9 ms·

From a different article: >"A sweeping prohibition of noncompete agreements by the FTC was an unlawful extension of power that would have put American workers,

From a different article: >"A sweeping prohibition of noncompete agreements by the FTC was an unlawful extension of power that would have put American workers, businesses, and our economy at a competitive disadvantage," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzanne Clark said in a statement. If you ever wondered what kind of moron would get this completely backwards and think that non-compete agreements give Americans a competitive advantage, now you know.

jeremyjh 2y ago
There is virtually no chance that she thinks that. What she thinks is that she is funded by businesses that like to suppress wages, and non-competes are one tool to do that with. The quote is called "public relations", which is bizspeak for lying.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  This reminds me how one of the most insane things in the world, it seems to me, are democratically elected judges and prosecutors. While handing down judgments and deciding whether to prosecute a marginal case, they have to ask themselves: what will win me reelection in n years.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Federal judges in the U.S. (like this one) are not elected. They’re appointed for life by the president.
    - webninja 2y ago
      Which presidential administration appointed this corrupt judge?
- know-how 2y ago
  This makes no sense. You mean the evil businesses owners, dressed in all black, sneak into her backdoor in the middle of the night carrying burlap sacks embroidered with the money emblem on them? You can't presume to know what anyone thinks.
  - cyanydeez 2y ago
    I can kick you in the balls, and presume to know what you think. I think you are really confused about theory and reality. But if I give you a good faith excuse, often time we prescibe evil motives to more mundane human heuristics like "All my friends tell me great things about small business owners and as such, we should try to protect their ability to hire people". See, some of us know how to properly understand the banality of evil.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  Federal judges aren’t really “funded” by anyone. They aren’t politicians and don’t run for election. Sure it’s possible some are corrupt and being bribed but it’s a stretch to automatically assume that’s the case because one makes a ruling you disagree with.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    once is happenstance, twice is coincidence...
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Surely you don't believe that? After Clarence Thomas and his lifelong friendship with Harlan Crow - it must be a whole lot cheaper and easier to buy off less important federal judges.
    - Tostino 2y ago
      For real, all it too was a Provost.
  - gahikr 2y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge) Brown is a member of ... the Federalist Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone.
      - sobkas 2y ago
        > Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone. Doesn't it make it looks like he is a ideologue supported by ideological organisation that happens to be a judge and uses this occupation to further his ideology instead of basing judgements on law? And that organisation conspire to promote judges that are ideologues first?
rqtwteye 2y ago
Has anything good ever come from the Chamber of Commerce? They did whatever they could do kill Obamacare, they are constantly against environmental regulation and now this. Such a terrible organization.
- albertop 2y ago
  And after the years of insurance premiums going through the roof, you still consider Obamacare a success story?
  - tuckerman 2y ago
    Not being able to exclude people because of preexisting conditions and ensuring children have access to coverage seems like a pretty big success story. Is it perfect? No, probably not. But repealing it would likely increase the budget deficit according to the CBO and put a large number of folks into a much worse situation than they are in now.
    - analog31 2y ago
      Indeed, at the time it was widely understood that Obamacare was about access, not cost. This was a necessary compromise in order to placate the insurance industry. The battle over cost was left for another day.
    - pton_xd 2y ago
      On the one hand, yeah of course guaranteeing coverage for children and preexisting conditions is an obvious win. And removing coverage caps. But beyond that... has average life expectancy measurably increased because of this "extra" insurance coverage? Has the number of medical-related bankruptcies measurably decreased as a result of the expanded coverage? I can't find solid data but everything I've seen suggests that those haven't really changed at all. Given that, in the grand scheme of things, has anything actually improved for us, collectively? Healthcare is much more expensive now, but maybe that would have happened regardless.
      - 2y ago
benreesman 2y ago
This is a war and it’s long time the only people who can operate the machinery start treating it as such.
- benreesman 2y ago
  I’ve seen these people commit felonies, I want them in prison.
GolfPopper 2y ago
It seems to make perfect sense to me. Prohibiting non-compete agreements makes American works, businesses, and the economy as a whole more competitive... which is a disadvantage for established players, such as those who presumably own Suzanne Clark.
jjmarr 2y ago
The less labour rights a country has, the more competitive a country's businesses are. If you can keep your workers in quasi-indentured servitude, you're going to be more profitable than a business that can't. It's a prisoner's dilemma because even though the economy would be better if non-competes were banned, any individual business makes more money by forcing employees to sign one. Workers' rights need to be an essential part of any trade agreement specifically to prevent a scenario where the United States can't legislate workers' rights because it'll put American companies at a disadvantage globally. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10046/24 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10046/24 This is already being done with USMCA (NAFTA replacement) enshrining collective bargaining rights in the auto industry, so companies won't outsource to avoid dealing with a union. Maybe banning non-competes is something the USA should prioritize in future trade agreements. That's something that would address the problem she's pointing out and benefit the economy.
- kiba 2y ago
  Non-compete doesn't actually do anything useful for businesses, otherwise they would have happily pay workers for the privilege of not working for their competitors. Since that basically happen approximately never, noncompete agreements without pay should be illegal.
  - gibolt 2y ago
    Given the option to pay for it, or have it for free, the choice they make not to pay is a clear reason. If they did have to pay, it could definitely be advantageous to pay employees not to leave, on a selective basis.
- greiskul 2y ago
  > The less labour rights a country has, the more competitive a country's businesses are. If you can keep your workers in quasi-indentured servitude, you're going to be more profitable than a business that can't. Counter point, you are conflating each individual business profits and motives for the profitability of the economy and country. But each business doesn't exist in an a vacuum, but inhabits the same environment for getting workers. By making it easier to start new companies, and to compete, by banning non competes, the surviving business might actually be more profitable than the ones before. Example: California doesn't have non compete, and it rules the tech world, with a lot of the more profitable tech companies there. While each individual company might benefit if it was suddenly allowed to do non competes, they benefit way more for being located in such a center for innovation.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>would have put American workers, businesses, and our economy at a competitive disadvantage Do they really think American workers are moving en masse to EU/Asia or something? I don't even think they work that well if you emigrate. We know the real reason. But PR at least needs to pretend to have a good excuse.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Another reason this is just laughably ridiculous is that the place that has the most dynamic, innovative economy has banned non-competes for a long time, and there is a lot of good research (e.g. comparing California with Massachusetts) that concludes a key pillar in the rise of Silicon Valley was the prohibition on non-competes in California.
- darksim905 2y ago
  W...what? What does it matter if you have non-competes when companies have gentleman agreements not to poach each other's staff?
shmerl 2y ago
This smells of 1984's "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
mavelikara 2y ago
She is not wrong. It does give Americans who are business owners an advantage when they compete with businesses based in other jurisdictions overseas.
thayne 2y ago
I could see an argument that businesses and maybe even an economy are "disadvantaged" by banning noncompetes, even if I don't agree with it. But workers? How could an agreement that prevents a worker from switching to other companies that would be the most interested in hiring them possibly benefit the worker?
nvarsj 2y ago
She is implying that businesses will leave the US due to regulation. It's the most ridiculous argument ever though, given US is the largest and most profitable market for any business. A small thing like banning non-competes will not cause any company to leave the US.
kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago
[dead]
snapplebobapple 2y ago
"I mean, you already severely handicapped the country by outlawing slavery. This was a bridge too far." she continued, "Just look at what North Korea and China have been able to accomplish with death camps. If you exclude the workers who died of natural causes, they have a 100% retention rate and productivity is way higher than here! This is the competitive landscape emerging in the global community and America needs to be number one! It's just too expensive to get to number one by being number one in educational outcomes, healthcare, transportation, or any of the other social or physical infrastructure needed to get to number one in the world economy without unjust exploitation of the citizenry and citizenry adjacent people."
CamelCaseName 2y ago
Friendly reminder that the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" is not a government organization, but a privately funded corporate lobby group.

jeremyjh 2y ago

There is virtually no chance that she thinks that. What she thinks is that she is funded by businesses that like to suppress wages, and non-competes are one tool to do that with. The quote is called "public relations", which is bizspeak for lying.

rich_sasha 2y ago
This reminds me how one of the most insane things in the world, it seems to me, are democratically elected judges and prosecutors. While handing down judgments and deciding whether to prosecute a marginal case, they have to ask themselves: what will win me reelection in n years.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  Federal judges in the U.S. (like this one) are not elected. They’re appointed for life by the president.
  - webninja 2y ago
    Which presidential administration appointed this corrupt judge?
know-how 2y ago
This makes no sense. You mean the evil businesses owners, dressed in all black, sneak into her backdoor in the middle of the night carrying burlap sacks embroidered with the money emblem on them? You can't presume to know what anyone thinks.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  I can kick you in the balls, and presume to know what you think. I think you are really confused about theory and reality. But if I give you a good faith excuse, often time we prescibe evil motives to more mundane human heuristics like "All my friends tell me great things about small business owners and as such, we should try to protect their ability to hire people". See, some of us know how to properly understand the banality of evil.
School-Cotton 2y ago
Federal judges aren’t really “funded” by anyone. They aren’t politicians and don’t run for election. Sure it’s possible some are corrupt and being bribed but it’s a stretch to automatically assume that’s the case because one makes a ruling you disagree with.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  once is happenstance, twice is coincidence...
- r00fus 2y ago
  Surely you don't believe that? After Clarence Thomas and his lifelong friendship with Harlan Crow - it must be a whole lot cheaper and easier to buy off less important federal judges.
  - Tostino 2y ago
    For real, all it too was a Provost.
- gahikr 2y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge) Brown is a member of ... the Federalist Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone.
    - sobkas 2y ago
      > Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone. Doesn't it make it looks like he is a ideologue supported by ideological organisation that happens to be a judge and uses this occupation to further his ideology instead of basing judgements on law? And that organisation conspire to promote judges that are ideologues first?

rqtwteye 2y ago

Has anything good ever come from the Chamber of Commerce? They did whatever they could do kill Obamacare, they are constantly against environmental regulation and now this. Such a terrible organization.

albertop 2y ago
And after the years of insurance premiums going through the roof, you still consider Obamacare a success story?
- tuckerman 2y ago
  Not being able to exclude people because of preexisting conditions and ensuring children have access to coverage seems like a pretty big success story. Is it perfect? No, probably not. But repealing it would likely increase the budget deficit according to the CBO and put a large number of folks into a much worse situation than they are in now.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Indeed, at the time it was widely understood that Obamacare was about access, not cost. This was a necessary compromise in order to placate the insurance industry. The battle over cost was left for another day.
  - pton_xd 2y ago
    On the one hand, yeah of course guaranteeing coverage for children and preexisting conditions is an obvious win. And removing coverage caps. But beyond that... has average life expectancy measurably increased because of this "extra" insurance coverage? Has the number of medical-related bankruptcies measurably decreased as a result of the expanded coverage? I can't find solid data but everything I've seen suggests that those haven't really changed at all. Given that, in the grand scheme of things, has anything actually improved for us, collectively? Healthcare is much more expensive now, but maybe that would have happened regardless.
    - 2y ago

benreesman 2y ago

This is a war and it’s long time the only people who can operate the machinery start treating it as such.

benreesman 2y ago
I’ve seen these people commit felonies, I want them in prison.

GolfPopper 2y ago

It seems to make perfect sense to me. Prohibiting non-compete agreements makes American works, businesses, and the economy as a whole more competitive... which is a disadvantage for established players, such as those who presumably own Suzanne Clark.

jjmarr 2y ago

The less labour rights a country has, the more competitive a country's businesses are. If you can keep your workers in quasi-indentured servitude, you're going to be more profitable than a business that can't. It's a prisoner's dilemma because even though the economy would be better if non-competes were banned, any individual business makes more money by forcing employees to sign one. Workers' rights need to be an essential part of any trade agreement specifically to prevent a scenario where the United States can't legislate workers' rights because it'll put American companies at a disadvantage globally. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10046/24 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10046/24 This is already being done with USMCA (NAFTA replacement) enshrining collective bargaining rights in the auto industry, so companies won't outsource to avoid dealing with a union. Maybe banning non-competes is something the USA should prioritize in future trade agreements. That's something that would address the problem she's pointing out and benefit the economy.

kiba 2y ago
Non-compete doesn't actually do anything useful for businesses, otherwise they would have happily pay workers for the privilege of not working for their competitors. Since that basically happen approximately never, noncompete agreements without pay should be illegal.
- gibolt 2y ago
  Given the option to pay for it, or have it for free, the choice they make not to pay is a clear reason. If they did have to pay, it could definitely be advantageous to pay employees not to leave, on a selective basis.
greiskul 2y ago
> The less labour rights a country has, the more competitive a country's businesses are. If you can keep your workers in quasi-indentured servitude, you're going to be more profitable than a business that can't. Counter point, you are conflating each individual business profits and motives for the profitability of the economy and country. But each business doesn't exist in an a vacuum, but inhabits the same environment for getting workers. By making it easier to start new companies, and to compete, by banning non competes, the surviving business might actually be more profitable than the ones before. Example: California doesn't have non compete, and it rules the tech world, with a lot of the more profitable tech companies there. While each individual company might benefit if it was suddenly allowed to do non competes, they benefit way more for being located in such a center for innovation.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>would have put American workers, businesses, and our economy at a competitive disadvantage Do they really think American workers are moving en masse to EU/Asia or something? I don't even think they work that well if you emigrate. We know the real reason. But PR at least needs to pretend to have a good excuse.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Another reason this is just laughably ridiculous is that the place that has the most dynamic, innovative economy has banned non-competes for a long time, and there is a lot of good research (e.g. comparing California with Massachusetts) that concludes a key pillar in the rise of Silicon Valley was the prohibition on non-competes in California.

darksim905 2y ago
W...what? What does it matter if you have non-competes when companies have gentleman agreements not to poach each other's staff?

shmerl 2y ago

This smells of 1984's "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

mavelikara 2y ago

She is not wrong. It does give Americans who are business owners an advantage when they compete with businesses based in other jurisdictions overseas.

thayne 2y ago

I could see an argument that businesses and maybe even an economy are "disadvantaged" by banning noncompetes, even if I don't agree with it. But workers? How could an agreement that prevents a worker from switching to other companies that would be the most interested in hiring them possibly benefit the worker?

nvarsj 2y ago

She is implying that businesses will leave the US due to regulation. It's the most ridiculous argument ever though, given US is the largest and most profitable market for any business. A small thing like banning non-competes will not cause any company to leave the US.

kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago

[dead]

snapplebobapple 2y ago

"I mean, you already severely handicapped the country by outlawing slavery. This was a bridge too far." she continued, "Just look at what North Korea and China have been able to accomplish with death camps. If you exclude the workers who died of natural causes, they have a 100% retention rate and productivity is way higher than here! This is the competitive landscape emerging in the global community and America needs to be number one! It's just too expensive to get to number one by being number one in educational outcomes, healthcare, transportation, or any of the other social or physical infrastructure needed to get to number one in the world economy without unjust exploitation of the citizenry and citizenry adjacent people."

CamelCaseName 2y ago

Friendly reminder that the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" is not a government organization, but a privately funded corporate lobby group.