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

41–50 of 95 posts

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

#41

Post by gamblor956 »

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.

In living memory, at least 3 SCOTUS judges have stated that slavery is legal and should not have been ended.

Two of those justices currently sit on the Supreme Court.

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

#42

Post by IncreasePosts »

jfengel wrote: post #36
unclad5968 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #42
jfengel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by gotoeleven »

gamblor956 wrote: post #41
unclad5968 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In living memory, at least 3 SCOTUS judges have stated that slavery is legal and should not have been ended. Two of those justices currently sit on the Supreme Court.

Please cite.

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

#47

Post by outside2344 »

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.

Really? If you are an employee of Microsoft, how is it possible not to run afoul of a non-compete in tech for example?

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

#48

Post by count »

_elf wrote: post #38
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…

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.

It’s regulatory capture for large well resourced companies - keeps the smaller players off the field and unable to scale.

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

#49

Post by lokar »

jfengel wrote: post #37
evil-olive wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To be fair, any R president would have done this. The pendulum goes back and fourth…

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

#50

Post by SpaceNugget »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #42
jfengel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?

Why have a federal government at all if states are perfectly well suited to all forms of human rights oversight, lawmaking, etc?
Post reply on HN