Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban On Worker 'Noncompete' Agreements (reuters.com) 173
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas blocked the FTC's rule banning noncompete agreements, arguing the FTC lacks authority to implement such broad regulations and did not adequately justify the sweeping prohibition. Reuters reports: Brown had temporarily blocked the rule in July while she considered a bid by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business lobby, and tax service firm Ryan to strike it down entirely. The rule was set to take effect Sept. 4. Brown in her ruling said that even if the FTC had the power to adopt the rule, the agency had not justified banning virtually all noncompete agreements. "The Commission's lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious," wrote Brown, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump.
FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said the agency was disappointed with the ruling and is "seriously considering a potential appeal." "Today's decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-base enforcement actions," Graham said in a statement. The Democratic-controlled FTC approved the ban on noncompete agreements in a 3-2 vote in May. The commission and supporters of the rule say the agreements are an unfair restraint on competition that violate U.S. antitrust law and suppress workers' wages and mobility.
FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said the agency was disappointed with the ruling and is "seriously considering a potential appeal." "Today's decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-base enforcement actions," Graham said in a statement. The Democratic-controlled FTC approved the ban on noncompete agreements in a 3-2 vote in May. The commission and supporters of the rule say the agreements are an unfair restraint on competition that violate U.S. antitrust law and suppress workers' wages and mobility.
Corporatist judiciary (Score:3)
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that non-competes are wrong, but the judge is doing his job correctly. Executive agencies are there to enforce the law not make the law.
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that non-competes are wrong, but the judge is doing his job correctly. Executive agencies are there to enforce the law not make the law.
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
This is completely and entirely unfeasible and isn't really in any country of reasonable size. Whatever parliamentary system you have will be overwhelmed by the vastness of legislation to enact.
Re: (Score:3)
If you write laws correctly you dont have to keep making laws to deal with changes. Its the poorly written ones that require changes. We have plenty of laws already that cover most crime, just because its done with bitcoin doesnt magically make it not theft. Just write laws that 1) do bot declare a dollar amount because they cant adjust to inflation. And 2) are written to cover the crime not the specific mechanism to carry it out.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that non-competes are wrong, but the judge is doing his job correctly. Executive agencies are there to enforce the law not make the law.
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
This is completely and entirely unfeasible and isn't really in any country of reasonable size. Whatever parliamentary system you have will be overwhelmed by the vastness of legislation to enact.
Which is why we have courts to point out and if need be, smack down when a bureaucracy gets out of line.
Lawmakers are meant to manage the bureaucracy, ensuring that they're behaving in accordance with the law (letter and/or spirit) but can't feasibly be able to discuss every single policy or decision. Granted this is a pretty big one, so a ball has been dropped here (or was deliberately put down).
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws where Congress delegates rule-making by agencies THAT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW have been being created since the establishment of the Department of the Treasury on September 2, 1789 -- The third department created by Congress after the Department of State and the Department of War. The first agency created almost purely for rule-making purposes was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1887.
Congress only passed 27 bills in 2023 -- there is no way the U.S. Government could function if every decision had to be passed as congressional legislation.
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
The world somehow got along fine for most of human history with very little law
Would you be able to argue that agencies like the FCC, FAA, OSHA, EPA, FDA, and their ilk have overstepped their bounds, done some shady shit, or been occasionally derelict in their duties? Absolutely. But that's what the courts are for, to slap them back into place where appropriate. Would I go back to the way things were before their creation? Not a fucking chance in hell.
If there's one thing that's been unequivocally proven to me in my relatively short life, it's that when companies are give the freedom to operate as they choose they will choose the most profitable path possible, everything else be damned. The wellbeing of the environment, their employees, their customers, and their peers will always be second place. You can't even argue against that in good faith. (Obviously there are exceptions to that rule, but in general it is accurate.) You may not like all the regulation, you could even argue some of their policies are bad/wrong/illegal, those are at least fair. But to say that the "world somehow got along fine" is just inaccurate. It got along just fine for people with money and/or power. If you didn't have those, you better be on the "right" side of the people that did.
Re: (Score:2)
says the guy that's going to complain when Melamine will be found in his baby formula...
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it is not a binary choice. We don't have to go back to no government protections just because we stop letting congress dodge their responsibility.
These guys are paid to pass legislation - its literally their job. They don't have author the legislation. They can absolutely take a package or rules proposals written by an organization like the FTC and slap some sponsors name on the thing and pass it. It really does not require all that much time for their staff to [ctrl]-[f] the things for hot button topics, and issues they know their core constituencies care a lot about. At which point they can get some more opinions and make an issue of it in committee or on the floor or not accordingly.
If you really believe that is asking to much of them, I question if you believe in the little-r republican system at all. A lot of this country is shouting words like 'democracy', 'institutions', 'norms', 'elections have consequences' but I think many perhaps most of the people saying that stuff right now don't really mean it. Its a shabby cover cloth over "I like the technocratic bureaucracy running my life, because it is easier" or worse "I am a member of the the technocratic bureaucracy, and I want to protect my status and authority in this modern nobility."
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you pass a law when doing so lets one side win?
The role of the 2 party system is to win. This means not letting the other guy do anything. Need proof, why did republicans vote against immigration reform this year? To quote their presidential candidate "This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party."
Perfect is the enemy of good and in politics perfect means your side wins and the other side loses. Compromise is losing. We will never have a working government with a two party system and we will never not have a two party system because we believe it is the only system that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is not a binary choice.
Except in this instance it is.
They can absolutely take a package or rules proposals written by an organization like the FTC and slap some sponsors name on the thing and pass it.
So, the options are: 1) They rubber stamp the results of the agencies' work, and pass the manual they wrote into law. 2) They legislate down to the minutia of the agencies' rules and manuals.
The first option is pointless, other than procedure. If it's just a rubber stamp to make the OSHA manual law, why bother? Our current laws already effectively do that.
And the second option is an impossible task. Congress doesn't have the time, ability, or expertise necessary to determine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would you rather have writing laws/regulations for a complex and esoteric bit of communications technology? Someone at the FCC with an electrical engineering degree, or Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Regulations are written in blood (Score:2)
It is so easy for people to forget why we do something the way we do it or why a regulation exists because there was a bad thing and we took action to stop it and the bad things stopped and now the bad thing is gone so we think we can stop doing the thing that stops the bad thing.
It is one of the most insane and ridiculous things humanity does.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The world somehow got along fine for most of human history with very little law ..."
O, I'd encourage you to read about the reality for the most of the human history - to certain degree the law was even more restrictive, e.g.:
- everything in the country belonged to the king, including forests and all the creatures living in them, fish in streams and lakes and any violation was punishable by you know what
- every merchant passing a city was by law required to enter and trade certain goods
- every city was by l
Re: (Score:2)
The world somehow got along fine for most of human history with very little law
You have a very poor memory of what the world was like and what regulations did to change it. Just go to the city centre wherever you live and take a historical walking tour. I'm sure someone will tell you about some abattoir throwing corpses into rivers, or some chemical plant poisoning the population, or smog regularly filling the streets. Lack of laws and regulation even plays into classical etiquette - where the men walk on the road side of the sidewalk to protect their wives from both splashing of pass
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree which is why I want to end the FAA, DEA, FDA, and EPA.
The free market is perfectly suited to test medicine, ensure planes land, keep my ground water safe, and decided what drugs should be sold to people. These agencies do nothing but put up regulatory hurtles that stifle innovation and hurt our economy.
If there is a real problem congress can vote to ban each drug after it's on the market and we find it's harmful or not. Even then, so what if it's harmful? The market will ultimately decide if there i
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. George III may have been a convenient rhetorical target for the promotors of colonial self-government, but they knew perfectly well that the monarch had been a near-powerless figurehead for a century, ever since the civil war established the supremacy of the parliament. The issue wasn't that the people making the laws were unelected: it was who had th
Re: Corporatist judiciary (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read a little about how ancient societies functioned with "very little law," one striking feature is that local administrators were given incredible power in most societies. They could condem you to death, arbitrate property disputes however they saw fit, and just basically do what they wanted so long as it didn't cause a headache for the next guy in the chain of command.
While our current system of laws can seem tedious and overbearing, and personally I think the US badly needs tort reform, don't ever think the "good old days" were some kind of libertarian paradise. It was more like your local mayor was king.
Re: Corporatist judiciary (Score:2)
The bigger issue isn't if govt is crap at it, but if it is the lesser crappy out of the crappy systems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
This is of course total bullshit. Congress passed laws which created these positions where they make regulations (not laws, which are created by congress, just like you think it doesn't work but does) so you are getting exactly what you just asked for, but you don't want it. However, you understand too little of how our government functions to understand that you're already getting what you asked for, because you didn't pay attention in civics class, or apparently any time since.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
This is of course total bullshit.
It's no such thing. Nowhere in the Constitution are any of the three branches allowed to offload their responsibilities to another agency. Regulating commerce, specifically, is specified as the job of Congress. Nowhere does it say "Congress may create an agency to make regulations without Congressional say-so".
If you want what would be a fourth branch of government... a regulating bureaucracy... then you're simply going to have to pass a congressional amendment to make it. And yes, that would be politically
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the GOP pretty much perma-blockades the effective functioning of the houses whenever a non GOP president is in, do you *actually* think giving them more responsibility is even remotely an effective exercise in running government?
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go with this bullshit again. Look that #resistance, look at the voting records and committee behavior of Democrats while Trump was in office.
Obstructionism is hardly characteristic unique to either party.
The whole point of the design of the federal government was to dilute power, not concentrate, specifically so that it couldn't become a tyranny. People keep forgetting that was the philosophy of it's design in the first place; pit interests against each other so that unless they're in agreement on something, they nullify each other. Gridlock is built into the very design of the American system, and has been from the beginning.
"Let ambition counteract ambition" - Federalist No. 51
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Congress should have ever been permitted to shirk or delegate its constitutional responsibilities
The government would literally not be able to function if the minutia of the responsibilities of the various agencies were required to be enacted into law. Go take a look at the OSHA website: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs... [osha.gov] That's just the regulations for construction. It contains about 400 different sections, there's other standards for General Industry, Maritime, Agriculture, and some various administration stuff.
I grabbed a random section that's relatively familiar to me, this one is related to Saf [osha.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I grabbed a random section that's relatively familiar to me, this one is related to Safety nets and their installations. [osha.gov] Do you really think someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene or AOC has the time or expertise to determine that the proper way to verify that your brother/uncle/mom/sister's fall protection is adequate is by requiring it to be tested to withstand a 400lb bag of sand 30 inches in diameter dropped from the highest exposure but not less than 42 inches from the netting?
Sometimes, I think that encouraging members of Congress to personally test to see whether such laws are adequate would benefit everyone greatly. Does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Congress should have ever been permitted to shirk or delegate its constitutional responsibilities
The government would literally not be able to function if the minutia of the responsibilities of the various agencies were required to be enacted into law.
Congress handles large volumes of work all the time, all within the authority that the Constitution gives them. They use the Committee System, for one, where large volumes of legislation has to go through small committees, with reps of both parties. They have third party advisors for various issues, so they don't have to be experts themselves. It's weeded out there, and the bills that emerge are then voted on by the larger body. So the structure is there. The important stuff can get through. They have a wor
Re: (Score:2)
Congress handles large volumes of work all the time
The last major legislation that was even close to the complexity of something like the OSHA manual was Obamacare. That one worked out a treat, didn't it? You argue that "less regulation is better" which is at least a reasonable argument. But then we're back to letting companies and people do whatever the hell they want, within a very limited number of guard rails. Also not a great plan.
Keeping with the OSHA safety net example: How long before some jackass senator proposes an amendment that all sand to be us
Re: Corporatist judiciary (Score:3)
Congress people are not qualified to make laws about shit they don't understand. That's why they setup agencies that hire qualified professionals to work out such details.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress people are not qualified to make laws about shit they don't understand. That's why they setup agencies that hire qualified professionals to work out such details.
What you're demanding is the replacement of a representative republic with the dictates of a technocracy. Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
t is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
The judge who made this ruling is an "unelected bureaucrat".
Re:Corporatist judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
The judge who made this ruling is an "unelected bureaucrat".
Ah, but in their weird world, it's okay for unelected bureaucrats to prevent a law from being enforced, but not for them to cause a law to be enforced. [rolls eyes]
My favorited part was this:
"The Commission's lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious."
No, it's the opposite of that. By not having a giant pile of loopholes, it renders the rule straightforward and not in need of constant tweaking.
There's no such thing as a non-harmful non-compete. Every non-compete agreement, by definition, makes it harder for people to change jobs, which, in turn, makes it harder for them to negotiate salaries and perks, harder for them to get away from abusive bosses, less safe for them to report harassment, less safe for them to report fraud and embezzlement, and so on.
Basically, a non-compete agreement brings employees several steps closer to slavery or serfdom. Now rewrite that sentence as "Lincoln's lack of evidence as to why he chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful forms of slavery, renders the Emancipation Proclamation arbitrary and capricious" and you'll understand just how absolutely STUPID this ruling is from my perspective.
More to the point, the very fact that employers have to make non-compete agreements mandatory to get employees to agree to them almost prima facie means that they must be bad for employees.
I really don't get how even a judge in an ultra-conservative state could be that clueless about the chilling effect that non-competes have on salaries, on mobility, on equal pay across gender and race boundaries, and so on. It's truly mind-boggling to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but in their weird world, it's okay for unelected bureaucrats to prevent a law from being enforced, but not for them to cause a law to be enforced. [rolls eyes]
Right in our weird world it is ok for government to be prevented from limiting the freedom of others (in this case the freedom to make contracts) but not okay for government to limit freedoms without democratic process. [Shakes head at the freedom hater!]
Yes we support limited government, you know the social contract we all have been born into or accepted if we chose to become citizens later. We damn well want to make sure petty tyrants and wannabees like don't get to just take it away without us having sa
Re: (Score:3)
We damn well want to make sure petty tyrants and wannabees like don't get to just take it away without us having say so.
So why are conservatives supporting trump, the guy who tells us he wants to be a dictator? What a stupid argument you've got there.
The fact is that congress has the ability to regulate these organizations they have created, so once again, you already have what you want. Congress is already the oversight on these agencies. Since you already have what you are asking for, you either have no fucking idea how anything works at all, or you are actually expecting something else.
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't get how even a judge in an ultra-conservative state could be that clueless about the chilling effect that non-competes have on salaries, on mobility, on equal pay across gender and race boundaries, and so on. It's truly mind-boggling to me.
Clueless? Not at all. She's just doing exactly what her Big Business Buddies tell her to do. She was nominated to the district court by Trump and, well, it's Texas, what do you expect?
Re: (Score:2)
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
The judge who made this ruling is an "unelected bureaucrat".
Ah, but in their weird world, it's okay for unelected bureaucrats to prevent a law from being enforced, but not for them to cause a law to be enforced. [rolls eyes]
Judges are not "bureaucrats". They're judges, and they're on the bench and doing what they do specifically because the Constitution mandates it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
The judge who made this ruling is an "unelected bureaucrat".
Ah, but in their weird world, it's okay for unelected bureaucrats to prevent a law from being enforced, but not for them to cause a law to be enforced. [rolls eyes]
Judges are not "bureaucrats". They're judges, and they're on the bench and doing what they do specifically because the Constitution mandates it that way.
Definition of bureaucrat: "an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs."
What part of that definition do you claim that this judge doesn't fall under? Are you claiming that the Judicial Administration isn't a federal department?
And no, the constitution does not mandate that justices interpret the constitution in a particular way. That would be oxymoronic.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically the legislative part of a government makes laws, the executive part makes policies compatible with those laws, and the judicial branch decides whether they succeeded. The structure stems from the evolution of legislative bodies as checks on royal power, not the appointment of kings as some kind of uber cop "enforcing the law."
It also seems weird that the FTC apparently has the (legislatively supported) power to strike down particular noncompetes but not all of them. Also that somebody telling you
Re: (Score:3)
Congress sets out the overall provisions of the laws.
Then the regulatory agencies step in to implement them in the way that the Executive wishes them to be implemented.
They have experts, scientists, public comments, etc.
This was well within the FTC's authority and I hope they appeal, although with the corruption of the Supreme Court it may be moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The judge is female and a nominee of the former alleged president. She's just paying back her minders.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that non-competes are wrong, but the judge is doing his job correctly. Executive agencies are there to enforce the law not make the law.
It is the job of Congress and not unelected bureaucrats to make these laws.
But non-competes are largely unenforceable. Why should it be legal to include an unenforceable term into a contract?
Re: (Score:2)
That is not even remotely for the last 70 years. Congress has delegated rule making authority to agencies which make legally binding rules & regulations under the law that created the agency. If what you wanted were true, then every federal regulation should be struck tomorrow and the country would grind to a halt and the economy would collapse.
Big Business Win (Score:4)
Apparently, "Because it is abusive to the little guy", doesn't mean anything in the eyes of the law. Think of the business!
Big business wins again.
--
The incestuous relationship between government and big business thrives in the dark. - Jack Anderson
Re:Big Business Win (Score:4, Insightful)
No you are witnessing the damage by judges who were appointed because of their political allegiance and not their credentials or impartiality. Trump appointed hundreds of judges and this is only going to get worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Score:2)
Law (Score:2)
Apparently, "Because it is abusive to the little guy", doesn't mean anything in the eyes of the law.
That's interesting phraseology. There is no law. That's the problem. Congress needs to pass a law banning noncompete clauses. The FTC can't do anything it wants to. It can only do what congress lets it.
I'd wager you were fine with the courts overturning Trump's immigration bans, which were knocked down for the exact same reason. Congress didn't say he could do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, "Because it is abusive to the little guy", doesn't mean anything in the eyes of the law. Think of the business!
I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but just because you're the little guy doesn't mean you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of us in the populist wing of the party would absolutely support that!
I think when you can show a pattern of legal infractions with specific intent by leadership, it suggests a corrupt and irredeemable corporate culture. Their incorporation documents should be revoked and they should be prevented from continuing to do business.
The owners can then do with the assets what they please but that would almost always be sell them off.
That will mean disruption and likely negative consequences for a lot of or
It's a job for the legislature (Score:4, Informative)
Time to man/woman up and do your job. Agencies can keep things running in their narrow scope. But eventually the legislature has to make the bigger decisions. It's kind of why we have a representative government.
Represent my interests, the voter that has to work a job and negotiate an asymmetric contract with my employer. Because if you guys drag your feet one more time. Or worse, represent the interests of the ones who cut you the biggest check at the last campaign luncheon. We're going to start voting you out of office. I don't care if I have to vote in a bunch of wild-eyed socialists. It's gotta be better than the bunch of corporate cocksuckers we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single member of congress seems to think that only large companies create jobs. So those companies get to influence and boss these idiots around. The fact is 80% of all businesses in the US have fewer than 20 employees. So even when your democraps/or rethuglicans pretend to champion rights for you, they only impose them on companies with more than 100 employees. Aka just 5 % of all businesses. Imagine the 13th amendment only applying to plantations with 50 people or more. If these assholes had been in
Re: (Score:2)
1) There are not enough days in the year to make all the tweaks the existing regulations through congress, never mind creating new regulations.
2) The current political environment is so polarized that essentially nothing would pass.
So the legislation already made that decision (Score:3, Informative)
The people telling you to leave it to Congress are using that as a trick to paralyze the government and prevent any regulation of their out of control extremist corporate agenda. The idea is to grind the government to a halt under minutiae. Meanwhile their cr
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to start voting you out of office.
Dream on, dude!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's a job for the legislature (Score:2)
And don't forget the scary flood of agricultural and domestic workers. The one that has been around, on and off, for about 150 years.
Tampons (Score:2)
Homosexuals? That's last decades boogeyman. They've moved on to being terrified of tampons in the boy's locker rooms now.
I didn't understand what homosexuals had to do with non-competes, either. But I would like to ask a question about your response: fear of tampons.
I don't know anyone who "is afraid of tampons in the boys' room", but I know of many men and women who are baffled about it. Can you please explain the purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who "is afraid of tampons in the boys' room", but I know of many men and women who are baffled about it. Can you please explain the purpose?
It's the law that Governor Tim Walz signed that requires tampon dispensers in all school lavatories, whether they are for the girls or the boys. I also think they're chasing the wrong bogeyman... putting them in the girls' lavatories and women's bathrooms for the adult faculty makes a lot of sense... and in a men's bathroom for the adult faculty probably won't faze many of them... but put them in the boys' lavatory and your janitorial staff will be unclogging toilets and sink drains a lot more frequently,
Re: (Score:3)
It's the law that Governor Tim Walz signed that requires tampon dispensers in all school lavatories, whether they are for the girls or the boys.
Nope. He absolutely did not. The law does not dictate they be in men's bathrooms and locker rooms. The law was left intentionally vague to leave it up to the school districts how to implement. MANY of them have chosen not to put them in boy's bathrooms, for exactly the reason you described: Boys tend to be destructive little assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who "is afraid of tampons in the boys' room"
And I know plenty of men and women that are foaming at the mouth over it.
Can you please explain the purpose?
There are a few: When women's sports teams travel to other schools, they use the men's facilities. And, trans people exist. It's that last one that's got a bunch of people's knickers in a twist.
Re: (Score:2)
Gay rights are too firmly established at this point. They've moved on to the smaller minority of trans people to persecute. This is their wedge. If they are able to socially murder the trans people, then they'll work on rolling back gay rights. Then they'll come for the blacks and Latinos.
Because (Score:2)
All noncompetes are harmful.
If only there were a definition... (Score:3)
If only there were a definition for doing things (or not doing things) on behalf of another entity without compensation. If only there were an amendment to prevent that kind of exploitation. While it may lead to some Civil Tension, I think we need to do whatever is necessary to ensure this institution comes to an end; but I Dred the implications.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were a definition for doing things (or not doing things) on behalf of another entity without compensation. If only there were an amendment to prevent that kind of exploitation.
Instead, the thirteenth amendment explicitly protects forcing people to do things (or not do things) on behalf of another entity without compensation so long as the subjects have committed a crime — any crime. And there are a lot of people on this forum who are in favor of that, which you can tell because the penalty for bringing up this simple fact will usually get you modbombed. Apparently the same people who like to berate people for not reading the constitution really don't like it when people do
Re: (Score:2)
I know about that loophole; but didn't think it was applicable here. OTOH, if they want to be so insidious as to make violation of employment terms a crime then, yeah... that's a gateway to some truly awful stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
No, so long as you haven't been duly convicted of a crime. It also says "as punishment" which means you're no longer eligible for slavery after you've served your sentence.
Yes, it's an example of of antique shittiness in the US constitution. No, it doesn't have anything to with somehow justifying non-compete clauses.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were a definition for doing things (or not doing things) on behalf of another entity without compensation. If only there were an amendment to prevent that kind of exploitation. While it may lead to some Civil Tension, I think we need to do whatever is necessary to ensure this institution comes to an end; but I Dred the implications.
Great Scott! What kind of crazy talk is this?
Seems backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
The Commission's lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious," ...
So a blanket ban is arbitrary, and capricious, while one where they pick and choose isn't. I'm imagining the situation where the FTC only banned certain ones and the Chamber of Commerce and judge then offered the same reasoning that the specific choices were arbitrary and capricious. Also, harmful for whom? Seems like they all are for employees.
Re: (Score:3)
So a blanket ban is arbitrary, and capricious, while one where they pick and choose isn't.
There are different types of non-competes. If you are a chemical engineer working for LG battery, a non-compete that prevents you from working for direct competitors like Panasonic or A123 for a year makes sense. A non-compete that prevents you from working as a chemical engineer for any battery company doesn't.
The ban should have picked out the more harmful non-compete terms. It banned everything.
Re:Seems backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes sense as long as they continue to compensate you with full benefits and salary while it is in effect and you are unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not agree that it's arbitrary or capricious. But a very good argument exists that it is unlawful and/or unconstitutional. It's not even clear whether banning is a good idea for higher level employees.
Hilarity ensues (Score:5, Informative)
Recently, Neil Gorsuch said in his book [apnews.com], there are too many laws. And yet, here we are with the courts saying this agency can't ban noncompete clauses. What does that mean? It means Congress now has to write a law to do so. The very thing Gorsuch whines about. Perhaps he and the other miscreants who are trying to lobotomize this country should have thought through their ruling. Or maybe they did and don't care. They can keep mouthing, "Not true" despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
As an aside, this is the idiot who, unsurprisingly, twists reality to suit his needs when he says:
“Here we have, for the first time in our history, one presidential administration bringing criminal charges against a prior president. It’s a grave question, right? Grave implications,” Gorsuch said.
No, it's not a grave question. Attempting to overturn a democratic eleciton just because you lost doesn't fall anywhere in presidential powers, nor is trying to use the Justice Department to do so, nor is telling election officials to find votes. That such a simple issue could be wholly misconstrued shows why we need to have justices who don't get their degrees from a cereal box. The next thing he'll tell us is storing classified documents in a bathroom at your house isn't a big deal.
Silicon Valley exists because of the ban (Score:4, Interesting)
Silicon Valley exists because of the ban on non-competes.
Fools do not realize complex and advanced societies need MORE regulation and MORE laws. Lets get rid of nuclear regulations because we reached the cap on laws! Chemistry didn't exist at the founding and the constitution says nothing about limiting the use of chemistry...
Gorsuch is corrupt and doesn't even seem to be trying to look good anymore. There is a spectrum and often people slide down it over time as they adjust to their increased level of corruption. This is the main reason for term limits; although, some great people never slide down over time and it's a shame to lose them when you can find them. One can just hope each reboot starts at a better place, but Gorsuch was pretty bad at the start but seems to have mostly dropped the act of impartiality.
Contacts are enforced by legal regulations! by government! Private regulations people agree to mean NOTHING without enforcement. I can sell my child into slavery by signing a contract but nobody will enforce that; not anymore... except if Gorsuch wants to be original intent about it... (simply call it something else to avoid the amendment banning "slavery" and play some more Gorsuch word games!)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blue states getting nervous (Score:2)
California has anti-non-compete laws, but the GOP-packed SCOTUS could end up overturning it. Blue states have mostly been a sanctuary from Evangelical Inc. laws, but SCOTUS and/or having GOP in both chambers could kick such laws in the gender-non-specific genitals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They used pretzel logic to overturn Roe
I don't think that's a valid comparison. In overturning Roe, they said exactly what they would say in a case about California's non-compete law: there isn't a specific clause of the Constitution that the state laws violate.
Assuming GOP won't get a chance to put more GOPs on it.
Unlikely in the near future. The three liberal justices are all relatively young.
She was appointed by Trump (Score:2)
Now do healthcare (Score:2)
Yes, that's why Texan laws against all abortions, are wrong: Pot meet kettle.
My god, this thread... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you saying? You have the finest judiciary money can buy!
Re: (Score:2)
The suspense was killing me so I looked it up [wikipedia.org].
Re: Thank god (Score:2)
They survive just fine in California, which has banned these for eons.
Re: Thank god (Score:2)
It's called "exploitation" (Score:2)
If one is desperate for a job due to say a recession, they typically can't negotiate away stupid shit. Even burger joints have had have patty flippers sign saying they can't work for another burger joint after leaving.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it works in the US, but a lawyer once gave me some advice about my UK employment contract. He said that my employment contract can be enforced from the day I start work for the company to the day I leave (after serving out any notice period). He said that the day I stop working for the company, the contract is no longer in effect. Therefore any "non-compete" type clauses - or anything the contract says about my conduct after leaving is unenforceable. Quite simply, if the company went to cou
What it's all about (Score:3)
I'm not sure how it works in the US, but a lawyer once gave me some advice about my UK employment contract. He said that my employment contract can be enforced from the day I start work for the company to the day I leave (after serving out any notice period). He said that the day I stop working for the company, the contract is no longer in effect. Therefore any "non-compete" type clauses - or anything the contract says about my conduct after leaving is unenforceable.
The UK basically does not allow non-compete agreements as practiced in the US. They are not allowed in the EU, either.
A "Non-Compete Agreement" is a part of your employment contract that is exactly and only about prohibiting you from working if you leave the company. The legal theory is that the company was compensating you (e.g. paying your wages) not merely for your work during your time with the company, but also for owning you even after you leave (voluntarily or otherwise).
Such contracts are mandatory:
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a choice. I've never not worked under a non-compete. If you work in any industry that has a real salary and requires any skill you get asked to sign a non-compete on your first day. If you decline you are shown the door. Most of these are reasonable. My current one for example actually pays me for 2 years unless they approve the company I am moving to.
When it' gets insane is when it actively is used to hurt salaries. For example Jimmy Johns not letting you work at other restaurants because yo
Re: (Score:2)
They do, they could do their own thing and give themselves a job.
That's a pretty high bar, so we invented labour laws.
It's also a pretty high bar for everyone to read and understand all the legalese in contracts, hire a lawyer to go over it before you start every shitty part time retail job, or go to court and challenge all of the likely unenforceable bullshit in pretty much every contract.
Although you could kill off that last one pretty fast if you made separability clauses illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't respond to mod bait (Score:2)
If you just can't help yoursel
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I get it. Trans people are icky and weird. Trans girls trigger your uncanny valley effect if they don't pass and if they do pass they make you feel weird and gay which you learned when you were in grade school was a bad thing.... Or maybe it's not trans maybe there's some other nonsensical social issue that makes you want to vote against your own immediate and long-term economic interests.
I'm a gay guy and even I wouldn't make this argument. The difference is that I know quite a few people who vote Republican, and despite what you might be inclined to believe from online forums, most of them aren't overly concerned about social issues. Some of the main reasons they vote the way they do are:
It's how their family and friends vote. There's that whole peer pressure aspect of fitting in, and it doesn't go away just because you've long since been out of school.
They're less empathetic [nih.gov]. This isn
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just pretend you are gay, I mean 10% of the population is so it's possible
I'm guessing you missed the other day where I linked to an AI generated song on my YouTube channel. [youtube.com] That'd be the same channel with the now super cringy 16-year-old video of me using gay.com chat through VNC on a jailbroken iPhone. Until they start handing out literal "gay cards", that'll have to do.
They get tricked by culture war bullshit into voting against their immediate & long term best interest by skilled bastards like Karl Rove who know exactly how to push their buttons.
I was recently at a client's home while they had Fox news on. I'm not familiar with the program, but they were going on at length about a victim who had been murdered by an illegal immigrant. The angle the s
Re: (Score:3)
The point you're not seeming to gasp is that Republican voters aren't some nebulous evil blob. They're your neighbors, the people you do business with, and possibly even some of your own family members. Perhaps you should try taking a page out of Pete Buttigieg's book and actually try talking to them without the condescendence. If nothing else, you might learn how to make a more compelling argument that doesn't begin with "I know you're scared of trans people."
Also, I'd recommend not seeing imaginary MAG
So I'm fully aware (Score:2)
Camp One is low information voter who doesn't understand what they're doing or what the Republican party is.
Camp 2 is psychopaths who want a right wing authoritarian state where they can get the respect they can't get in their daily lives because they are best mediocre.
And camp 3 which is provisional are just plain internet trolls doing it for the lulz.
There isn't anything else to that. Republican policies have been shown t