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

211–220 of 222 posts

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

#211

Post by dangus »

ljlolel wrote: post #47
Dalewyn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The president is elected by the people The POTUS is elected by the States. >The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, The judiciary is ultimately confirmed by the Senate, who are voted in by the peoples of each State.

Senators used to be appointed by the state too

Not by an open jon board like USAJobs.gov.

I know someone who did a relatively high profile job in one of the administrative departments. They didn’t know anyone. They just applied online, interviewed, background check, etc - just like a regular job.

Their appointment was based on their abilities instead of who they knew, no palm greasing involved.

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

#212

Post by amarant »

lionkor wrote: post #72
amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only leg…

Your points are valid, but I was talking about non-competes specifically, which companies try to apply outside of America too, even if they are not legally binding (I'm Swedish and I've signed a non compete in the past, knowing fully well I could choose to ignore it because that specific clause is illegal here, but still)

My point was more that most people can't afford to not work in the industry they've spent years building competence in, and therefore a no-compete clause makes them very vulnerable to poor practices from the employer. The employer might (in theory) treat their employees poorly knowing that they cannot leave the company, and the employees will be forced to put up with it because leaving employment with a non-compete deal means they can't pay their mortgage.

Calling it slavery is hyperbolic to be sure, but non-competes are undeniably a step in that direction.

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

#213

Post by quartesixte »

dangus wrote: post #207
quartesixte wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation? So there's nothing stopping anyone from trying this, but admission into the Union requires the other States in the Union + POTUS to agree with you. And, I'd imagine if a coalition of states finds California splitting into 5 parts to be disadvantageous to the balance of power within the Union, they'd block…

I think the fundamental question we are debating is this: at what threshold does protecting minority voices and interests look more like minority rule denying the majority opinion than the needs of minority interests being protected? At what threshold does the desire to stop mob rule become the silencing of the common person? And really, there's a good argument that’s where we are at today. The minority opinion contr…

I guess here is an even more fundamental question: What is the purpose of the Federal Government, and what is the purpose of our representation within that government?

I think answers to those questions illuminate quite clearly how you will end up feeling about urban vs rural, majority rule vs minority protection, Senators, SCOTUS, etc. etc.

>those urban areas have the most people and if those people aren't being heard that is already a failure.

But they are heard? Democrats (largely associated with urban areas) control 49% of the House of Representatives. Until 2 years ago they had ~51%. And they've had a couple of super majorities. And each Representative represents the same number of people.

But voters aren't fungible. Voters' interests aren't fungible. It would be preposterous for a resident of Chicago to show up to a school board meeting in Seattle and make any sort of demands.

>how can we justify giving people different levels of voices based solely on where they live?

The reality is that our environment, upbringing, and experiences lead to a particular mix of interests and those interests tend to get geographically clustered. Those interests also have real, economic ramifications to everyone's daily lives. We don't even all speak the same kind of English!

Look, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I still hold a lot of skepticism towards drastic changes to a system that can wield immense power and control over the world.

And for what it's worth, I could be very wrong in my views. The beauty of a democracy is that with enough votes and political action, those who think I am wrong can move to shape the USA into their vision if they win enough power in Government. And the great strength of the USA is that 1) I can disagree with the end result freely and 2) if I find it so important to my daily life, the well-being of my posterity, and the common-good of all, I can take action to find like minded individuals to convince people of our view and make real political outcomes. All in a peaceful manner! All protected by the First Amendment! (for it takes freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion to accomplish these two things).

I think we have a pretty good thing going here if the above two remain true in our government.

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

#214

Post by Dalewyn »

shiroiushi wrote: post #209
Dalewyn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Japan Sweet baby Jesus NO . Japan is literally a 1.5 party state (LDP with Komei Party latching on as yes men), and the last time the Japanese electorate decided to give the minority JDP a shot it resulted in the worst manmade nuclear disaster in post-war history and the JDP collapsing into two different and irrelevant parties (CDP and DPFP). And today the LDP party leader election stems from a leaderless leader (Ki…

I don't see any government shutdowns in Japan. In fact, life here is generally quite peaceful and stress-free, unlike the hell that is life in the US these days. >(Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies) Kishida has been fine; you can't change a stagnant economy in a few years, and a PM's power is limited. >politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in lit…

>I don't see any government shutdowns in Japan.

Considering we've gone through like half a dozen shut downs if not more and the sky didn't come crashing down, I say shut 'er down more. We'll all save money and a lot of misery.

>In fact, life here is generally quite peaceful and stress-free,

Quite a lot of Japanese hate how peaceful life is in Japan because the flipside is there's nothing to look forward to.

I'm sure there's a healthy serving of "grass greener on other side" there, but I don't disagree with the assessment. Low risk means low return.

>Kishida has been fine

Kishida is decidedly not fine, he is enjoying utterly abysmal approval ratings and he was more or less forced out of running for the party leadership and Prime Ministry this party election cycle because of how inept he was.

He speaks a lot of fancy words, but he didn't actually do much of anything as a leader. Kind of like Obama in that sense.

>Tax evasion by parliament members isn't great, but US congresspeople aren't any better: just look at Bob Menendez. No place has perfect politicians.

All of them basically got slapped with temporary suspensions from political activity from their party. Fines? Nope. Prison time? Nope. Amending the law to crack down on this behaviour? Pedantically yes, nothing changed in practice.

Incidentally, the LDP is projected to lose seats in the next general election and maybe even lose majority and thus the government because of how utterly worthless they and the Japanese political scene at-large is.

>So what? Most Americans have no clue how their own government works either.

The difference is Japanese pride themselves on being educated, and most of them can't tell you how Parliament is elected because of how innane it is.

If you don't believe me, you don't have to because the numbers speak for themselves: Japanese voter turnouts have been utterly abysmal, and this is after they reduced voting age from 20 (age of maturity) to 18 and campaigned to increase teaching civics in schools. The high school senior kids couldn't care less, let alone the adults, because they knew voting is a waste of time.

>It was actually nice seeing how the assassination of former PM Abe actually resulted in real positive change

The fact that it took violence of the highest order to effect the bare minimum of change (those cultliticians dragged their feet in disavowing, cult monies are monies) is not a good thing for democracy.

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

#215

Post by mgh95 »

dangus wrote: post #210
mgh95 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas,…

Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading. Operation Choke Point was an example of a failure but it’s surrounded many successes. You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protectio…

> Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading.

But writing the regulations of a "system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading" are subject to a far more insidious "revolving door" (see OpenSecrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door) which also lists (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-agencies) the agencies lobbied and lobbyists. The big difference? It's quite literally not considered lobbying by law since administrative agencies aren't legislators (see this article: https://afj.org/resource/administrative-advocacy/)-- even whatever protections you believe are insufficient don't apply.

> You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg).

What enforcement efforts do you believe help you? Specifics are helpful.

> The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president.

So first: the FTC under Lina Khan has not been performing well, and notably lost their suits. Second, it's the DOJ suing Ticketmaster, and the DOJ is actually won their Google suit, and seems to be poised to win against Ticketmaster and RealPage, which I'm rooting for.

And to address your points regarding the judicial branch: this is why laws are so important. People tend to treat elections as red vs blue, but the reality is that depending upon administrative agencies to legislate a contributing factor to what allows such tribalism to exist at all: a perception that progress on "issues", however minor, is permanent outside the bounds of congress can be made. To change the laws of the country, it must come from the seat of power: congress.

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

#216

Post by nativeit »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #201
consteval wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? T…

> It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.

I suppose it’s a good thing we elected the person who appointed the heads of federal agencies. You’re moving the goal posts.

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

#217

Post by nativeit »

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…

Who are “most observers” and when were they all polled about this?

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

#218

Post by flanked-evergl »

nativeit wrote: post #216
flanked-evergl wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.

I suppose it’s a good thing we elected the person who appointed the heads of federal agencies. You’re moving the goal posts.

The executive has no authority to legislate.

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

#219

Post by kortilla »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #81
kortilla wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you get paid. People that say that kind of shit are privileged morons.

Roman slaves got paid. In imperial Russia the slaves were paid. American slavery institution is not representative of how this worked for thousands of years. In many societies you couldn’t just randomly kill a slave. So Are you sure who are the morons?

Please try to intelligently elaborate how it’s slavery when all of the defining characteristics of slavery are removed (involuntary work, physical violence for disobeying, inability to change employers, etc).

What do you think it meant to “buy a slave’s freedom”?

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

#220

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kortilla wrote: post #219
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman slaves got paid. In imperial Russia the slaves were paid. American slavery institution is not representative of how this worked for thousands of years. In many societies you couldn’t just randomly kill a slave. So Are you sure who are the morons?

Please try to intelligently elaborate how it’s slavery when all of the defining characteristics of slavery are removed (involuntary work, physical violence for disobeying, inability to change employers, etc). What do you think it meant to “buy a slave’s freedom”?

What are you actually disputing?

Are you claiming Roman slaves were not slaves and both the Romans that lived thousands of years ago and modern historians are wrong to call them slaves?

Post reply on HN