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

341–350 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#341

Post by macintux »

cryptonector wrote: post #252
macintux wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans originally celebrated Chevron because it took regulations out of the courts' hands.

Did they? I wasn't there. But a reversal of Chevron doesn't necessarily mean that the courts get to do what they like. It may mean that the courts simply get to gut the bureaucratic state and kick the can to Congress -- that what's not forbidden by statute is allowed rather than that the courts act as regulators. There will be lower courts who will want to push their role as regulators, but the SCOTUS seems uninteres…

Someone has to fill in the multitude of gaps that exist between a law and its enforcement. Chevron moved much of that decision-making authority out of the court system into the executive branch.

Even a fully-functional representative body can't write laws that are explicit enough to cover every possibility. And the U.S. Congress is far from functional.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#342

Post by mbreese »

kube-system wrote: post #194
mbreese wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I am, I know people who are under noncompetes that have a geographical clause. You can’t leave to join a competitor within X miles. In my part of the country, that would include at least three states (maybe more), but other locations would include many more. So, yeah, seems like at least those non-competes impacts interstate commerce.

You're conflating two different things. The reason those geographical clauses are in those contracts is because many states have ruled that non-competes are illegal unless they are limited in some ways to be "reasonable", and one common way states courts measure this is by ensuring that they are limited to something that might be a reasonable 'business area' that the company competes in. Corporate lawyers typically w…

No, I’m not conflating them. I do appreciate why they are written with geographical clauses, but I have always found it odd (and probably unenforceable).

I’m just saying that non-competes like this should be regulated under Federal authority because they explicitly cover geographic areas that include multiple states. That’s in addition to the impacts on “interstate commerce” proper (which as you said is basically all commerce).

Said another way: I find the argument that non-competes should be allowed or disallowed under the authority of only state laws to be lacking. If a contract in state A dictates what you can do in state B, it’s an interstate issue and Federal law could (should?) be involved.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#343

Post by wnmurphy »

cjen wrote: post #24

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.

Yes, this is a huge win for labor from a very pro-labor administration.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#344

Post by bagels »

cryptonector wrote: post #215
coldpie wrote: post #205

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?

They're still free to change parties.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#345

Post by gerash »

EasyMark wrote: post #313
_xerces_ wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA already makes non-competes unenforceable and aren't most FAANG employees in CA?

CA isn't federal law and this involves the FTC. Sure they could have taken them before but I think a nation wide limit might stir up the hornet's nest. FAANG have offices and data centers all over the country

But the headquarters are mostly CA

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#346

Post by electrondood »

lumb63 wrote: post #261
coldpie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. Yeah. Remember this when you go to vote in November. Elections matter.

Another interpretation is that the ruling party is bribing people now that election season is ramping up by passing rules it knows has no standing in court, but won’t get shot down until post-election. Imagine all the people who voted for Biden thinking he would absolve them of the contract they willfully entered to pay their student loans. This is not much different. It is another group of people who have contracts…

I've heard this talking point before, and it's really silly to frame it as shenanigans somehow because of the timing, rather than elected officials enacting popular policies that the voters want.

That's literally their job.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#347

Post by gerash »

EasyMark wrote: post #275

I think the FAANGs are gonna come out on this one and take it all the way to the supreme court. I don't see this sticking at all, especially with the current SCOTUS

Quite the opposite, I suspect one of the reasons FAANGs are successful is the lack of non-compete in CA.

Folks can easily hop around, ask for higher wages and take their skills to a new company that directly competes with the old.

There's a heavy competition among the tech companies both for talent and for their businesses

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#348

Post by biftek »

fckgw wrote: post #284
Overtonwindow wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same as student loans. It’s election season.

Oh no, a sneaky politician trying to win my vote by making material changes that improve my life!

They could/should have been doing this stuff from day one tho not waiting until the 11th hour.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#349

Post by zippothrowaway »

andthenzen wrote: post #220
cjen wrote: post #24

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.

Page 83-84 provides some guidance on garden leave and suggests that it will still be allowed under the new rule: > With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission…

Doesn't this mean the end of 'at-will' for anyone that a company wants to cover with a non-compete? At present a company can have their cake and eat it, giving you one day notice of end of employment but then enforcing a non-compete for x months.

If this survives the Supreme Court, wouldn't a company would have to put in your employment contract that you/they must give x months notice to end employment if they wanted to restrict you? Otherwise you could give one days notice and they wouldn't be able to put you on gardening leave.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#350

Post by zippothrowaway »

electrondood wrote: post #346
lumb63 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another interpretation is that the ruling party is bribing people now that election season is ramping up by passing rules it knows has no standing in court, but won’t get shot down until post-election. Imagine all the people who voted for Biden thinking he would absolve them of the contract they willfully entered to pay their student loans. This is not much different. It is another group of people who have contracts…

I've heard this talking point before, and it's really silly to frame it as shenanigans somehow because of the timing, rather than elected officials enacting popular policies that the voters want. That's literally their job.

And, they didn't rush this. They've been working on it since they got elected. It's perfectly reasonable that it took some time to get done.
Post reply on HN