why not find another job? Is anyone forcing you to accept a job with noncompete? If after, they should be banned.

And if companies collude together to all agree to use non-competes to depress salary (reminder that this has already occurred), what would you recommend?

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#22

Post by jrs235 »

caesil wrote: post #3

Does this matter? Corporations are on notice that this pendulum may swing the other way in four years (and remains permanently stuck the other way in certain states). They might just decide to steer clear of this minefield.

Nah, without the government to help defend against "frivilous" lawsuits by big corps, big corps won't be afraid to just sue the employees and make they pay the costs to defend or sue those hiring them to scare them from from employing them.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#23

Post by tzs »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

Which state? I thought only California bans non competes. Washington almost did, but then their leaders took bribes from the tech companies to exclude higher earners.

For anyone curious the earning thresholds in Washington for non-competes to be OK were $120560 for employees and $301400 for independent contractors last year.

When non-competes are allowed they are limited to 18 months, and if you get laid off they are void unless the employer continues to pay your base salary during the duration of the non-compete.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#24

Post by dmurray »

duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states?

This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states that would want to ban them locally.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#25

Post by crooked-v »

CrimsonRain wrote: post #19
drpossum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear: Your is stance that non-compete and stay-or-pay agreements do not interfere with employees' labor rights and that broadening their applicability is good ? Because that is what happened.

Do you have to sign noncompete before joining the job or after? If before, why not find another job? Is anyone forcing you to accept a job with noncompete? If after, they should be banned.

> Is anyone forcing you to accept a job with noncompete?

If every job has a noncompete, the alternative option is to starve.

Jobs with noncompete clauses now include things like fast food counter work (https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreement...).

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#26

Post by tdeck »

dmurray wrote: post #24
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#28

Post by duxup »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #20
duxup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a minefield. Ignoring all the other details, if someone waves the magic wand and makes it legal you can use it, when someone waves the magic wand and it's not legal, then the agreement is just void at that point. There's no retroactive consequences.

TFA notes that it may not have been declared legal. Rescinding a memo doesn't reverse existing case law; the meaning of said case law is subject to some disagreements (that the memo sought to clarify/remove).

Yeah I didn't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on the memo, just the most extreme case to demonstrate that if the law changes again, it's not a risk to the employer.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#29

Post by duxup »

dmurray wrote: post #24
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

I think it best non competes simply don't exist.

Want to keep your employees, compete in the market.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#30

Post by Muromec »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #16
janice1999 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But think of the "employer community". How can they punish employees for leaving now?

If companies are implementing unfair policies like non-competes then the invisible hand of the free market will cause employees to leave those companies or never join them! I mean it's really not very likely that the 2-3 CEOs we currently have for each industry now could possibly find time to meet in a room together in order to pad their pockets with billions more and help squash further competition. /s

Of course the will not, as it will be illegal. Nobody is stupid enough to write an email admitting to doing it.

/s

Post reply on HN