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

FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#231

Post by l33t7332273 »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #59

Full text of the ruling here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule... It's not surprising after thinking about it for a minute, but it did startle me to read that the FTC measures innovation by the number of patents issued. > In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 year…

I feel like, much like BMI, patent volume can be used to measure a population.

Sure, for any individual‘s fitness or a company’s “innovativeness” they are useless, but in aggregate they can be revealing.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#232

Post by bluGill »

triceratops wrote: post #148
zer00eyz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd love for my company's competitor to buy me up. Shit let them all go to war for the privilege of employing my ass.

I doubt you are that valuable. Sure software developers are high priced, but without even knowing what company you work for I bet I can do your job at a competitor and after 3 years I'd be just as good - that is worst case when I have to learn a new programming language to expert level as well as the domain. There are only a few people who have special skills that it is even worth thinking about protected. Someone who hires you away from a competitor gains at most a couple months vs hiring someone with similar skill who doesn't work for a competitor (and thus doesn't have domain knowledge).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#233

Post by no_wizard »

lr4444lr wrote: post #125

Just out of curiosity, were any non-competes ever actually enforced by the courts for a reason other than stealing clients or trade secrets?

A case that isn't even a tech company: Prudential Security enforced non competes against minimum wage security guards[0]

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#234

Post by zer00eyz »

dwaltrip wrote: post #173
zer00eyz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting how you call it “stealing” to hire someone who worked at a competitor. They aren’t property, companies don’t own people. If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay. Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing, reducing the large power difference.

>> They aren’t property, companies don’t own people.

Ideas aren't property and they are stolen. You can steal a glance as well, but you know that has nothing to do with property either.

I also could have used the colloquialism poaching, but then I would be hearing about how people aren't big game and hunting is bad.

> Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing

We already know it doesn't have to: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/185051/judge-appr...

That fine was probably minor compared to the wage suppression.

> If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay.

Poaching all the staff away from a company is illegal in CA, it's called raiding. This change will not create laws out of thin air.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#235

Post by ixwt »

iamthirsty wrote: post #192
cogman10 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Which is what Congress created them to do. And they are appointed, which the appointers are elected. In essence, they are elected, through the elected representatives which themselves are elected.

This is like saying that the US President is an unelected governmental representative. The population actually votes on a Representative for the Electoral College (EC). The Representatives in the EC then vote for President and Vice President. And yes, the EC Representatives are voted for because they say they will vote for a particular candidate (and as we figured out in 2012, many states have laws penalizing EC Representatives who don't vote how they committed to).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#236

Post by banish-m4 »

cryptonector wrote: post #156

Regardless of whether this is a good or bad outcome, I'm still totally non-plussed that the best we can do in the law is to ban "unfair" business practices. What exactly is "unfair"? We all know it when we see it, I suppose, but we don't all see things the same way. More importantly, and especially if the Chevron doctrine falls, I don't see how the Congress can delegate so much power, so ambiguously, to the FTC. It s…

Unfortunately, what you, I, or any non-billionaire voter thinks is reasonable or not is impertinent to the "free speech" of super PAC corporate lobbyists and $5 ideological fringe zealots near total monopolization of legislative output. No amount of grassroots action, voting, or dumb insurrections can break through entrenched corruption that is in the tank for billionaires, Russia, QAnon, and militant evangelical Christian white suprematists.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#237

Post by no_wizard »

SoftTalker wrote: post #73
chowells wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because excesses finally became so ridiculously over the top that it was finally politically viable to address it. Remember, chain restaurants have started using non-competes to ban servers and cooks from moving to another employer. The situation is finally in the eyes of the general public.

That's just absurd. Non-competes should never apply to commodity-skill jobs. I wonder how often they were ever enforced?

They absolutely were, such in the case of Prudential Security[0]

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#238

Post by zer00eyz »

no_wizard wrote: post #218
zer00eyz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> Given that these rules are very similar to those in California...

CA has a corresponding law that prevents this. The last time I looked the FTC wasnt creating at NEW law to prevent the other side of this coin:

Rule 3: Workforce “Raids” Are Illegal in California

Technically, poaching employees is not illegal in California, but restrictions on workplace raids are mentioned in the legislation. In fact, state law prohibits companies from acting in bad faith to solicit a mass amount of employees from their competitors to intentionally hurt their business. This is called “raiding,” and when your competitor does it, you can file a tortious interference claim against them. Most of these cases require an employment contract to be successful in pursuit of damages.

FROM: https://www.flclaw.net/is-poaching-employees-illegal-califor...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#239

Post by Animats »

timeflex wrote: post #168
yieldcrv wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government has the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce, and 100 years ago it discovered that all commerce is now interstate commerce, followed by the supremacy clause which is selectively applied (ie. not for scheduled drugs, but for everything else) This Supreme Court could be friendly to invalidating that expansive interpretation though so, big mismatch from the executive branch / agenc…

The Supreme Court doesn't have any power to enforce its decisions. District and Appeals Courts could just say no to their decisions and there isn't much they can do.

> The Supreme Court doesn't have any power to enforce its decisions.

Sure it does. US Marshals are the muscle of the court system. They enforce federal court orders when necessary.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#240

Post by iamthirsty »

ixwt wrote: post #235
iamthirsty wrote: post #192

Earlier 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.

Which is what Congress created them to do. And they are appointed, which the appointers are elected. In essence, they are elected, through the elected representatives which themselves are elected. This is like saying that the US President is an unelected governmental representative. The population actually votes on a Representative for the Electoral College (EC). The Representatives in the EC then vote for President…

> This is like saying that the US President is an unelected governmental representative

No, that's not how that works, ironically because in the name — Electoral College — the President is, elected. Regardless by the populous or not.

Appointees are politically chosen, yes by a representative, but usually with major political leanings built into the rules they make, with little to no oversight.

Post reply on HN