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

Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#51

Post by zeroonetwothree »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #30
kogus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for a thoughtful summary of what really happened. So many people are focused on outcomes that they would destroy the plumbing of government to get where they want to be.

For all the talk of a politicized Supreme Court, I'm not so sure that the net result has been to empower authoritarianism, even if it limits their personal liability to later prosecution. Shutting down Chevron principal empowers the Legislature, it seems to me.

Removing Chevron empowers the judiciary, not the legislature. Major questions doctrine and some of the recent cases around it (student loans) have empowered legislature over executive.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#53

Post by zeroonetwothree »

ceejayoz wrote: post #34
bhelkey wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Congress can do their job and pass laws. > They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things. What law gave the FTC the authority to regulate employment agreements? I appreciate the lack of non-competes in California. That being said, it is the responsibility of Congress to either write employment laws or to delegate that authority.

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 states: > The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations , except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part…

It’s not clear to me that a non compete is an “unfair method of competition”. In particular it hurts employees (well, maybe) who are not the competition of a business.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#54

Post by zeroonetwothree »

sitkack wrote: post #42
specialist wrote: post #6

From TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision,…

Looks like the FTC is not overstepping its bounds. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim... Congress said unfair competition is outlawed. The FTC can determine what unfair competition means and enforce it.

Surely they cannot define arbitrary actions as “unfair competition”. It must at least have some basis in reality. That’s the whole point of the Loper Bright decision.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#55

Post by zeroonetwothree »

specialist wrote: post #44
AlbertCory wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The distinction does exist. We're just arguing about the metes and bounds of their legislatively-granted authority. I can't tell you don't agree about SCOTUS but I believe there were over 1,200 comments about that this week and there's no point in adding to it.

IIRC, that thread was about Trump v United States , (IANAL IMHO) pertaining to unitary executive theory. Whereas I'm whinging about this court's multiple precedent smashing decisions attacking administrative law, (IANAL IMHO) pertaining to the judicial primacy . Obviously, I do not think POTUS is the law, nor SCOTUS is outside the law. Stately plainly, I'm certain that > 70% of Americans would agree. On my more pract…

I don’t necessarily agree with their decisions but I think they are not so inconsistent as you claim. They want the executive to be more limited in power, but the power it does wield to be mostly immune from oversight by the other branches. It’s a “we each stay in our lane” philosophy.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#56

Post by zeroonetwothree »

specialist wrote: post #6

From TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision,…

How is that different than before? At least now they’ve stopped doing nationwide injunctions, that’s actually a big improvement! (Though maybe you won’t agree when the next president has a policy that you don’t agree with)

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#57

Post by jbm »

CPLX wrote: post #22
jbm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that people attack experts incessantly when it conflicts with their politics. (Think: Anti-vaxxers attacking the medical system). In my experience they may raise good points, but those are usually tangential to the matter at hand. WRT this specific expert group, is there something wrong with them? I haven't heard such but am willing to be educated. Disillusionment is easy when one accepts sweeping ge…

> WRT this specific expert group, is there something wrong with them? With Federalist Society judges? Oh my sweet summer child.

> American Bar Association

I mentioned them, not the Federalist society.

Literally cannot understand where the reddit style purposeful rereading of my comment came from, but ok.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#58

Post by CPLX »

jbm wrote: post #57
CPLX wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WRT this specific expert group, is there something wrong with them? With Federalist Society judges? Oh my sweet summer child.

> American Bar Association I mentioned them, not the Federalist society. Literally cannot understand where the reddit style purposeful rereading of my comment came from, but ok.

I'm not misreading your comment. The supposed "experts" within the legal profession are utterly corrupt and can't be trusted. That's my point. It's an insiders club and they all support each other and buy vacation homes and give each other's kids jobs. When principles conflict with in-group elitism and closed ranks the latter always wins.

Just like every other group of supposed "experts" in the professional class these days. That's just how America is run in 2024. It's the problem.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#59

Post by ceejayoz »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #53
ceejayoz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 states: > The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations , except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part…

It’s not clear to me that a non compete is an “unfair method of competition”. In particular it hurts employees (well, maybe) who are not the competition of a business.

Companies are in competition for workers.

They didn't pay $415M in compensation for funsies. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#60

Post by sitkack »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #54
sitkack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like the FTC is not overstepping its bounds. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim... Congress said unfair competition is outlawed. The FTC can determine what unfair competition means and enforce it.

Surely they cannot define arbitrary actions as “unfair competition”. It must at least have some basis in reality. That’s the whole point of the Loper Bright decision.

Banning non-competes for line cooks is not an "arbitrary action".
Post reply on HN