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

381–390 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#381

Post by runako »

cryptonector wrote: post #214
runako wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas. Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at Federal Agencies like the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are work for Federal Agencies that are the US Courts. Progress?

> Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at e.g. the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are paid by the US Court system. Progress? Where do you get that from? Reversing Chevron will mean that Congress will have to work harder to get the regulations that it and the Executive want. If Congress were not disfunctional that would be a very good thing. And heck,…

Congress won’t instantly have written laws to cover every regulation currently enforced by the federal government. Reasonably, it could take many years for those gaps to get filled. In the meanwhile, that means the courts are the key decision makers for large areas of government policy.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#382

Post by ewhanley »

tchock23 wrote: post #338

Will this lead to companies getting creative with other types of agreements? For example, I could see this leading to overreaching non-solicitation agreements, where you can't approach "any person/company ever added to our CRM" (for a period of time), thereby effectively ending any chance of you have of building or working for a competitor.

Many companies already try this approach

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#383

Post by runako »

macintux wrote: post #341
cryptonector wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a key point that gets overlooked so often.

The Court accepts that governments outsource regulation to e.g. the private developers of building codes. Similarly, we don’t benefit from a Congress mired in details over the minutae managed by many areas of the federal government.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#384

Post by bugglebeetle »

scheme271 wrote: post #340
bagels wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was denied a job I was well qualified for because, (paraphrased, besides the quoted part): Our CEO and your CEO have a "gentleman's agreement" not to hire people that work at eachother's company. 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…

That got Google, Apple, Adobe and a few other companies in a lot of trouble because they all agreed not to recruit each other's employees.

It got them a slap on the wrist and a nothing fine for years of depressing wages. No one went to jail and the head of HR at Google during this period also got a book deal.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#385

Post by WrongAssumption »

plyp wrote: post #259
michtzik wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does health insurance coverage work during the garden leave period?

Since you are still employed by your previous firm during garden leave you are still covered by your employer’s health insurance policy. I’m also on garden leave at the moment and that’s how it works in my case.

I’ve had this where it’s covered, but also had it where it’s not covered.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#386

Post by tryptophan »

akulbe wrote: post #374

Do you folks think this is going to just sail right through? Isn’t it premature to get excited before the proverbial ink is dry? I’m very much in favor of a total ban of noncompete agreements. That said, it seems like all the parties that stand to benefit from them will fight tooth and nail to see this doesn’t come to pass. Thoughts?

I think its pretty clearly a ploy by the biden regime. It follows the same playbook as the student debt cancelation plot.

Use gray areas in the law to do things that it was obviously not intended for, then advertise how you did the thing, and then when it inevitably gets shut down because its not legal you blame the other side for killing it.

He is just playing with voters.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#387

Post by jcadam »

banish-m4 wrote: post #236
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 Chr…

Ah man, go outdoors... fly a kite or something.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#388

Post by WrongAssumption »

zer00eyz wrote: post #99
macintux wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court, unfortunately.

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.

So employers end up competing with higher wages putting more money in the hands of employees, and talent goes to where it produces the most value, yeah that’s the point.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#389

Post by colinsane »

adastra22 wrote: post #209
crakenzak wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year Insane to me that they use this as a measure of innovation, when almost by definition it is the antithesis of innovation.

What definition is that? Because the legal definition of patent I’m familiar with requires each patent to be a unique innovation.

a patent is a legal restriction affecting what others are allowed to produce. a person/group hit by such a restriction may elect to not produce the (innovative) thing they otherwise would have.

so that's the viewpoint in which patents may be "the antithesis to innovation". i won't argue which one's correct, just providing it here since you requested.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#390

Post by amalcon »

naasking wrote: post #379
adastra22 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What definition is that? Because the legal definition of patent I’m familiar with requires each patent to be a unique innovation.

That fewer patents are filed is not evidence that fewer innovations are taking place. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That fewer patents are filed is not an absence of evidence. It's evidence that fewer patents are being filed. If one believes patent filings are correlated with innovation (which is debatable either way), then it is (non-probative but still significant) evidence that fewer innovations are taking place.
Post reply on HN