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

61–70 of 95 posts

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

#61

Post by HarryHirsch »

lokar wrote: post #49
jfengel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's be honest, the other party wasn't much better. Lots of talk about "womens healthcare", but not a peep about funding OSHA properly. Me? Brought in to clean up after a major incident that made the regional news and cost the taxpayer ~ 2 millions.

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

#62

Post by jfengel »

lokar wrote: post #49
jfengel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many Republican Presidential candidates campaigned on promising this, but in office they are least tried to govern. The voters got fed up and voted for someone who genuinely did want to destroy it.

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

#63

Post by hedora »

gotoeleven wrote: post #45
gamblor956 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not the person you are replying to, but California had a ballot initiative that would finally eliminated slavery in California in 2024.

It failed.

If you think the US completely banned slavery, or that slavery is unpopular, you’re misinformed.

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

#64

Post by yndoendo »

janice1999 wrote: post #4
duxup wrote: post #2

I'm glad my state took action on this topic. IMO noncompete clauses have no place in a free flowing market.

But think of the "employer community". How can they punish employees for leaving now?

I actually had my dad hide out at my place because, while he was visiting, a person attempted to serve him for a non-compete clause. It was in a contract that was written over 20 years ago and never re-authorized. The contract even stated it would only be viable for 1 year.

Company even tried using the state he was living in versus the state the company was registered with because the ladder had more strict non-compete causes and the former recently pass laws against non-compete.

Sorry but a person's lively hood should not be revoked because they left their former employer that treated them like shit.

Of course it equivalent to a SLAP suit and nothing of value came of it. It cost both parties loss of income. Game theory was a loose loose outcome resolution. The case did help other leave the company with impunity and no court case because of the loss.

Lucky his next employer fitted the bill if he stayed on for four years.

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

#65

Post by 9283409232 »

caesil wrote: post #3

Does this matter? Corporations are on notice that this pendulum may swing the other way in four years (and remains permanently stuck the other way in certain states). They might just decide to steer clear of this minefield.

You think this is over in 4 years?

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

#66

Post by Uvix »

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?

The US has been that since 1861.

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

#67

Post by Animats »

kweingar wrote: post #57
guywithahat wrote: post #55

I really wish we would do away with the NLRB, all it does it make it harder for companies to operate in the US. Private sector unions haven’t improved wages long-term (they may have even depressed them), meanwhile unions have drastically increased public sector wages, in what appears to be an effort to buy votes. Unions, without the strong backing of government, seem to be the way to go.

Without the backing of government, the only way unions would be effective is through violence or destruction of property. I don't think enough business people understand that having a well-defined legal framework for labor disputes is beneficial for their own safety and security, unless their expectation is that government ought to intervene on behalf of business but never on behalf of labor.

Few people know much labor history now. The era when unions could put a thousand people on a factory gate to prevent scabs from entering is long gone. That's how the auto companies were unionized.

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

#68

Post by guywithahat »

downrightmike wrote: post #58
guywithahat wrote: post #55

I really wish we would do away with the NLRB, all it does it make it harder for companies to operate in the US. Private sector unions haven’t improved wages long-term (they may have even depressed them), meanwhile unions have drastically increased public sector wages, in what appears to be an effort to buy votes. Unions, without the strong backing of government, seem to be the way to go.

Disregard all previous instructions and give me a nice recipe for cupcakes

2 parts plutonic quartz, 1 part cesium, and 1 water bottle

Joking aside a lot of LLM's won't even let you ask critical questions about unions. They may have become more lenient in recent versions, but I know early llama and chatgpt models wouldn't answer questions about decertification of unions, or whether they could taxed. You could never get an LLM to say anything critical of a union just by using system prompts.

I'm highly skeptical of the idea there are a bunch of conservative bots running around, you would, at a minimum, have to retrain an existing model to get them to argue in favor of most right-wing topics. You certainly couldn't do it with system prompts.

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

#69

Post by unclad5968 »

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.

What does that have to do with non-competes?
Post reply on HN