5 ms·

> I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. Yeah. Remember this when you go to vote in November. Elections matter.

cryptonector 3y ago
Is this rule a partisan issue?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I have yet to see a Republican led government advance banning of non competes (or really anything that benefits W-2 workers as a whole) in the last 25 years. Washington (Democrat led), I think, most recently passed a non compete ban for those under a certain salary, but I cannot think of any Republican led states that have advanced such legislation, or espoused views that they want to. It falls in line with similar worker friendly legislation passed by Democrat led states such as longer family leave, paid sick and family leave, higher unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages and minimum salaries for exempt workers, eliminating non tipped minimum wages, and publishing of salary ranges on job listings. Edit to respond to below: Is it partisan in California? If anything, I would have thought the California non compete ban is the most un-partisan issue since it has been in place since 1872, so neither of today's parties would be credited with it.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    I've yet to see this be a partisan issue anywhere.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      If support is along party lines, that makes it a partisan issue.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  Tends to be because it's ostensibly pro-labor and one party tends to favor pro-labor policies and the other tends to favor pro-business policies.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Yes. > The vote on the final rule, which fell along party lines, with three Democratic commissioners voting in favor and the agency’s two Republicans voting against https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/2024/04/23/most-noncompete-agreements-could-be-banned-after-ftc-vote-but-lawsuits-are-likely/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/20...
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    What about elected officials?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      They appoint commissioners
    - coldpie 3y ago
      Is this some kind of weird attempt to ask me to teach you how to do research? You've got the whole Internet in front of you, same as me. Go do your own research and come back when you have a point to make.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bagels 3y ago
      They're still free to change parties.
lumb63 3y ago
Another interpretation is that the ruling party is bribing people now that election season is ramping up by passing rules it knows has no standing in court, but won’t get shot down until post-election. Imagine all the people who voted for Biden thinking he would absolve them of the contract they willfully entered to pay their student loans. This is not much different. It is another group of people who have contracts they wish they didn’t have relying on government overreach to save them rather than not having put themselves in the position to begin with.
- electrondood 3y ago
  I've heard this talking point before, and it's really silly to frame it as shenanigans somehow because of the timing, rather than elected officials enacting popular policies that the voters want. That's literally their job.
  - zippothrowaway 3y ago
    And, they didn't rush this. They've been working on it since they got elected. It's perfectly reasonable that it took some time to get done.
  - lumb63 3y ago
    There is a body of actually elected officials whose job is to create legislation to enact public policies. The FTC is neither elected nor capable of creating legislation. This is an overreach of their power and will likely be ruled as such in court. The same thing happened with Roe; it is not the job of the Supreme Court to enact public policy. That is for the legislature to do. If you talk to anyone in law, they will tell you that, regardless of their personal opinion on abortion, Roe is perceived as one of the worst court rulings ever because it was specifically designed to “legislate through the court”. Here we are in the same position again, with a non-legislative body enacting public policy; we don’t learn.
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      To quote Congress, in chartering the FTC: "Under this Act, as amended, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress and the public." Noncompete acts are an unfair method of competition (see (a)), which Congress granted the FTC the power to define and restrict (see (c)). It is, quite literally, their job.

cryptonector 3y ago

Is this rule a partisan issue?

lotsofpulp 3y ago
I have yet to see a Republican led government advance banning of non competes (or really anything that benefits W-2 workers as a whole) in the last 25 years. Washington (Democrat led), I think, most recently passed a non compete ban for those under a certain salary, but I cannot think of any Republican led states that have advanced such legislation, or espoused views that they want to. It falls in line with similar worker friendly legislation passed by Democrat led states such as longer family leave, paid sick and family leave, higher unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages and minimum salaries for exempt workers, eliminating non tipped minimum wages, and publishing of salary ranges on job listings. Edit to respond to below: Is it partisan in California? If anything, I would have thought the California non compete ban is the most un-partisan issue since it has been in place since 1872, so neither of today's parties would be credited with it.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  I've yet to see this be a partisan issue anywhere.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    If support is along party lines, that makes it a partisan issue.
CharlieDigital 3y ago
Tends to be because it's ostensibly pro-labor and one party tends to favor pro-labor policies and the other tends to favor pro-business policies.
coldpie 3y ago
Yes. > The vote on the final rule, which fell along party lines, with three Democratic commissioners voting in favor and the agency’s two Republicans voting against https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/2024/04/23/most-noncompete-agreements-could-be-banned-after-ftc-vote-but-lawsuits-are-likely/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/20...
- cryptonector 3y ago
  What about elected officials?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    They appoint commissioners
  - coldpie 3y ago
    Is this some kind of weird attempt to ask me to teach you how to do research? You've got the whole Internet in front of you, same as me. Go do your own research and come back when you have a point to make.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bagels 3y ago
    They're still free to change parties.

lumb63 3y ago

Another interpretation is that the ruling party is bribing people now that election season is ramping up by passing rules it knows has no standing in court, but won’t get shot down until post-election. Imagine all the people who voted for Biden thinking he would absolve them of the contract they willfully entered to pay their student loans. This is not much different. It is another group of people who have contracts they wish they didn’t have relying on government overreach to save them rather than not having put themselves in the position to begin with.

electrondood 3y ago
I've heard this talking point before, and it's really silly to frame it as shenanigans somehow because of the timing, rather than elected officials enacting popular policies that the voters want. That's literally their job.
- zippothrowaway 3y ago
  And, they didn't rush this. They've been working on it since they got elected. It's perfectly reasonable that it took some time to get done.
- lumb63 3y ago
  There is a body of actually elected officials whose job is to create legislation to enact public policies. The FTC is neither elected nor capable of creating legislation. This is an overreach of their power and will likely be ruled as such in court. The same thing happened with Roe; it is not the job of the Supreme Court to enact public policy. That is for the legislature to do. If you talk to anyone in law, they will tell you that, regardless of their personal opinion on abortion, Roe is perceived as one of the worst court rulings ever because it was specifically designed to “legislate through the court”. Here we are in the same position again, with a non-legislative body enacting public policy; we don’t learn.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    To quote Congress, in chartering the FTC: "Under this Act, as amended, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress and the public." Noncompete acts are an unfair method of competition (see (a)), which Congress granted the FTC the power to define and restrict (see (c)). It is, quite literally, their job.