6 ms·

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regul

So the federal government hasn't insisted that non competes be enforced, it just no longer holds that they violate national law, and returned the power to regulate them to the states? This seems like a good and sensible thing. Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. If banning noncompetes was popular enough to get passed by the federal government, surely there are at least 20 or so states that would want to ban them locally.

tdeck 2y ago
Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.
- unclad5968 2y ago
  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.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    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.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?
      - Uvix 2y ago
        The US has been that since 1861.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - SpaceNugget 2y ago
        Why have a federal government at all if states are perfectly well suited to all forms of human rights oversight, lawmaking, etc?
        int_19h 2y ago
        Collective defense?
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    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.
    - gotoeleven 2y ago
      Please cite.
      - hedora 2y ago
        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.
        gotoeleven 2y ago
        Well that was about forced labor in prisons which is a bit different.
        itsanaccount 2y ago
        Restricting the slave owner to the state (+ leasing to businesses) does not make it not slavery. I can't believe I have to say this.
        lazide 2y ago
        To quote a well known (fictional) sociopath - ‘what’s to prove? It’s free labor!’
    - unclad5968 2y ago
      What does that have to do with non-competes?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - outside2344 2y ago
    Really? If you are an employee of Microsoft, how is it possible not to run afoul of a non-compete in tech for example?
duxup 2y ago
I think it best non competes simply don't exist. Want to keep your employees, compete in the market.
evil-olive 2y ago
> Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. this is just flat-out not true. look at the NLRB [0] and OSHA [1] for the two most obvious examples of the federal government regulating employment conditions. there is certainly lots of employment regulation that also happens at the state and local level, but why is that an argument in favor of not doing federal regulation? eg, if I'm working in North Dakota and get injured on the job, then yeah the state government will adjudicate my worker's comp claim, and generally speaking the feds don't need to get involved. however, if the company I work for in ND requires me to sign a non-compete contract that supposedly applies in all 50 states, and might prevent me from moving to South Dakota or another state - how is that not a concern of the federal government? this is interstate commerce, which the constitution very explicitly gives the federal government power to regulate. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health...
- jfengel 2y ago
  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.
  - lokar 2y ago
    To be fair, any R president would have done this. The pendulum goes back and fourth…
    - HarryHirsch 2y ago
      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.
    - jfengel 2y ago
_elf 2y ago
I'm not sure why companies would want a patchwork of regulations across 50 different jurisdictions versus normalized national regulations. Non-competes are anti-competitive nonsense, which is why the oligarchs love them.
- count 2y ago
  It’s regulatory capture for large well resourced companies - keeps the smaller players off the field and unable to scale.
  - anon7000 2y ago
    Nothing says anti-establishment like entrenching the existing establishment of massive corporations

tdeck 2y ago

Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.

unclad5968 2y ago
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.
- jfengel 2y ago
  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.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?
    - Uvix 2y ago
      The US has been that since 1861.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - SpaceNugget 2y ago
      Why have a federal government at all if states are perfectly well suited to all forms of human rights oversight, lawmaking, etc?
      - int_19h 2y ago
        Collective defense?
- gamblor956 2y ago
  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.
  - gotoeleven 2y ago
    Please cite.
    - hedora 2y ago
      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.
      - gotoeleven 2y ago
        Well that was about forced labor in prisons which is a bit different.
        itsanaccount 2y ago
        Restricting the slave owner to the state (+ leasing to businesses) does not make it not slavery. I can't believe I have to say this.
      - lazide 2y ago
        To quote a well known (fictional) sociopath - ‘what’s to prove? It’s free labor!’
  - unclad5968 2y ago
    What does that have to do with non-competes?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- outside2344 2y ago
  Really? If you are an employee of Microsoft, how is it possible not to run afoul of a non-compete in tech for example?

duxup 2y ago

I think it best non competes simply don't exist. Want to keep your employees, compete in the market.

evil-olive 2y ago

> Most other employment law issues are regulated at the state level. this is just flat-out not true. look at the NLRB [0] and OSHA [1] for the two most obvious examples of the federal government regulating employment conditions. there is certainly lots of employment regulation that also happens at the state and local level, but why is that an argument in favor of not doing federal regulation? eg, if I'm working in North Dakota and get injured on the job, then yeah the state government will adjudicate my worker's comp claim, and generally speaking the feds don't need to get involved. however, if the company I work for in ND requires me to sign a non-compete contract that supposedly applies in all 50 states, and might prevent me from moving to South Dakota or another state - how is that not a concern of the federal government? this is interstate commerce, which the constitution very explicitly gives the federal government power to regulate. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health...

jfengel 2y ago
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.
- lokar 2y ago
  To be fair, any R president would have done this. The pendulum goes back and fourth…
  - HarryHirsch 2y ago
    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.
  - jfengel 2y ago

_elf 2y ago

I'm not sure why companies would want a patchwork of regulations across 50 different jurisdictions versus normalized national regulations. Non-competes are anti-competitive nonsense, which is why the oligarchs love them.

count 2y ago
It’s regulatory capture for large well resourced companies - keeps the smaller players off the field and unable to scale.
- anon7000 2y ago
  Nothing says anti-establishment like entrenching the existing establishment of massive corporations