5 ms·

This isn't the FTC's job and shouldn't be legal. If there are to be such laws, they should exist at the state level. And if they are to exist at the federal lev

This isn't the FTC's job and shouldn't be legal. If there are to be such laws, they should exist at the state level. And if they are to exist at the federal level, then it is Congress's job to do: not the FTC's.

rkagerer 4y ago
I thought it was odd as well that this is coming from the FTC. Does it stem from their authority with regard to antitrust legislation?
- chrisco255 4y ago
  That's their argument in this proposal, but it's quite a dubious one that I suspect even if they issue it, will get litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Congress created the FTC and gave it power to act so they didn't have to deal with these issues constantly. So you're wrong, this is explicitly the FTC's domain as specified by the congressional bill about 100 years ago that created them: https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914
- chrisco255 4y ago
  They created the FTC to enforce antitrust law and then subsequently granted it expanded enforcement authority under the amended statutes you list there. It did not, and cannot delegate the ability to invalidate local state laws which explicitly allow for non-compete agreements.
FireBeyond 4y ago
Why? I live in State A. I work for an employer who has little or no presence in State A, and they are based in State B. I leave them and go to work for a new employer in State C, all while still remotely working from home. Why should I be beholden to the laws of State B, that I've never resided in, as it determines my ability to conduct TRADE with a company in State C from State A? And that's also why the FTC is involved. My professional work output is the service I have to offer. And I offer it in trade for an income. The FTC oversees more than just 'sale of consumer goods and product'.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  Labor laws are localized to the state you work from. That's already covered in case law. Just because a company is incorporated in Delaware does not mean they get to skirt local state labor laws when hiring employees from those states. If you lived in State A, where non-compete agreements are legal, and signed a non-compete agreement with your employer, then that should be enforceable, because the employer can always take you to court in State A. That's how everything is done in this country with regards to legal differences between states. I'm not sure why you're capitalizing the word TRADE. It's as if you think because the FTC has the word trade in it, that it has the authority to enact laws and invalidate legal agreements that have to do with any kind of trade.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Regulating interstate commerce (trade) is one of the primary duties of the federal government. A ruling like this, especially in circumstances concerning interstate corporations, is probably the least offensive use of the interstate commerce clause you'll ever find.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      This is not a ruling. This is a proposal from a federal bureaucracy. They are not a court. They are not a law making body. And no, the FTC does not have God mode over anything that can be arbitrarily or dubiously defined as interstate commerce.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    I never said the FTC has or should have the authority to enact laws, or invalidate legal agreements- I asked why a corporation in one state should be able to interfere with the business of two entities in different states? And your example is exactly why - corporations have a history of absolutely trying to enforce laws or contracts upon people that have no legal standing, knowing entirely well that (among other reasons) the complications of interstate commerce make things painful.
duxup 4y ago
Is there something about the FTC that means they don’t or shouldn’t have this authority?
- faddypaddy34 4y ago
  It's called nondelegation doctrine. The rulings pertaining to it have not been consistent but it generally holds true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nondelegation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nondelegation_doctrine
  - duxup 4y ago
    I’ve seen some discussion about that topic but I’ve found it hard to parse what people think of as far as how explicit they expect congress to be. At some point it seems unworkable/ a recipe for very inflexible government policy.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  Yes, they are an unelected executive branch bureaucracy. They don't have the authority to invalidate long-standing labor laws arbitrarily.
jxf 4y ago
Given the multistate and remote nature of many companies, it would be a huge headache for the courts to deal with the criss-crossing patchwork of what is and isn't permissible. As an employer I would much prefer that this be resolved at the federal level. > And if they are to exist at the federal level, then it is Congress's job to do: not the FTC's. Congress did that already when it created the FTC and vested it with the power to decide what makes sense for trade and commerce. That is the role of agencies.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  > Congress did that already when it created the FTC and vested it with the power to decide what makes sense for trade and commerce. That is the role of agencies. No, that's not how the U.S. Constitution works. The FTC is a member of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot arbitrarily make up laws and invalidate legal agreements. The FTC was vested with limited authority, to execute regulations that have been passed by Congress, not to make up their own laws as they go and as administrations change.
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    The FTC was created in the same way as other agencies, with a bill that passed _both_ houses of Congress and was signed by the president.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      That does not give them unlimited authority or the authority to pass new laws and invalidate existing ones in the process. They can only enforce laws passed by Congress.
  - jxf 4y ago
    You are welcome to that opinion, but the viewpoint you're describing is not one that is the prevailing legal precedent. The FTC was created by Congress through the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it is explicitly empowered to regulate anything that would harm free competition, including passing rules like this one. Congress is also free to decide that this sort of thing is an overreach and to further regulate the agency or narrow its scope, of course.
Spivak 4y ago
Regulating anticompetitive business practices falls explicitly within the charter of the FTC which is empowered by Congress so you basically got what you wanted. Without a broad ruling that says that Congress isn’t allowed to establish agencies and delegate their power, which might happen with this court, this is pretty much the process.
freeopinion 4y ago
The process for making laws matters. In the USA, a law made by the Supreme Court is the whim of an individual. A law made by the President, or a department director, etc is also the whim of an individual. I agree with chrisco255 that things this important need to be done right. Nobody can rely upon it until it is properly done.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  We may differ on what constitutes a "law" here. I see a big difference between a law and a regulation. Only Congress can make (federal) laws. Regulations are needed in order to functionally implement laws. If congress disagrees with a given regulation by pretty much anybody, they are perfectly able to make a law to nullify it.
- jonstewart 4y ago
  The Supreme Court does not make laws in the USA, nor does the President. Congress does.

rkagerer 4y ago

I thought it was odd as well that this is coming from the FTC. Does it stem from their authority with regard to antitrust legislation?

chrisco255 4y ago
That's their argument in this proposal, but it's quite a dubious one that I suspect even if they issue it, will get litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

Congress created the FTC and gave it power to act so they didn't have to deal with these issues constantly. So you're wrong, this is explicitly the FTC's domain as specified by the congressional bill about 100 years ago that created them: https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914

chrisco255 4y ago
They created the FTC to enforce antitrust law and then subsequently granted it expanded enforcement authority under the amended statutes you list there. It did not, and cannot delegate the ability to invalidate local state laws which explicitly allow for non-compete agreements.

FireBeyond 4y ago

Why? I live in State A. I work for an employer who has little or no presence in State A, and they are based in State B. I leave them and go to work for a new employer in State C, all while still remotely working from home. Why should I be beholden to the laws of State B, that I've never resided in, as it determines my ability to conduct TRADE with a company in State C from State A? And that's also why the FTC is involved. My professional work output is the service I have to offer. And I offer it in trade for an income. The FTC oversees more than just 'sale of consumer goods and product'.

chrisco255 4y ago
Labor laws are localized to the state you work from. That's already covered in case law. Just because a company is incorporated in Delaware does not mean they get to skirt local state labor laws when hiring employees from those states. If you lived in State A, where non-compete agreements are legal, and signed a non-compete agreement with your employer, then that should be enforceable, because the employer can always take you to court in State A. That's how everything is done in this country with regards to legal differences between states. I'm not sure why you're capitalizing the word TRADE. It's as if you think because the FTC has the word trade in it, that it has the authority to enact laws and invalidate legal agreements that have to do with any kind of trade.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  Regulating interstate commerce (trade) is one of the primary duties of the federal government. A ruling like this, especially in circumstances concerning interstate corporations, is probably the least offensive use of the interstate commerce clause you'll ever find.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    This is not a ruling. This is a proposal from a federal bureaucracy. They are not a court. They are not a law making body. And no, the FTC does not have God mode over anything that can be arbitrarily or dubiously defined as interstate commerce.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  I never said the FTC has or should have the authority to enact laws, or invalidate legal agreements- I asked why a corporation in one state should be able to interfere with the business of two entities in different states? And your example is exactly why - corporations have a history of absolutely trying to enforce laws or contracts upon people that have no legal standing, knowing entirely well that (among other reasons) the complications of interstate commerce make things painful.

duxup 4y ago

Is there something about the FTC that means they don’t or shouldn’t have this authority?

faddypaddy34 4y ago
It's called nondelegation doctrine. The rulings pertaining to it have not been consistent but it generally holds true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nondelegation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nondelegation_doctrine
- duxup 4y ago
  I’ve seen some discussion about that topic but I’ve found it hard to parse what people think of as far as how explicit they expect congress to be. At some point it seems unworkable/ a recipe for very inflexible government policy.
chrisco255 4y ago
Yes, they are an unelected executive branch bureaucracy. They don't have the authority to invalidate long-standing labor laws arbitrarily.

jxf 4y ago

Given the multistate and remote nature of many companies, it would be a huge headache for the courts to deal with the criss-crossing patchwork of what is and isn't permissible. As an employer I would much prefer that this be resolved at the federal level. > And if they are to exist at the federal level, then it is Congress's job to do: not the FTC's. Congress did that already when it created the FTC and vested it with the power to decide what makes sense for trade and commerce. That is the role of agencies.

chrisco255 4y ago
> Congress did that already when it created the FTC and vested it with the power to decide what makes sense for trade and commerce. That is the role of agencies. No, that's not how the U.S. Constitution works. The FTC is a member of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot arbitrarily make up laws and invalidate legal agreements. The FTC was vested with limited authority, to execute regulations that have been passed by Congress, not to make up their own laws as they go and as administrations change.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  The FTC was created in the same way as other agencies, with a bill that passed _both_ houses of Congress and was signed by the president.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    That does not give them unlimited authority or the authority to pass new laws and invalidate existing ones in the process. They can only enforce laws passed by Congress.
- jxf 4y ago
  You are welcome to that opinion, but the viewpoint you're describing is not one that is the prevailing legal precedent. The FTC was created by Congress through the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it is explicitly empowered to regulate anything that would harm free competition, including passing rules like this one. Congress is also free to decide that this sort of thing is an overreach and to further regulate the agency or narrow its scope, of course.

Spivak 4y ago

Regulating anticompetitive business practices falls explicitly within the charter of the FTC which is empowered by Congress so you basically got what you wanted. Without a broad ruling that says that Congress isn’t allowed to establish agencies and delegate their power, which might happen with this court, this is pretty much the process.

freeopinion 4y ago

The process for making laws matters. In the USA, a law made by the Supreme Court is the whim of an individual. A law made by the President, or a department director, etc is also the whim of an individual. I agree with chrisco255 that things this important need to be done right. Nobody can rely upon it until it is properly done.

JohnFen 4y ago
We may differ on what constitutes a "law" here. I see a big difference between a law and a regulation. Only Congress can make (federal) laws. Regulations are needed in order to functionally implement laws. If congress disagrees with a given regulation by pretty much anybody, they are perfectly able to make a law to nullify it.
jonstewart 4y ago
The Supreme Court does not make laws in the USA, nor does the President. Congress does.