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

NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

natlawreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#31

Post by evil-olive »

dmurray wrote: post #24
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

> Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level.

this is just flat-out not true. look at the NLRB [0] and OSHA [1] for the two most obvious examples of the federal government regulating employment conditions.

there is certainly lots of employment regulation that also happens at the state and local level, but why is that an argument in favor of not doing federal regulation?

eg, if I'm working in North Dakota and get injured on the job, then yeah the state government will adjudicate my worker's comp claim, and generally speaking the feds don't need to get involved.

however, if the company I work for in ND requires me to sign a non-compete contract that supposedly applies in all 50 states, and might prevent me from moving to South Dakota or another state - how is that not a concern of the federal government? this is interstate commerce, which the constitution very explicitly gives the federal government power to regulate.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health...

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#33

Post by kelnos »

caesil wrote: post #3

Does this matter? Corporations are on notice that this pendulum may swing the other way in four years (and remains permanently stuck the other way in certain states). They might just decide to steer clear of this minefield.

What minefield? They can have enforceable non-competes for at least the next 4 years. After that, maybe not, but it's so easy to include a non-compete clause into a new employee's paperwork that there's no reason not to do it, for companies that suck (that is, more or less all of them).

Even if they don't intend to go through the trouble to enforce them, they have a chilling effect.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#35

Post by unclad5968 »

tdeck wrote: post #26
dmurray wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.

I'm against non-competes, but likening them to slavery seems distasteful. I'm not sure they infringe on people's freedoms or rather a specific people's freedoms the way slavery did/does. No one is going to secede over non-competes.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#36

Post by jfengel »

unclad5968 wrote: post #35
tdeck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.

I'm against non-competes, but likening them to slavery seems distasteful. I'm not sure they infringe on people's freedoms or rather a specific people's freedoms the way slavery did/does. No one is going to secede over non-competes.

It illustrates the way the "leave it up to the states" argument grates on some ears. It's a slippery slope argument, which is not automatically faulty. It is a call to know how you expect things to not slide down.

If the suggestion is "anything shy of complete chattel slavery", people get worried.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#37

Post by jfengel »

evil-olive wrote: post #31
dmurray wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

> Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. this is just flat-out not true. look at the NLRB [0] and OSHA [1] for the two most obvious examples of the federal government regulating employment conditions. there is certainly lots of employment regulation that also happens at the state and local level, but why is that an argument in favor of not doing federal regulation? eg, if I'm working in No…

Both organizations are widely expected to vaporize, or at least become completely useless. As far as the administration is concerned, they are waste, fraud, and abuse.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#38

Post by _elf »

dmurray wrote: post #24
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

I'm not sure why companies would want a patchwork of regulations across 50 different jurisdictions versus normalized national regulations.

Non-competes are anti-competitive nonsense, which is why the oligarchs love them.

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#39

Post by jfengel »

fnimick wrote: post #21
CrimsonRain wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to sign noncompete before joining the job or after? If before, why not find another job? Is anyone forcing you to accept a job with noncompete? If after, they should be banned.

And if companies collude together to all agree to use non-competes to depress salary (reminder that this has already occurred ), what would you recommend?

Going to the federal government to .... ohhhhh ...

Re: NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

evil-olive wrote: post #31
dmurray wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states t…

> Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. this is just flat-out not true. look at the NLRB [0] and OSHA [1] for the two most obvious examples of the federal government regulating employment conditions. there is certainly lots of employment regulation that also happens at the state and local level, but why is that an argument in favor of not doing federal regulation? eg, if I'm working in No…

Tangentially related:

"Republican Pressure to Disband OSHA Rises Amid Sweeping Trump Orders": https://www.inc.com/kit-eaton/republican-pressure-to-disband...

"NLRB Lacks Quorum to Exercise its Authority Following President Trump’s Removal of Member; The President Also Dismissed NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo": https://www.stinson.com/newsroom-publications-nlrb-lacks-quo...

Post reply on HN