241–250 of 530 posts
I suspect this is bad for California, its lack of noncompetes was a huge differentiation for a while. (how bad? I don't know.)
https://natlawreview.com/article/state-law-restrictive-coven...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The executive branch can unilaterally revoke these regulations The US Constitution + amendments delineates the powers of the branches. Is the situation you describe possibly a window in time when executive branch constitutional overreach has not been yet challenged? [ edit : great explanations below -> sincere thanks ]
Congress created the FTC, congress could eliminate or curtail the FTC's power. Some have argued that it's unconstitutional for congress to give away its power (even conditionally) in this way, but AFAIK that's a rather fringe legal theory. Certainly the FTC has existed for over 100 years at this point, so there's been plenty of time to challenge it.
[0]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
This 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.
I have no idea why the recruiter was willing to put this in writing, and thankfully, I was able to find other work instead.
I know it's not a non-compete, but there are other ways that companies can illegally form cartels to suppress labor.
This 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.
I am currently on one of those deals by working for an HFT, then taking a competitor's offer. It is really very nice. From a wealth-accumulation POV, I am losing out a lot of earning each month I'm not working, but I am still paid a very cushy six-figure salary that covers a comfortable lifestyle for my family plus decent savings. I value my time at prime working age much more than the net worth I potentially lost. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that workers earning less than $151,164 annually usually don't have noncompetes anyway? Sounds like a lot of people will get bucketed into "senior executives" group. At least new noncompetes can't be created.
Non competes are everywhere. Famous case with Prudential Security[0] where they had everyone sign non competes, that includes minimum wage workers, and they enforced them, which put an outsized strain on the minimum wage workers in particular. Its a harmful practice across the board. [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...
[1] https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreement...
And this is just the start of why Apple cancelled Jon Stewart over a purported Lina Khan interview.
Apple+ is like MSNBC: they only want incrementalist pseudo-agitators rather than those who speak truth to power. (MSNBC has a history of firing hosts who Washington king makers or Comcast executives disapprove of.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress created the FTC, congress could eliminate or curtail the FTC's power. Some have argued that it's unconstitutional for congress to give away its power (even conditionally) in this way, but AFAIK that's a rather fringe legal theory. Certainly the FTC has existed for over 100 years at this point, so there's been plenty of time to challenge it.
The same fringe legal theory that is likely to win in the Chevron Deference case[0] before the Supreme court, which will gut agencies (including the FTCs) ability to regulate things in this manner? [0]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 proh…
[0]: that the California government anticipated and defined, to their credit
I am 100% for this, but it makes me sad that the legislative branch has nearly completely abandoned its duty to pass laws in favor of granting the executive branch the authority to regulate just about everything. This is a problem for two main reasons: 1. The executive branch can unilaterally revoke these regulations, making them more volatile. Maybe my non-compete is invalid today, but will it be in 4 years when I a…
> completely abandoned its duty to pass laws That's the duty of the legislature? To make more rules?