This is nice but I think it's small potatoes compared to what could be achieved economically by decoupling healthcare from employment.
Yeah, this is a big one. How'd that happen in the first place?
FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
211–220 of 530 posts
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#212Banning noncompetes discourages companies from training workers, since they can leave immediately after their training is over. It also impinges on worker freedom. Currently I can apply for jobs with and without noncompetes, and if the job with the noncompete pays substantially more or is more attractive in some other way, I can take it. The FTC rule would deprive me of that choice. I have been hired to write softwar…
> My noncompete prevents me from leaving and immediately taking a job at company that invests in the same markets. That is a reasonable way for the company to protect its intellectual property.
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the fact that the current Supreme Court has been doing everything they can to kill Chevron Deference.
Yup, this is very much the key to why I think this will be killed. This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules.
The SCOTUS had its "federalism revolution" in the 90s, and it ended in the Raich case when Scalia decided that leaving drug policy to the States was too much.
Under current precedents all the State decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs that we've seen are all unconstitutional. It was the liberal justices + Scalia who made it so. Those State laws decriminalizing various drugs are being tolerated by the feds -- for now.
The federalism revolution and its opposite both cut both ways.
On the whole I would prefer that the court resume its federalist revolution, even though some results I wouldn't like.
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules. Very dramatic. Really, it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas.
> it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas. Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at Federal Agencies like the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are work for Federal Agencies that are the US Courts. Progress?
> Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at e.g. the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are paid by the US Court system. Progress?
Where do you get that from?
Reversing Chevron will mean that Congress will have to work harder to get the regulations that it and the Executive want. If Congress were not disfunctional that would be a very good thing. And heck, reversing Chevron might well function to help Congress function more normally.
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this rule a partisan issue?
Yes. > The vote on the final rule, which fell along party lines, with three Democratic commissioners voting in favor and the agency’s two Republicans voting against https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/20...
What about elected officials?
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law The federal government can absolutely regulate both employment and contract law. (Merger agreements are contracts. The FTC was established to block bad mergers.) Whether the FTC can do this is untested. But that’s more a Chevron issue than a federal powers one.
Generally federal law will preempt state law. See the Court's decisions regarding California's attempt to ban arbitration agreements in employment contracts. Now, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court won't come up with their own hot take, but at some point appeals and district courts are just going to say no when they send a case back. What is the Supreme Court going to do? Federal judges can only be removed by impeac…
The odds of the conservative activism SCOTUS siding with employees and COTUS (bought off by corporate lobbyists) passing a worker-friendly prohibition on noncompetes are both zero. OTOH, it's not outside the realm of possibility that COTUS might pass a federal law superseding laws in California, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Washington state, and Washington DC to roll back states rights favoring workers. Similar state bills in NY and NJ died in committee in 2022.
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court, unfortunately.
If the SCOTUS overturns the Chevron doctrine, then this rule and probably all of the FTC's authority is on thin ice until Congress passes an act that says something more substantial and significantly less vague that "unfair business practices".
Which would be great. These agencies and bureaus have grown to an enormous scope, completely without the consent of the governed. Doesn't sound like a republic to me.
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court, unfortunately.
I am not entirely sure. Without anti compete stealing your competitors staff becomes a valid business strategy. Buy up the competitions best people and cripple them. This favors those with the most capital not the least.
Given that these rules are very similar to those in California, and California has a big enough economy to be a good representative sample, I don't see this being a real issue.
Otherwise, why aren't well capitalized competitors in California hiring up the best people at their competitors and crippling competition, as it were? We just don't see this happen on a large scale like this suggestions.
Now, that's my take on it at charitably. My honest opinion about it is simply: who cares. If you want people to stay, give them reasons to stay that aren't the legal equivalent of holding a gun to their head
Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#219Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes
#220This seems incredibly important. I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. I'm interested to see how this hits finance firms – I know people who were forced to take a year off between jobs (although they were compensated the whole time). Always thought that would be a pretty sweet deal.
Page 83-84 provides some guidance on garden leave and suggests that it will still be allowed under the new rule:
> With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission notes that an agreement whereby the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis would not be a non-compete clause under the definition, because such an agreement is not a post-employment restriction. Instead, the worker continues to be employed, even though the worker’s job duties or access to colleagues or the workplace may be significantly or entirely curtailed. Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation. Similarly, a severance agreement that imposes no restrictions on where the worker may work following the employment associated with the severance agreement is not a non-compete clause under § 910.1, because it does not impose a post-employment restriction.