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

Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#41

Post by dangus »

spacephysics wrote: post #5
desert_rue wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

At least with a judge you’d have representation in some form, and have an actual argument for-against it. Agencies will just write whatever they want, enforce it, then after have the legal system involved. At that point the damage is done. Lets try to get closer to laws and rules that have some semblance of representation, even if its not “perfect” yet.

Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges.

At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#42

Post by colechristensen »

Uehreka wrote: post #27
colechristensen wrote: post #2

[flagged]

You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.

Clearly, according to the courts and several recent actions including at the Supreme Court, it is not the roller coaster we're on, any longer at least.

And I welcome it.

The fact that Congress is dysfunctional is a different topic, we shouldn't applaud paving the way to dictatorship because we don't like Congress neglecting its duty.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#43

Post by shiroiushi »

Uehreka wrote: post #39
kfrzcode wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you don’t want the government to prevent noncompetes, then they’re going to happen. Workers lack the collective bargaining abilities to force employers to do away with them.

That's certainly all true, but there's a good argument that it's really the responsibility of Congress and/or the state legislatures to write laws banning non-competes. Having a federal agency do it is basically an ugly hack.

Of course, the counter-argument is that Congress and the state legislatures are too broken to write these laws as they should, because they don't really work for the people, but rather the corporations (except, surprisingly, in California where non-competes are non-enforceable), and that this ugly hack is therefore necessary and the only workable solution.

But if Congress is too broken to pass a common-sense law like this, what does this tell us about the long-term viability of the US as a single political entity?

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#45

Post by shiroiushi »

lolinder wrote: post #29
permo-w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i.e. you prefer the law to never change

Not at all! I'd prefer that the power of the executive be stripped down to the point where neither party can accomplish any of their campaign promises without passing laws in Congress. Both parties have pivoted their entire strategy towards making presidential campaign promises, delivering them as temporary administrative rules (i.e. this from the Democrats, immigration law from the Republicans), and then frantically…

This is why I think the US's Presidential system is fatally flawed, and should be abolished in favor of a parliamentary system, similar to those in the two countries that the US helped set up such systems: Germany and Japan.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#47

Post by ljlolel »

Dalewyn wrote: post #22
dangus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With possibly a lifetime appointment, too. IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives. Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks. The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus.…

>The president is elected by the people The POTUS is elected by the States. >The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, The judiciary is ultimately confirmed by the Senate, who are voted in by the peoples of each State.

Senators used to be appointed by the state too

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#48

Post by techsupporter »

Dalewyn wrote: post #20
desert_rue wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

>in the matter of law? The question is a matter of law. If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.

> If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise.

Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government.

> Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power.

Why not?

Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate."

We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.

What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#49

Post by ActorNightly »

kfrzcode wrote: post #31
Uehreka wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.

[flagged]

Republicans run on the platform of small government, but then what that basically means is deficient spend, line their own pockets, and then let democrats fix the issues, then blame the issues on the democrats. They have demonstrated this twice, and now are the laughing stock of the entire world as the big orange baby is leading the party off a cliff.

Democrats are literally the only option left. They may not be optimal, but at least they actually do stuff that matters.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#50

Post by CaptainFever »

permo-w wrote: post #25
lolinder wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rul…

i.e. you prefer the law to never change

This sounds like a really bad-faith interpretation of the parent comment. What do you actually mean?
Post reply on HN