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

281–290 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#281

Post by toomuchtodo »

oceanplexian wrote: post #265
banish-m4 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Simila…

There is widespread bipartisan support for noncompetes. NY, a bastion of liberal politics still overwhelmingly refuses to make noncompetes illegal.

> There is widespread bipartisan support for noncompetes. NY, a bastion of liberal politics still overwhelmingly refuses to make noncompetes illegal.

NY Governor Hochul vetoed it because she is a hack politician and yielded to Wall Street pressure. Politicians with a spine (or constitution, if you prefer) are in short supply.

https://apnews.com/article/noncompete-agreement-bill-veto-ne...

> But in recent months, the legislation had come under fierce attack by Wall Street and top business groups in New York. They argued the agreements are necessary to protect investment strategies and keep highly-paid workers from leaving their companies with prized inside information and working for an industry rival.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#282

Post by cryptonector »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #85
aidenn0 wrote: post #64

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…

> 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 ]

Live by regulation, die by regulation. GP's point is that since this rule is made by this Administration, the next Administration could undo it. GP is right. As long as one Administration has the power delegated to it by Congress, and so does the next one, then the next one can change and even reverse the previous one(s)' regulations.

The court recently found (in W. Virginia vs. EPA) that Congress cannot delegate power in "major questions". This rule might not be a "major question", but given the vagueness of the statutory foundation of the FTC, it's possible that all of the FTC's work is on thin ice. The Court would likely not rule the whole FTC and its past regulations unconstitutional, but it might start looking askance at regulations that seem remotely like major questions.

Is this rule a "major question"? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think "no".

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#283

Post by jameshart »

bretthoerner wrote: post #11

My attorney friends tell me that the FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law. (My poor paraphrasing, not theirs.) I've been surprised I haven't seen this mentioned on social media or in the news. Are my friends wrong, or are people celebrating because this is just a step in the right direction even if it may not do anything yet?

If a noncompete agreement between a former employer, and a person who resides in a particular state, purports to prevent that person from taking up an employment contract with another employer - including by one who is located in a different state… well that seems like that could be an unfair restraint on interstate commerce.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#285

Post by Duwensatzaj »

boppo1 wrote: post #211
bufordtwain wrote: post #208

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?

FDR froze wages during WWII while excluding insurance benefits.

That plus tax subsidies for third-party insurance and we ended up in the current mess.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#287

Post by cryptonector »

lamontcg wrote: post #188
fidotron wrote: post #12

> Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions. Lot's of devs will be surprised to discover they are in policy making positions.

I suspect that "policy-making positions" is a term of art that is more narrowly defined than it looks and that it'll actually be difficult or impossible to abuse it enough to made it apply to SWEs. Most likely big 4 accounting firms have a definition of what that means and it is part of accounting and auditing standards. At any rate they'd need to first abuse it to apply to managers who are below VP levels.

It's defined in the rule...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#288

Post by kube-system »

no_wizard wrote: post #228
kube-system wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've know places that pay 1/3 of that and have noncompetes. Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit.

>Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit. Simply put though, they shouldn't have to.

I absolutely agree, but I make it a point to mention their limits of enforceability whenever I can because it is information worth spreading for those worried about one.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#289

Post by paulmd »

bluGill wrote: post #178
wongarsu wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"short lifetime" is relative. Had Apple been granted a patent on the idea of a smartphone the same year they released the iPhone, that patent would only expire in three years. There are some industries where due to slow-moving markets the 20 year patent period is still sensible, but for most sectors we would be better off with a 5 or 10 year patent period to account for the increased speed of innovation.

Apple did not invent the smart phone. The invented several features that make them useful (even their version one lacked apps), but others made smart phones before them. What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before.

> What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before.

that’s literally every patentable invention ever, though.

Remington didn’t invent the hunting rifle… they didn’t even invent the first self-loading or lever action rifle, probably.

“removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical” is more charitably described as “a useful innovation that advances the field”.

Now, the problem is that a lot of patents are issued for things that someone else already has done, so the recipient of the patent isn't actually advancing the state of the art. But on the face of it, "removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical" is literally what patents are supposed to be granted for.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#290

Post by jameshart »

xpe wrote: post #272
oceanplexian wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chances are extremely high that the current Supreme Court nullifies or greatly restricts Chevron. These kind of announcements are fuel for the fire and are likely to accelerate its demise. They will kill this faster than they killed the COVID vaccine mandate. Govt. agencies can’t make laws, even if we may agree with them (I actually do in this case). However this isn’t the role of an unelected government agency.

It is wise to look at an argument with extra caution when you see the phrase “unelected government agency”. There are (of course) valid powers available to agencies. The question is what powers are valid. Beware the dark arts of rhetoric. I’m familiar with spotting this one because my constitutional law professor used it often. He helped us to see right through it. Logic and argumentation should win, not words design…

Indeed. Government agencies are overseen by officers of the United States, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, typically to terms greater than the length of either a presidential to senate term.

Just like Judges.

The idea that courts are the only delegates of the elected representatives of the people who are allowed to figure out the nuances of how to carry out the democratically legislated responsibilities of government is a bit of a brainworm that has infected US politics and makes the Supreme Court a little too important.

Post reply on HN