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

441–450 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#441

Post by Scipio_Afri »

gnicholas wrote: post #419
ajkjk wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if your goal is "freedom" all-around then it would make perfect sense that sometimes that would lead to regulations that prevent things and other times it would lead to regulations that allow things. In each case the regulation does whatever is best for people's freedom? I seriously can't understand how anyone could be opposed to this. Laws that help people and protect them from people who have power of them are…

The point is that some people will be priced out of the labor market because they are only allowed to exchange their labor at/above a set rate. If your labor is worth $10/hr because you have very little job experience, you will be unemployed in a jurisdiction where the minimum wage is $15/hr. It is not "best for people's freedom" to have that restriction; it benefits some people (those who remain employed) and worse…

Very simplistic view. A worker at $15/hour isn’t as productive as someone who also makes $15/hour - that happens every day at all levels of the labor industry.

There is a net economic loss - externalities imposed on society - to people working at jobs where their basic needs aren’t being met. That comes in the cost of mental and physical health issues of the worker as well as their family through their inability to properly care for their children; which is a humanitarian issue but an economic one as well because those children don’t reach their full potential. Police, jails and health services all have this burden fall on them, and we all experience a lower quality of life as a result.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#442

Post by davidgay »

andthenzen wrote: post #403
davidgay wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or the employee agreement you sign includes a notice period of 6 months from either side. Those are illegal in at-will states.

Source? My understanding is that at-will states have a default presumption of at-will employment in the absence of a contract, but parties are free to contract alternatively. Which states invalidate mutually agreed upon notice periods?

You are right and my memory was faulty:(

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#443

Post by bdowling »

mrcode007 wrote: post #407
infotainment wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely agree — software patents should be abolished, full stop. They serve no purpose but to impede innovation and progress. I’d argue the same applies to all patents; the world would be better off without them in general.

There are no software patents. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RT2%206-...

Is there a video that goes with those slides?

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#444

Post by RHSeeger »

adastra22 wrote: post #398
noitpmeder wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but to some degree bonuses are completely discretionary. A very bad year at some shops or on some desks could land you with a 0 bonus, although when that happens expect everyone to start looking for other jobs.

Must be nice to have a bonus. Never worked in a place that had one!

Bonuses come out of the money used to pay salaries. All things being the same, any company that pays bonuses will pay a lower base salary. That being said, if you're good at convincing people of your worth, you can come out with higher than the "base" bonus, so ahead of the curve. But you're also paying more in the way of risk (lower income of the company doesn't do well, or you can't convince people you were important).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#445

Post by adastra22 »

xpe wrote: post #433
adastra22 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called Chevron deference / doctrine, and yes the consequences would be far reaching. Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion.

Thanks. I just read [1]. > Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion. Without knowing the intention of the author above, when I see the phrase "subjective matter of political opinion", it makes me wonder if it serves as a "semantic stop sign" or "thought-terminating cliché"[2]. WRT net benefits... it is one thing to have differing predictions about what will happen and…

We live in a representative democracy where the powers of the government are constrained by constitutional law to be specific and enumerated, and aside from common-law precedent derive from a mandate by the people. Yet it is increasingly the case that the actual rules which citizens and corporations are required to follow are being set not by elected representatives but by unelected bureaucrats of government agencies, in some cases where there isn't even relevant and specific congressional authorization for action. In the case of TFA, the abolition of non-competes is something I can be 100% behind... but where is the specific law passed by congress authorizing the FTC to make and enforce this determination?

One side will say with some justification that these rules make sense and are definitely a net benefit, and we should expect this to be the case because the agency is run by technocrat experts who evaluate these policy decisions for a living and do a far better job than we can expect of even the best congressional staffers.

The other side will point out that it's a very fine line between the current, mostly harmless rule-setting actions of benevolent agency experts, and an unelected deep state that can become a tool of fascist ideologues. Our freedom is dependent on safeguarding our democracy, and that means no rules that don't trace their core to laws passed by elected representatives. These people would point to the disastrous actions of the DEA and FDA, for example, which is currently waging war on ADHD patients via the artificial Adderall shortage, or Operation Choke Point (google it).

Where you fall on this debate is a subjective matter of political opinion. There are pros and cons to both sides.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#446

Post by bagels »

adastra22 wrote: post #399
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…

> I have no idea why the recruiter was willing to put this in writing You passed on a juicy class action lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't make any money. I know it's a common refrain, but look at what happened with the Google & Apple class action. Those folks got less than $6,000 each for what must have been hundreds of thousands in damages each.

It's also career limiting to be the person that sued their employer. I didn't have any monetary damages, as I was able to find alternatives.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#447

Post by faeriechangling »

bdw5204 wrote: post #68
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law The federal government can absolutely regulate both employment and contract law. (Merger agreements are contracts. The FTC was established to block bad mergers.) Whether the FTC can do this is untested. But that’s more a Chevron issue than a federal powers one.

Relying on a Chevron argument is not particularly wise given the pending Supreme Court cases Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo where the Court is expected to overturn Chevron: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...

Yup, and the motivation is explicitly to go after unelected “administrative state” technocrats legislating by decree… such as through exactly what they’re doing here.

Unelected technocrats legislating by decree is the purview of the Supreme Court not the FTC, so sayeth the majority of current Supreme Court justices. I imagine a bunch of stuff is about to break since elected officials cannot pass jack shit in this hyper-partisan era.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#448

Post by adastra22 »

bagels wrote: post #446
adastra22 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea why the recruiter was willing to put this in writing You passed on a juicy class action lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't make any money. I know it's a common refrain, but look at what happened with the Google & Apple class action. Those folks got less than $6,000 each for what must have been hundreds of thousands in damages each. It's also career limiting to be the person that sued their employer. I didn't have any monetary damages, as I was able to find alternatives.

For the record, in this context your payout would come from the sweet, sweet pot of funds the lawyers divy up. And it'd be a lot more than your direct monetary damages as the lawsuit would likely impair your ability to later work in the industry.

The "class actions never make money for the plaintiffs" refrain is 99.8% true. The people who get a postcard mailer about their eligibility usually get shit. The 0.2% outlier are the people who put themselves at risk by providing the testimony that wins the case, and they're rewarded for it. And the blood-sucking lawyers of course.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#450

Post by logicchains »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #367
seanw444 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be great. These agencies and bureaus have grown to an enormous scope, completely without the consent of the governed. Doesn't sound like a republic to me.

It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating. This is why the little stuff gets delegated to unilateral decision-making withing the executive branch: If making new rules was left to congress, they could never keep up. The world moves fast, congress moves slow. Instead, they delegate powers to agencies that can make rules within some tight purview and pursuant to some def…

>It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating.

Congress is very capable of legislating about something that's relevant to their interests: look how fast the TikTok ban was passed.

Post reply on HN