>"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, [U.S. District Judge]
What would be an example of a “non-harmful” non-compete? In the game of employer vs employee, any non-compete is undesirable for the former and desirable for the latter.
Possibly a niche, highly compensated job that requires specific abilities and very detailed domain knowledge imparted by the employer at considerable expense.
At the other end of the spectrum were the stories of fast-food workers being held to non-competes, which is just bullshit. If you can learn the job in a few weeks and basically anyone can do it, a non-compete agreement is absurd.
Perhaps, but the kitchen employees don't know. All they know is "dump the frozen fries in the basket, put the basket in the fryer, and hit the button to start the timer."
A good example might be the practice of “garden leave” in finance where employees are paid to not work between jobs to reduce the risk of bringing active strategy information to a competitor.
Seems pretty low harm to the employee (it’s paid vacation) and it prevents some pretty ugly kinds of poaching.
To my understanding "garden leave" wasn't disallowed, you can _pay_ people to not work for a competitor, but you can't enforce limitations on their employment if you aren't paying them.
I hear this quite frequently and I’d have to disagree. While it’s certainly hard to complain about getting paid to ride the bench (I’ve been there myself), garden leave inhibits one’s freedom to work on what they find interesting. Not to mention missing out on bonus.
That might be fine if you are getting 100% salary + benefits, but some of these agreements can be too broad. It could say that the amount of salary can be an arbitrary amount determined at the end of employment. What if they decide they only want to pay something like 50 or 75% base salary? Also once you are on a family plan, paying COBRA can be a substantial expense. My plan is nearly $1,600 a month if I had to pay the full amount.
How is this different than them being an employee (and the employer deciding that they don't have to work on anything)?
Also, I thought this was a British-ism, because over there employers can't fire at will and instead once the employee (or employer) has given notice then the employer must keep paying them until the end of the notice period.
lol I was trying to be sarcastic, came off as bitter?
I’m not even looking for a job, I’m traveling the world and living my best life. I think my comment was more about how non-competes encourage toxic ideas of what loyalty you, as a free agent, are supposed to offer people who are fundamentally just paying you some money while they don’t reciprocate. Not that I’ve had this experience myself, just something I’ve seen others go through. I’ve had nothing but great employers for the most part.
Wasting company time attracting competitors is surely a violation of your fiduciary duty. I don't pay you to sleep or eat, so why should I pay you to interview? At our competitors no less?
For anyone reading this thread seriously, the job market is fine, feel free to market your skills. As a rule of thumb, if your employer didn't agree to the raise till you presented a counteroffer then you should almost always leave. No matter what your employer said when you started or thereafter, if you're doing a fantastic job the "once per year" bonus/promotion cycle is bubkiss, and they will absolutely compensate you accordingly (on the flip-side, if you haven't been hired yet, don't start underleveled with a promise of a promotion except in dire circumstances; this has been hashed out before, but reply if you want more details).
I made a non-serious, sarcastic and parodious comment in a serious thread. My bad guys!
I just think non-competes are bad for employees though - if someone sells trade secrets, that can be somewhat obvious, and can be pursued legally without non-competes. It just creates an environment that keeps people down at the benefit of the powerful.
> if you haven't been hired yet, don't start underleveled with a promise of a promotion except in dire circumstances
I had this happen to me before, I was interviewing for a senior position and everything went well except the CTO decided I wasn’t senior enough for him. He said I could get there in a year or so if I met a few goals, got a few certs, etc. They even went as far as pulling the original job requisition off the website and downgrading it to a non-senior role. This (and a few other things) left a bad taste in my mouth and I politely declined the offer.
The unelected bureaucrats of the US Department of Defense control a lot of money, I'm expecting more lawsuits from the parties who don't get as much of that money as they want.
Getting rid of non-compete agreements is just allowing American workers have jobs without ridiculous demands from their employers that they abandon their entire livelihoods for a decade after working for them for a few months.
Non-compete agreements are extraordinarily anti-worker, and fundamentally anti-free-market. If you leave your job, you should be allowed to find another similar job without your former employer suing you for having a career.
There seems to be ever increasing talk about communism vs capitalism, free markets, competition, etc.
I think more and more people are asking "what has the 'free market' done for me lately", and are open to other ideas. It's a dangerous road. I see it a bit like the "defund the police" movement, people admit that police are good in theory, but the reality is a lot of people believe the police will never actually do anything to help them, thus, they want tear most of the system down and start over. Likewise, everyone agrees a free market with competition is great, but they see that the people upholding our "free market" do a lot non-free-market things which will never benefit regular people.
What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening?
To be clear, there are exactly 0 communist politicians in the US.
You're creating a false dichotomy. It's not the capitalists vs the communists, it's the capitalists vs the slight less capitalist capitalists. The American left isn't communist, and it isn't even close. Even the closest politicians like Bernie Sanders cannot be considered communists.
> What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening
It means we don't live in a free market. Because a free market is bad, and nobody actually wants a free market. They want an almost free market. But of course child labor is bad, and poisoning your workers is bad, and also blowing them up on the railroad is bad, and then poisoning the water is bad too. And then giving your customers HIV (yes, real) is bad as well.
The legislature (US Congress) has specifically given the FTC the legal authority to regulate and prevent unfair and anti-competitive practices by corporations, employees, etc., including by banning those practices, fining the entities involved, and so on. The FTC is acting on Congress' direct instructions to act.
There are a ton of federal agencies that have the power to make regulations and then enforce them. This power is specifically delegated by Congress. It’s hard to imagine a functioning government without this. For example, Congress recognizes it is not a subject matter expert at radio signals, so it delegates the technical details of regulating the electromagnetic spectrum to the FCC. Same thing for the FDA. Congress isn’t an expert on how clinical trials should be designed so it delegates that to the FDA. A huge one is the DEA, which can both determine how drugs are scheduled and can also enforce it. Congress has the power to overrule the agency when it sees fit.
That being the structure for a ton of agencies doesn't mean it should be the structure.
There are options besides "congress must decide every little minutiae" and "The FCC gets to be judge, jury, and executioner for things in their purview". Because that is effectively what we have at the moment. They get to be the judge (deciding what is or isn't allowable), jury (deciding whether you've violated their standard), and executioner (levying fines and other punishments).
The point I was trying to make in my original comment is that there is a conflict of interest / misaligned incentives when you allow the same org do both. We've already seen this play out with various federal agencies in various contexts. For example, those agencies are not incentivized to provide clarity of policy, because they don't need it to justify their enforcement. They can say "you violated this thing because we say so here is a fine". Whereas, if you were to split this power into two separate agencies (let's say the "Federal Communications Commission" and the Federal Communications Enforcement Agency"), the former would need to provide clarity to the latter (and everyone else) before the latter could enforce anything. This type of transparency is: 1. good, 2. something we don't currently have, 3. hard to promote with the current structure.
The argument was specifically a lack of evidence for a sweeping ban vs a targeted one. While the law can not be used as precedent, the evidence from nearly a century of business in the state with the highest GDP is a good starting point.
What specific evidence possibly exists in California that is relevant to the granularity of rule-making that the FTC can legally perform under federal law? The scope of a regulatory agency's authority isn't linked to the quality of their rulemaking.
The rule “is arbitrary and capricious because it is unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation”
California’s experience can be used to show that the rule is not capricious or unreasonably broad. The act establishing the FTC gave it broad powers and it does have the authority to do what it did. However, it is clear that the Supreme Court is going in a direction to greatly reduce regulatory authority. This ruling will likely stand but it shouldn’t.
I would much prefer to see Congress regulate this under interstate commerce
Just because Congress is gridlocked on dumb stuff doesnt mean I want agencies doing it. I’m glad those agencies got handicapped ensuring this wont survive on appeal. There are consensus bridging Americans that can be elected to Congress, I don’t think its so absurd to prefer the people take that route instead of trying to shove through conveniences or ideological things by any means.
And if the FTC Act and similar legislation provides them the necessary powers, then the courts will rule that way. If they do not, then the legislative branch can always amend the FTC Act, assuming it isn’t found unconstitutional.
The issue is the dismantling of Chevron deference. For 40 years regulatory authority has been granted and written by Congress with the understanding that Chevron defference was the law of the land. Now the Supreme Court is demanding a level of specificity that isn’t practical and it means rewriting may decades worth of legislation. Given that SCOTUS has also decided to upend statute of limitations as it pertains to challenging established regulations we are going to enter a period of regulatory upheaval.
you know we’re going to have this Supreme Court’s law of the land for the next 50 years, instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you have you considered shaping the country in ways that are practical?
Genuinely curious because thats what I don’t get about the SCOTUS dismay crowd. Isn't there some agency out there you hate? Some regulation thats set you back? Go after that one. Focus on what you can control instead of what you cant.
It has always been the case that an agency rule or regulation could be challenged in the courts. There are lots of examples prior to the recent Chevron ruling of courts striking down agency rules.
What’s going to happen is that companies are going to pollute a lot more with impunity. It will be a wild west sort of situation. Our quest to become Ferenginar is well on its way.
There’s more to the concept of regulation than just the EPA or anything related to the environment
A huge component of why I can’t take this “agency delegated” view seriously is because the people preferring it seemingly have no perception of just how much other agencies do, often in a protectionist way to an incumbent thats totally captured that agency. How difficult it was to get standing to even take an agency to court to alter it.
This adds color to my view: instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you, considered shaping the country in ways that are practical for you
Chevron’s dismemberment is hardly an issue, considering that it’s no different than monarchism in practice. People in power, with no term limits, deep pockets, and tons of leverage delegating power to those who are not elected and are, in fact, unchecked by any form of governmental authority. The balance shifted horribly and the USA was overall worse for it. Now we’re in an era where we can hopefully reverse enough of the damage and, ideally, institute term limits in a way to end the existence of career politicians.
In California the law was passed by the legislature, and the legislature is allowed to pass broad and capricious laws. That is the privilege of the political branches. California's experience is not analogous to the federal regulatory process.
Nonsense. If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional (whether it be the state or federal constitution) because it is too vague, it too can be struck down by the courts.
Arbitrary and capricious is not the same thing as vague. E.g. a law that says you can't drive a yellow car on the second Friday of each month is arbitrary and capricious but it is not vague (except maybe in the definition of "yellow")
The "arbitrary and capricious" language is used specifically in the Administrative Procedural Act, and so you don't see it much when talking about state law, but state laws have also been struck down for being arbitrary and thus in violation of the Due Process clause. See e.g. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-uncon... (search for "arbitrary").
Federal courts frequently hear cases involving state law. When they determine that California law applies to a case, they will apply it. However, they wouldn’t apply it to a case involving a New York based defendant and activity that took place exclusively in New York.
I haven't read the details (paywall), but my assumption here is that the objection is to the FTC making this rule without an act from Congress, not the general idea of banning non-competes. While the FTC theoretically has the authority to do this, of late there's been a conservative judicial push against the "regulatory state".
Regardless, a federal judge need not consider the laws of any state when making a ruling on something like this.
Edit: read via archive link. So yeah:
> ... US District Judge Ada Brown in the Northern District of Texas wrote in the decision on Tuesday, concluding that the regulator “lacks statutory authority” to issue the rule.
And:
> Brown [...] was appointed by then-president Donald Trump
So she's a conservative-leaning judge who's skeptical of the executive branch's regulatory powers. Not news.
> Under this Act, 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 trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress.
Virtually everything outside of a Constitutional amendment is judicially reviewable. The courts are expected to do a little more than go "nuh uh!", though.
Section 5c states, in part:
> The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive.
And then she even said that even if the regulator did have statutory authority, she wasn't sufficiently convinced.
Which is to the opposite side of the spectrum... "even if you have the authority, I can just say "I'm not convinced by the argument that you don't owe me, so I'll still block it"."
There are plenty of cases where executive authority may not be enacted in an arbitrary manner. The government probably spent more time asserting that they had the authority to do so, than that doing so was necessary.
Either way, this will likely end up in a different court, and at a higher level, and get decided again.
You’ve got it backward. It’s not surprising that a court found the FTC lacked the power to categorically ban contractual arrangements under state contract law. The relevant principles are ones most people learn in high school government class:
federalism (employment contracts are a matter of state rather than federal law) and separation of powers (executive branch agencies enforce the law, they don’t make it).
What would require a special explanation is if the court found the opposite. It’s really appalling how many supposedly educated lawyers would arrive at the wrong answer to something a bright 10th grader could figure out from first principles.
The Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of the federal minimum wage as being a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power, United States v. Darby, rests on very weak reasoning: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/312us100 (“The Court held that the purpose of the FLSA was to prevent states from using substandard labor practices to their own economic advantage by interstate commerce. Congress acted with proper authority in outlawing substandard labor conditions since they have a significant impact on interstate commerce.”). Similar to Wickard v. Filburn, it gives Congress power over purely intrastate activity based on a tenuous connection to interstate commerce.
But there’s probably some version of both the minimum wage and the ban on non-compete agreements that’s constitutional under the Commerce Clause. For example, if they were limited to employers that do business in multiple states or if they purported to apply when employees moved to a different state where non-competes were unenforceable.
The bigger problem is the separation of powers aspect. As you seem to recognize, banning non-competes seems like banning an unfair labor practice. That something that should be the subject of Congressional legislation, like the FLSA. Congress almost certainly didn’t intend to delegate to the FTC power over employment contracts, nor could it have given the FTC such an open-ended delegation of legislative authority.
> federalism (employment contracts are a matter of state rather than federal law)
While the US's particular brand of federalism might imply that (or might not), that specific bit need not be a feature of federalism in general.
> separation of powers (executive branch agencies enforce the law, they don’t make it)
Decades of legislative delegation and executive rulemaking would seem to disagree with that, no? I'm not making a value judgment on whether or not this is a good thing, just stating the facts on the ground. (SCOTUS seems to want to dismantle all that, though.)
> It’s really appalling how many supposedly educated lawyers would arrive at the wrong answer to something a bright 10th grader could figure out from first principles.
Or maybe reasonable people well-versed in the law can disagree in their interpretations? Not sure if you're a lawyer yourself (I'm not), but it seems to me that disagreements on legal interpretation aren't particularly uncommon, especially when it comes to disputes around separation of powers and state vs. federal powers.
A very large number of things that are federally illegal are also illegal under state law. States have their own courts, sentencing, etc, and often want to bring cases under their own laws.
Already seeing the crappy effects of Chevron's revokation, I see. Row v Wade was awful but I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking even more about Chevron for decades to come if congress doesn't do anything.
Yeah, this project of toppling the administrative state is a slow-motion disaster for consumer protection, environmental protection, basically any limitation that keeps greedy people from taking advantage of people and laying waste to the commons.
Hah. The judge even said that even if the FTC had the jurisdiction and authority to do this, it still "had not justified" it.
Not only do you need to have the jurisdiction and authority, but some random judge can decide you haven't justified it to her liking and block it anyway.
That's how our legal system has been allowed to operate all the way down to civil court unfortunately. I've seen much the same happen first hand in civil matters. I've also seen a person convicted of a crime when the case took 4 years to be tried, a charge that had max of 1 year in jail mind you, and the only evidence offered was eye witness testimonials that disagreed with each other and photos of the scene (aka a room) taken days before trial and having nothing to do with the crime in question.
Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendments.
laws =/= amendments. Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". Which includes the process of how congress and the president sign off on a law. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage.
Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design.
>Which one?
In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act
Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
Then why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question?
> Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution".
No, that's not how it works. The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass any law it likes as long as it follows the process given in the Constitution.
> There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage.
Again, this is backwards. I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. If there isn't, Congress can't do it (unless the Constitution is amended to add that to the list of things Congress can legislate about).
> Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution
There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended, which is what the more difficult process you describe does, but that doesn't "override" it or pass a "stronger law" in spite of it, it amends it.
>why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question?
Because I'm not a lawyer and my main point was "yes, congress can control this stuff"
>The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutio
I'm going to guess "setting minimum wage" isn't specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8. But yes, we have federal laws we revise overtime outlining that.
>I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage.
Probbaly not. But there are mechanisms on how congress can draft laws to enforce a minimum wage. Of course it can be challenged by the SCOTUS, but that's one hell of a hill to die on, even by 2024 standards.
It not adjusting for 15 years is pretty close. Sometimes apathy is the best malice.
>There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended
Did you want to talk about congress passing laws or argue pedantism against the spirit of HN? I'm not a lawyer so my language will not be precise as the centuries and thousands of pages of law talking about this.
My main point was that yes, congress can pass laws that regulate employment. No it doesn't need to be the 28th amendment to take effect. There's no point grilling me on the legalese because that is far outside my purview (and frankly, far outside the scope of a comment on Hacker News. I'm not drafting an entire book try and likely fail to convince someone who is simply prodding instead of giving their own opinions on the matter)
There isn’t a specific line in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate employment. This power of Congress is implied by the powers that are explicitly written in the Constution.
There are 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Those 5 simple axioms have a vast number of implications as evidenced by all the theorems in Euclidean Geometry. In the same way there are logical conclusions to the statements in the Constitution. It is settled law that Congress can regulate employment.
That assumes that employment counts as "commerce", which, as another subthread elsewhere in this discussion will show you, is not an assumption that I think you can just help yourself to.
Obviously the vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers and those knowledgeable on the subject believe Congress has this authority. For instance, every time the minimum wage gets updated one argument against updating it you don't hear people make is that Congress doesn't have the authority to do this.
You are welcome to research the topic yourself. There are lots of books on the history of labor rights and labor struggles in the U.S. and the role courts have played in this.
But you might be right that the experts on this topic know less than you and that there is no justifiable implied power of Congress to regulate labor markets.
> Obviously the vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers and those knowledgeable on the subject believe Congress has this authority.
The same vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers, and those knowledgeable on the subject also believe:
That Congress can delegate legislative power to Executive Branch agencies, in spite of the explicit statement at the beginning of Article I that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" to guide the Executive branch agency (Hampton Co. v. United States);
That Congress can regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use, that never leaves his property, under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn);
That seizing private homes, evicting their owners, and turning the property over to a private developer is a "public use" under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (Kelo v. New London).
Given the above (and those are just a few examples I thought of off the top of my head), I do not accept that what such a "vast majority" believe is a good guide to what the Constitution actually says.
I think so and you think so but at a systemic level the only opinion that matters legally are the 9 people in robes at the Supreme Court at any point in time. And this current court is pretty dedicated to delivering on a decades long project to hamstring federal regulations of business and commerce.
My understanding was that Chevron was specifically about the cases where the law was ambiguous, allowing the agencies to come up with reasonable interpretations on their own. Was that an issue here?
Congress has been working under the assumption that Chevron was the law of the land for decades. That let them produce laws that delegated technical rulemaking to experts with relevant experience. The idea is that the law would be more responsive to changing times, and that it could be simpler, since it wouldn't need to encode obscure technical standards.
However, the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and transfer that authority to unelected judges. Now, the federal government is all screwed up because none of the laws work as intended, and, so far, the judges wielding this newfound authority have demonstrated some mixture of incompetence and corruption.
I'd like to think they're all taking night school engineering and economics classes to bridge the newly-created skills shortage, but, somehow, I doubt it.
For example: In this case, the courts have come to the nonsensical conclusion that (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition", doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses, and further claims there's no evidence that the proposed regulation would do anything beneficial (despite 80+ years of case studies from California, which happens to have the largest economy in the US.)
> The idea is that the law would be more responsive to changing times, and that it could be simpler, since it wouldn't need to encode obscure technical standards.
No, the idea was to supply more power to unelected officials who are not under the scrutiny of the people. Said unelected officials being bought for by various private interests and ruling in their favor whenever and however possible, regardless of the constitution.
> However, the Supreme Court decided… transfer that authority to unelected judges.
No they didn’t. The authority went back to where it belonged, the legislative branch. The legislative branch has no power to defer legislation to anyone but themselves.
> [The FTC] doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses
They do; in regards to the federal law as it is written, of which there are no laws currently. If they wish to see non-competes die (and I would like for them die) then they have to do it properly: by getting a law made. Not by making a “ruling” which has no legal standing in a post-Chevron world.
> No they didn’t. The authority went back to where it belonged, the legislative branch. The legislative branch has no power to defer legislation to anyone but themselves.
Chevron deference has little to do with the legislative branch's power to delegate authority (and nothing at all to do with the legislative branch's power to explicitly delegate authority). It was about the judiciary not overturning a "reasonable interpretation" of ambiguities in the law by an agency, under the assumption that any ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority.
Overturning Chevron merely means that a judge can decide which of multiple reasonable interpretations of the law most represent Congress' intent, rather than deferring to the reasonable interpretation chosen by the agency.
To quote Chevron:
> Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.
The legality on non-competes is entirely a political question and has nothing to do with expertise. It should be decided by the political branch that writes the laws, which is congress. Whether you like it or not (and I don't like it) non-competes have always been legal.
> (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition"
The issue is that you are quoting an article and not the actual law. There is no law that says the FTC has blanket authority to regulate "competition".
It was originally created to enforce antitrust laws and prevent "unfair methods of competition"
Here's US code Title 15§45(a); note that the subsequent acts have broadened the FTC purview rather than curtailed it. Later clauses in the subsection limit the FTC's power for foreign commerce, and define "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" but do not define "unfair methods of competition":
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in general its safe to assume that any executive agency in the US has been operating under a fairly ambiguous set of rules.
Its always up for debate whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but without Chevron much of what the agencies have done for decades wouldn't have been allowed.
The net negative migration from California to other states might indicate otherwise. My wife and I are currently contemplating moving to California. I'm comparing cost of living (housing, taxes, transpo, food, etc.). Using real data, it currently pencils out to >40% increase in our expenses. Pretty tough sell.
Edit: to the replies– It's not just housing. Granted, housing is a big chunk of the budget. But it's everything else too. My grocery bill would go up 33%. My state income tax would go from zero to 8%. Gas is, on average, 43% more expensive. And I'm not looking at moving to the Bay Area. I'm looking at moving to Fresno.
It’s a complex feedback loop. On one hand the economy is great. On the other the housing policy is completely messed up. So you get a lot of new wealth that than chases too few houses, pushing everyone else out.
Housing policy is finally changing, with the state government forcing municipalities to build. Hopefully that leads to a slower growth in prices (with such a red hot economy, I don't expect prices to fall much, if at all).
It’s true that California is experiencing outmigration but that’s primarily driven by the fact that Democratic Party voters like to use the phrase “preserve our community” to mean the same sentiment as “build the wall”.
The anti-non-compete is a good thing but it’s not anywhere near a big factor for the vast majority of people.
Given how populous California is, it could be one of the most desirable states and still lose people. Likewise, a low population state like Idaho doesn't need much net inflow to grow by large percentage margins.
I already do that. This isn't career motivated. Had a kid and wife wants to live closer to grandparents. It falls to me to run the numbers, and boy are they ugly.
Maybe visit them a bunch with the kid for a while to hook them on the drug, then stop doing it and renew the invitation for them to move. That's what my parents did to my grandparents.
Source? The best data I've seen comes from the Census Bureau, and their numbers haven't been updated for 2023. In 2022, it was net negative.
Edit: State of California Department of Finance also estimates this, but states that 2023 saw "Domestic out-migration slowed in 2022-23, to a net domestic migration loss of 260,400 people." [1]
"Aside from the bit of unpleasantness how did Mrs. Lincoln find the play?" Because the people who don't want to live there factor in the very real "traffic costs". For a similar reason to why hosting the Olympics is a disappointment to tourist countries: it doesn't add new tourists on top, it replaces the existing set as others avoid the country due to the crowds.
Housing is more expensive. Gas and groceries, too. Anything you can buy online costs the same as anywhere else. We moved to the Bay Area from Nebraska and my base salary is literally 5x my total comp there. That means I only have to work 1/5th as long to get anything I can find on Amazon. A new car is a fifth as much. Netflix is a fifth the price.
In some important ways, CA is very expensive. In others, its ludicrously cheap.
The question in the case isn't whether banning non-competes are good policy, or whether the federal government has the power to ban non-competes, but:
1. Whether Congress gave rulemaking power to the FTC under the provision cited supporting the ban on non-competes, and
2. Whether, assuming FTC had been granted the authority by Congress to issue the rules, it acted properly procedurally under the Administrative Procedure Act when it did so.
The court ruled "no" on both.
(I haven't reviewed it in detail to have an opinion on whether it is correct on either point; banning non-competes is good policy, and it would be good if Congress did so directly.)
agree! they should be banned, but the FTC was clearly (over)-reaching here. the correct way to do it is via law. even though it is the right thing to do, it's just the wrong way to do it. blocking and de-incentivizing monopolistic behavior like this is one of the most useful things a government should do.
Were they though? The Federal Trade Commission has say in how businesses operate, including their relationship with employees.
While the best approach would be a law, relatively few questioned the initial change because 1) It is good for nearly all parties 2) It makes sense that they could 3) Congress obviously was in no rush to make this change soon, if ever
This judge did actually rule that it was "arbitrary and capricious". Which is rich considering the FTC published a 500+ page document explaining their exact reasoning, including analysis of public comments, their legal authority, alternatives, and studies about the effects of non-compete bans in specific states.
Does it? To me, a 500 page report makes it more likely to be arbitrary. A non-arbitrary decision should be much more easily justified. A 500 page justification on its face seems like trying to bury the opposition in paperwork because your actual justification is vaporware.
This is common in legal arguments. You want to make your case as airtight as possible. Keep in mind that there is tons of space per page; not a dense essay.
Mathematical proofs are similar, rarely limited to a page. You want to leave little room for doubt.
> This judge did actually rule that it was "arbitrary and capricious".
That's not a policy judgement is a procedural one. Its not "it should not be done", but "the FTC did not do what is substantively required in assessing the facts and applying the law".
I'm not saying it is right, I am saying "arbitrary and capricious" is specifically a procedural finding in federal administrative law.
Obviously that wasn't the question, but you know that's what it's over. A bit naive to think we'd all love to have these nice things if only we can do them in a procedurally correct manner.
Careful with this logic. It leads all the way to the idea of a "good king" who'd quickly bring in nice things, unencumbered by any procedures. Or to just picking good things from store shelves and skipping the procedurally correct checkout and payment.
Procedures are imperfect. But they were introduced to keep away worse imperfections.
FTR, I do think that unpaid non-competes should be considered null and void. I also want this to be codified properly, so that no judge would have grounds to proclaim it frivolous and revoke.
I’m guessing salaries are higher where non competes are banned since you are able to leave for a better paying job. So it’s good for the worker but bad for the employers.
Wickard v. Filburn basically destroyed the commerce clause. Growing wheat on your own farm is "interstate commerce" because it impacts national wheat prices (since you would have bought that wheat otherwise!). In the second half of the 20th century, this ruling was used to great effect to limit the power of in-state businesses in the South to discriminate.
On the other hand, it was also used to justify why the federal government can prevent states from legalizing marijuana, even if it won't leave the state. It's certainly a ruling with a complicated moral legacy, in that it has some clearly good use cases, a few bad ones, while also brazenly defying the clear meaning of the constitution because doing so was convenient to the state.
Not sure how I feel about it, but I guess it was inevitable anyway.
You know, I think I’d be fine with non-competes that only apply to jobs with employers in the same state, and to jobs with an employer that does no business outside the state.
That’d effectively be a blanket ban anyway, so sure.
Does "commerce" include employment? Of course, with our current jurisprudence (someone else downthread mentioned Wickard v. Filburn), the Commerce Clause has been expanded out of all recognition. But I'm not sure the Founders would have included employment in "commerce".
Also, even if we assume employment is commerce, is it commerce "with foreign nations, or among the several States"?
Depends on who your employees are. Are they all retained to one state, or several, or international?
It's commerce because money exchanges hands. Labor is sold and bought. To me, and I think almost anyone reasonable, it is obviously commerce.
Personally, I think this entire textualist idea of "let's interpret the constitution like its the 1800s" is bogus. The founding fathers were not stupid and short-sighted. They could see the growth of this country and understood, as time goes on, technology changes and culture changes. They wrote the constitution in such a way where it will remain reasonable.
If this is correct, then on the assumption that employment is commerce, Congress cannot possibly have the power to regulate employment in general under the Commerce Clause; it could only regulate employment in cases where the employees are in a different state or country.
> It's commerce because money exchanges hands. Labor is sold and bought.
Some definitions of "commerce" are this general, but others are not. The term is ambiguous.
> I think this entire textualist idea of "let's interpret the constitution like its the 1800s" is bogus.
For things which didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, of course we have to make decisions about what it means that the Founders couldn't possibly make. For example, the Supreme Court had to rule on whether wiretapping is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and they couldn't just ask what the Founders thought since wiretapping didn't exist then.
But employment did exist then, and it wasn't a new technology or cultural development. In such cases I think the intent of the Founders is a pertinent question.
> But employment did exist then, and it wasn't a new technology or cultural development
kind of, but not really. Because corporations as we know them did not exist. Times were very, very different. A non-compete COULD make sense in mom & pop contexts in a small 1800s town. In a multi-national corporate context things change.
So no, the type of employment we have now and that most people experience did not exist in the 1800s. To me, while both share the word "employment", they're fundamentally different arrangements.
> not sure the Founders would have included employment in "commerce".
We can't interrogate them to find out and the world has changed enormously since then. Why should we be bound to the unverifiable world view of dead men?
You cannot have commerce without labor and the understanding of markets now include employees/labor as a market.
> Why should we be bound to the unverifiable world view of dead men?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. The way to update it to take changes in the world into account is to amend it, which has already happened twenty-seven times. It is not to just ignore what it says or pretend it says something different if you don't like what it says.
I'm not saying ignore it just don't pretend we know what the Founders intended with every little nuance of language to justify your own preferred interpretation. Every other part of law and jurisprudence deals with the words as they are written not trying to scry into the past to peek in side the mind of dead men to figure out what they would have thought they meant and wanted to do.
And again how can you have commerce without labor? It's not separable from the rest of the process.
> don't pretend we know what the Founders intended with every little nuance of language to justify your own preferred interpretation
I wasn't doing this, so whatever you are arguing against, it isn't me.
> Every other part of law and jurisprudence deals with the words as they are written
So you think that, for example, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use under the Commerce Clause, was just dealing with the words as they are written?
> how can you have commerce without labor
Of course producing things that will be traded in commerce requires labor, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether employment counts as "commerce", which is what I was asking about.
> I wasn't doing this, so whatever you are arguing against, it isn't me.
That's the core of what you're asking, "would they have understood it as part of commerce". That's literally asking us to peer into the past and into the minds of the Founders. It's the core problem of originalism too, we cannot actually know what they meant to mean or would think now.
> Wickard v. Filburn
The logic is sound in the case intrastate actions have interstate consequences. It wasn't the first time these kind of controls had been passed either. But also I don't think we should be wedded to the exact nature the Founders thought the country should take. They gave us a system with the ability to interpret their words and we should use it.
> Of course producing things that will be traded in commerce requires labor, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether employment counts as "commerce", which is what I was asking about.
So it IS an inextricable part of it but somehow doesn't count as part of it legally?
> The logic is sound in the case intrastate actions have interstate consequences.
No, it isn't, because Article I, Section 8 does not say that Congress can regulate anything that might have "interstate consequences" for commerce. It only says Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
> It wasn't the first time these kind of controls had been passed either.
I know that. But it was a well know Supreme Court ruling whose disconnection from what the Constitution actually says should be obvious (and that observation is certainly not original with me).
> So it IS an inextricable part of it
Labor is, but that doesn't mean employment is. Labor is not the same thing as employment. A person can produce goods or services that are traded in interstate commerce without employing anyone.
The judge has preserved the status quo: If you signed a non-compete agreement (and don't live in a state where such agreements are prohibited) then you have to continue to abide by it.
Right. Like you actually have a fucking choice when every employer does it and you've come out of college with some $300k in student debt. This judge needs to step down on Earth. Or is he on a Boeing spacecraft?
I literally got a pointless noncompete removed from a contract just because of the FTC announcement.
The proposed noncompete had a 10-year lockup for a freelance contract…obviously nonsense. But it was so helpful to say “these aren’t sticking around so let’s just cut it out.”
These changes make a big difference in encouraging entrepreneurs and helping our economy, as well as just reducing stress for a lot of people.
10-years is very unreasonable. I can see maybe 1 year or 2 years working for a direct competitor, but 10! Especially contracting. How can you expect to make a living at all?
Any amount of time is unreasonable. We already have laws against corporate espionage and sharing corporate secrets. Competitors offering better compensation to workers is fifty percent of the basis of capitalism.
Oh I totally agree. Ive just never encountered 10 years. My jaw dropped a little. Ive definitely seen 1-2 years but also have never seen it enforced. Most people either left on good terms, or were let go not because of performance, but just re-org, etc.... and as long as you were not bringing trade secrets the former employer was really just happy you were working again.
"unreasonable" here actually has some legal meaning, and some states have previously established some pretty relevant case law as to what is a reasonable amount of time. I remember running one by a lawyer many years ago, and they said that the state I was in would not enforce a non-compete more than one year in duration. So just because a non-compete is written in your contract, and they're legal in your state, doesn't mean that the specific non-compete you have is legal in your state.
In that case, why would you sign it in the first place? Maybe you're too careless to read the contract? Or too desperate to plan for your future working life? But how did you become such a specialist with those behaviors?
I once has an employer try to get me to agree to a broad noncompete clause for an unskilled laboring job. When I questioned it, he just deleted it. If he hadn't, I'd have turned down the job because it sounded terrible.
> In that case, why would you sign it in the first place?
Most people wouldn't, then the whole "job search" process begins again for both parties.
Sounds like a huge waste of time for all involved, which could have been avoided by no having unreasonable crap in the contract and no willingness to remove it. ;)
Any restriction or control on how a worker can make a living post-employment in a supposed free-market economy is indeed completely unreasonable. But hey, we're completely accepting of "free market" business executives, investors, owners, etc openly enjoying numerous market restrictions. And we use health care to drastically reduce competition in the employment market by both making it more risky if not outright dangerous to your health and financial well-being to quit your job (even a minor medical injury or accident could bankrupt you) and this also makes it nearly impossible to directly compare compensation between different employers, soooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In many countries if you want to have an employee bound by a non-compete, you have to compensate the employee for that restriction ('garden pay', I believe?), because by restricting who they can work for, you're by that very nature restricting their ability to seek the most competitive pay. Not to mention, if going to work for a competitor would cost you, say, $1M - then surely you can afford to pay them $50k; that's the deal of the century, in fact! Allowing corporations to foist the cost of a non-compete onto the employee is a pretty American concept.
"But but otherwise it would be really expensive!", I hear the Entreprebros screech. "I couldn't possibly be in business! Muh Burn Rate!"
My response is, "...but I thought you said the employee going to work for a competitor is such a huge financial/competitive threat to your business that you should be allowed to restrict how they can make a living to be able to afford food, housing, transportation, to care for their family members, and so on? Which is it?"...and then I point to all their European competitors who seem to be doing just fine with these supposedly infeasible prohibitions on uncompensated non-competes (and requirements around greater benefits, lower work hours, greater workplace rights, etc.)
Technically non-competes should be illegal simply because the contract bears no benefit or compensation to the employee in exchange for the restrictions imposed that wildly benefit their employer. There's zero benefit to working for an employer who requires one versus ones who do not, but the employer gains (by the very nature of the claim of how necessary the noncompete is!) a great deal.
The situation is absurd. Imagine McDonalds requiring their burger-flippers to not work for any competitors because those competitors might benefit from proprietary McDonalds business practices, training, etc. We'd laugh them right out of the building and point out how stupid it is because all other things aside, where the fuck else is a McDonalds burger-flipper supposed to work, except a place that is likely a competitor to McDonalds?
But Google, MS, Amazon, et al do it to tech workers - even ones who work positions that are compensated an order of magnitude less than engineering talent - datacenter technicians, and it's okay?
As a contractor, I find my definition of reasonable depends entirely on how specific the ask is.
If someone asks me to not work for anyone making widgets that measure the sun's IR emissions at 2222nm with a semiconductor, they can make that 10 years sure.
If they want me to not work for anyone that is competitive with General Electric, 10 seconds is too long because I'll be in breach as soon as I sign it...
> I can see maybe 1 year or 2 years working for a direct competitor, but 10!
But even that can easily be unreasonable on its own. For example, think of people working at places like Google, Unilever or some other large entity with its hands it every industry you can imagine because just about everyone is their direct competitor in some industry or another.
Just one thing to remember, especially if you are signing a contracting agreement: most companies will, by default, try to put all sorts of stipulations in these contracts that benefit them. A broad non-compete in a contracting agreement (especially, as another commenter noted, the ridiculousness of 10! years) is absurd, so you should always ask to have it removed. The whole point of contracting agreements is flexibility on both sides - it's insane for a company to want the flexibility in how they hire you but want you to have all the responsibilities of of being a full time employee (not like I think non-competes for FTEs should be enforceable either).
Point being, many/most companies know these clauses are insane, but they see no harm in try to throw in the kitchen sink in their contracts because they know a lot of people won't push back. But for the ones the do push back (in a reasonable fashion), decent companies will say "fine".
The real tragedy is that many industries have become so monopolized (due in a large part to government-created systemic issues; regulatory capture, reserve banking, etc...) that we need bans on such clauses because otherwise, corporate monopolies could dictate essentially any terms and they would become standard throughout the entire economy within a decade. It would speed up systemic enslavement of the population.
I think legally, such bans can easily be justified by the fact that a corporation is not actually a person. Corporations do not have the constitutional right to free speech as people do.
Personally, I tend to lean much further on this issue as I believe that corporate personhood and limited liability are unethical, socially harmful and economically inefficient (in the long run).
Repost from the other thread: this rule is too weak, not too strong. Needs to cover the customer noncompete clauses of the closed AI companies. They shouldn’t be allowed to send paying customers messages with prohibitions on use to train AIs, because that creates a safety issue where their unsafe outputs cannot be used as counter examples.
No matter how much conservatives preach the will of the free market, when the free market gets in the way of exploiting the working class, they are happy to let the law tell Americans where they can or can't work, or what kind of work they are allowed to do.
There's seems to be a conservative judge in Texas for just about any regressive thing you need.
Rather, companies already have non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which allow companies to preserve all of the secrets that copyright and patents do not cover.
Disappointing, but not unexpected. The ruling/owner class wants you, the wage slave, to have as little mobility as possible so as to minimize competition for your labor, and therefore cost.
... which isn't really how this goes, because these agreements are barely agreements.
I mean, you can't just put whatever you want in a contract. It's never worked that way. Not to mention that employees often can't amend contracts, and they can't say no either. In some industries it's impossible to find a job without a non-compete.
At that point, it's not an agreement, its coercion.
Not true. Again you can't just put anything you want in a contract and then, if they agree, say "yep that works!"
Courts can, and regularly do, find certain parts of a contract are unreasonable and won't be enforced. Doesn't matter if both parties understood and agreed. Just because something is a contract doesn't mean it's really for real!
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Obviously there's something controversial about noncompetes but to me they seem problematic on their face, like something that violates basic contract law and shouldn't require explicit banning by the FTC, congress, or anyone. A judge should find them unconstitutional or something.
Let's say this was marriage, and you had people requiring spouses sign a "noncompete agreement" with marriage, so that the person, upon divorce, agrees not to date or marry anyone else within a certain distance, which amounts to hundreds of miles.
Is there really any question that that would not be an enforceable contract?
It doesn't seem any different to me legally.
It might also seem extreme but I also don't see how this doesn't violate the 13th amendment ban on involuntary servitude. You're not working for the employer, but you are in effect providing some labor benefit to them against your will, without compensation.
They don't have that authority, and nobody ever said they did. However, if you sign a contract saying that you will do something in return for money, the general rule is that you are obligated to follow that as long as it is not explicitly banned.
AND as long as it's reasonable and well-understood. If I put something ridiculous in there, like "you can't ever work again after this", that doesn't fly.
>"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where on the chart did Obamacare get passed / implemented?
It was always about access, not cost. That pissed me off back then that single payer was not even on the table in negotiations. It was watered down to get it through, but I am still thankful that something got passed... I would still have a messed up rotator cuff from when I was 15 otherwise.
One of the big consequences of government programs is the unseen costs. How many businesses never got created because of the increased burden that Obamacare placed on everyone, how many ideas never came to fruition, how many new technologies never got created? How many young entrepreneurs never took the risk that could have lead to a great new technology, found a cure for cancer, etc.?
Problems like the need for health insurance, and the high cost of health care in general, have only arisen in the first place because unnecessary government-imposed regulation and government-imposed overhead have wiped out nearly all real competition in the health care sector, and introduced numerous other inefficiencies along the way.
Artificially limiting the ability of new participants to enter the market on the supply side, for example, creates an artificially-oligopolistic environment without the natural competitive pressures that force pricing down.
Even worse, this in turn results in an environment that attracts people and organizations who want to exploit these government-created inefficiencies for personal profit, rather than attracting people and organizations who want to provide higher-quality and lower-cost service than their competitors.
The end result of this government intervention is artificially-high costs for abysmal service.
The situation only gets worse when government tries to intervene with even more "solutions" for the problems that government itself created in the first place.
It is objectively a success lol. The elimination of preexisting conditions and annual/lifetime coverage caps alone was huge. Not to mention the tens of millions of people who received health insurance who wouldn't have had any at all.
It is insane to me you are going to sit there and try to act otherwise.
Are you currently playing the premium for a family of four with a decent deductible where it doesn’t feel like you empty your pockets because you want to make sure your pain isn’t going to kill you?
The point is not about insurance in general, it’s the isolation of the individual market from the pools of large employers.
Yes the healthy will always be subsidizing the rest, but it’s a specific subset of healthy bearing that burden. It’s not the system as a whole.
> The US needs a proper public healthcare system. Good luck finding a way to make that happen though.
Ban corporate self insured policies so that the risk pools are unified to contain everyone.
Eliminate the deduction for offering insurance. Right now the same policy is cheaper if paid by the company as its pretax dollars (vs after tax dollars for an individual policy).
I'm quite naive, isn't the individual mandate being removed the reason why the premiums are going up? i.e. lots of healthy people stopped buying and thusly leaving only the expensive guys?
Yes, that's a significant aspect of the problem now.
They were going up before, during, and post ACA mandate, though. They've been on an upwards march alongside the underlying per-capita healthcare costs for decades. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... ("Total national health expenditures, US $ per capita, 1970-2022" - $2k/year --> $13k/year per person)
There were some pandemic era programs that increased the number of insured people, so it is possible things have changed since 2022. Either way, there is no evidence that the repeal of the individual mandate actually resulted in less people with health insurance.
Insurance is going up across the board, it’s not a healthcare thing. Obamacare can be successful while premiums go up as well, it is not mutually exclusive.
How do you know that Obamacare isn't the thing that's causing insurance to go up across the board?
If everyone is ensured, no matter the pre-existinf conditions, people take more risks, live more dangerously, drive a little faster, eat a bit worse, etc.
Nobody ever talks about the hidden consequences of these oh so wonderful government programs.
Socialized healthcare systems tend to create stigma around peoples unhealthy choices. It no longer is harming just your health and wallet. It is costing society money.
This creates an incentive to pass laws prohibiting products and lifestyles deemed unhealthy.
Privatized healthcare has the opposite incentive, whereby unhealthy choices may be ignored or even encouraged because they're a money-making opportunity.
It turns into this endless cycle of "we need to ban this and ban this and ban this" and never looking at the actual cause of the problem. Just the government creating more work for itself and creating more laws to control people's actions.
I think the stigma point is definitely true, but it's not doing anything to improve things. Obeise people are looked down at by society, but in the US 70% of the population is obese and the number just keeps growing. The natural incentive system is broken by government programs. Why should I bother eating healthy and limit my diet when I can just get health insurance when I get diabetes?
> Nobody ever talks about the hidden consequences of these oh so wonderful government programs.
Are you ok? Did you just wake up from a coma and suffering from some selective amnesia? Have you been living under a rock? Maybe you missed any and all libertarian content? Or the articles about how safety precautions give a sense of safety which result in more risky behaviors? (From bicycle helmets to OSHA stuff.) But maybe you have ran into articles about how car safety standards act as a birth-rate suppressor? No?
Spare us this "why nobody thinks of the consequences".
Premiums are going up because healthcare costs are going up, because there's a growing number of elderly, also because all services related costs are going up. (Because the Baumol effect, and so on.) Not to mention that as economic surplus grows (ie. GDP grows) people are willing and able to spend more on healthcare.
...
Check veterinary service costs and pet insurance premiums. Obama did that too?
Obamacare was talked about for YEARS before it was passed, I don't think it would be far fetched to imagine that the insurance companies started raising prices as soon as the topic started getting traction. It's a multi trillion dollar industry after all and they spend big $$$ on analysts to plan for the future.
Of course the price went down after Obamacare got passed. Can you imagine how much outrage there would have been if it had passed and everyone found out that it was going to cost them double or triple what they used to pay? The government took out some loans (using your future and your children's future taxes as collateral) and made sure they were lower. And then a year or two later when everyone stopped focusing on it and it had gotten normalized they stopped propping it up.
Thanks for the share.
I imagine the costs has a high correlation with the American obeisity epidemic, which has continued to get worse and worse. Obamacare creates a disincentive for people to live and eat a healthy lifestyle. Why bother eating a good diet when you can just get health insurance anyways no matter your pre-existing conditions (be they natural, or much more likely, due to your lifestyle choices).
Eg: 90-95% of diabetes cases in the US are Type 2 (Lifestyle related)
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say people are unhealthy because insurance is cheaper. The average person does not live in a way they want to harm themselves.
I would say it’s because most Americans don’t walk or bike much, food desserts are plenty, transit infrastructure sucks, overworking, and lack of time for vacation/self-care all contribute.
You are forced to have a job if you expect typical medical coverage, and making people do something they don’t want to do won’t incentivize them to take care of their health.
The premiums are going up because someone has to pay for the profits of the for profit insurance companies, of the for profit hospitals etc
They all have to report yoy increase of earnings right?
So there enjoy your capitalistic health insurance. Which by the way dumps you once you are old, then I have to pay for you too despite the fact it is you who wanted a completely deregulated health insurance market.
I don't deny that it sucks that health insurance is so expensive. Of course it sucks. And I have tons of empathy for anyone who is suffering under the expenses. But blaming our current costs on PPACA is just not supported by the evidence I'm seeing. If you have other evidence I should look at, I welcome it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> Counter point, you are conflating each individual business profits and motives for the profitability of the economy and country.
That was mentioned in the second paragraph.
> 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.
It's entirely possible for something to be a positive-sum game, and still have people individually acting in their own self-interest reducing the size of the economy.
Global warming is the same thing. If everyone pollutes, we all die and the world ends. Individually however, if I'm in a world where everyone is burning coal, I don't see any gain to setting up my own wind turbine. Meanwhile everyone who kept burning coal has a slightly better existence until we all die a horrible death. The flipside is also true, if I'm the only one burning coal in a world of wind turbines, I won't have a significant effect on the climate and I get cheaper energy.
The economic solution to this is regulating greenhouse gas emissions so nobody can gain an advantage from burning coal. We all live and businesses make more money (because Earth will still exist to make money on).
It's also possible to do this with non-competes. If a world without them is economically better, we need to put our efforts into banning them globally. It doesn't make sense to only ban them in the US or Canada, because companies can just outsource to where it's acceptable.
> you are conflating each individual business profits and motives for the profitability of the economy and country
I think everyone does really. In fact, I'd say this is the "big idea" behind conservative fiscal policy as a whole. This assumption is the seed of it all.
> 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.
The first statement is largely true, the second statement is not. Somebody has to buy the stuff you make. At the level of an individual company this isn't a thing -- Ford isn't really going to sell a big percentage of its cars to its own employees -- but at the national level it is, because Ford does sell a substantial percentage of its cars to Americans. And it's easier for companies to sell domestically than internationally because domestic customers will favor them and foreign governments use protectionism to varying degrees.
The reason that most "labor rights" make companies uncompetitive is that they're inefficient. Requiring companies to provide specific benefits, rather than money with which employees can buy whatever they want, lowers real compensation because wages adjust to compensate (typically by rising slower than global GDP) and then you're stuck with whatever version of the benefit the employer provides instead of having the option to take the money instead and being able to choose yourself in a competitive market. Which raises the company's costs relative to their perceived attractiveness to workers. Unions for structural reasons typically prioritize things like seniority rules that aren't to the benefit of all their members (namely the newest ones) and in turn make it hard for the company to attract new talents who don't want to wait 30 years to get the salary a foreign competitor can offer today. This is why, when given the choice between higher pay and some other employer-provided benefit, people typically take the money. But the rules get passed because they're sold as a free lunch, and then industries decline there because they're not.
Non-competes are the opposite because they have a similar effect on the industry as a whole as do the inefficient labor rules, i.e. they increase the costs of other companies in the same jurisdiction. John was working for company A and wants to work for company B, but isn't allowed to, so company B have to hire Chris, who isn't as good -- otherwise company B would have hired him to begin with. It hurts the workers and every company except for company A. Then company A (or as a group, large incumbents) go to the government to lobby to let them do this even though it hurts the industry and country as a whole.
In general, anti-trust rules improve the competitiveness of a country's industries, because they improve the competitive fitness of its companies and allow them to survive when new foreign competitors come who would eat the lunch of a wasteful bureaucratic incumbent that isn't accustomed to competitive pressure but can't touch a hundred nimble entrepreneurs who are already doing what it takes to win the customer's business in the face of stiff competition. It turns out this is also the same thing that actually helps workers.
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.
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?
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.
"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."
401 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 323 ms ] thread>"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, [U.S. District Judge]
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-biden-ad...
At the other end of the spectrum were the stories of fast-food workers being held to non-competes, which is just bullshit. If you can learn the job in a few weeks and basically anyone can do it, a non-compete agreement is absurd.
Seems pretty low harm to the employee (it’s paid vacation) and it prevents some pretty ugly kinds of poaching.
Also, I thought this was a British-ism, because over there employers can't fire at will and instead once the employee (or employer) has given notice then the employer must keep paying them until the end of the notice period.
Techincally, garden leaves are longer, mandatory termination period, not banned under the FTC rules.
More generally, in high turnover industries, we're taking out x% of the workforce and paying them to not work, not develop skills, etc.
I’m not even looking for a job, I’m traveling the world and living my best life. I think my comment was more about how non-competes encourage toxic ideas of what loyalty you, as a free agent, are supposed to offer people who are fundamentally just paying you some money while they don’t reciprocate. Not that I’ve had this experience myself, just something I’ve seen others go through. I’ve had nothing but great employers for the most part.
For anyone reading this thread seriously, the job market is fine, feel free to market your skills. As a rule of thumb, if your employer didn't agree to the raise till you presented a counteroffer then you should almost always leave. No matter what your employer said when you started or thereafter, if you're doing a fantastic job the "once per year" bonus/promotion cycle is bubkiss, and they will absolutely compensate you accordingly (on the flip-side, if you haven't been hired yet, don't start underleveled with a promise of a promotion except in dire circumstances; this has been hashed out before, but reply if you want more details).
I just think non-competes are bad for employees though - if someone sells trade secrets, that can be somewhat obvious, and can be pursued legally without non-competes. It just creates an environment that keeps people down at the benefit of the powerful.
I had this happen to me before, I was interviewing for a senior position and everything went well except the CTO decided I wasn’t senior enough for him. He said I could get there in a year or so if I met a few goals, got a few certs, etc. They even went as far as pulling the original job requisition off the website and downgrading it to a non-senior role. This (and a few other things) left a bad taste in my mouth and I politely declined the offer.
Non-compete agreements are extraordinarily anti-worker, and fundamentally anti-free-market. If you leave your job, you should be allowed to find another similar job without your former employer suing you for having a career.
>What comes next?
Actual workers rights in America, hopefully.
The judicial takeover here (and more broadly in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) was performed by unelected bureaucrats with lifetime tenure.
I think more and more people are asking "what has the 'free market' done for me lately", and are open to other ideas. It's a dangerous road. I see it a bit like the "defund the police" movement, people admit that police are good in theory, but the reality is a lot of people believe the police will never actually do anything to help them, thus, they want tear most of the system down and start over. Likewise, everyone agrees a free market with competition is great, but they see that the people upholding our "free market" do a lot non-free-market things which will never benefit regular people.
What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening?
To be clear, there are exactly 0 communist politicians in the US.
You're creating a false dichotomy. It's not the capitalists vs the communists, it's the capitalists vs the slight less capitalist capitalists. The American left isn't communist, and it isn't even close. Even the closest politicians like Bernie Sanders cannot be considered communists.
> What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening
It means we don't live in a free market. Because a free market is bad, and nobody actually wants a free market. They want an almost free market. But of course child labor is bad, and poisoning your workers is bad, and also blowing them up on the railroad is bad, and then poisoning the water is bad too. And then giving your customers HIV (yes, real) is bad as well.
So we decided we need some authority over that.
no different than the unelected judge who issued the ruling
There are options besides "congress must decide every little minutiae" and "The FCC gets to be judge, jury, and executioner for things in their purview". Because that is effectively what we have at the moment. They get to be the judge (deciding what is or isn't allowable), jury (deciding whether you've violated their standard), and executioner (levying fines and other punishments).
The point I was trying to make in my original comment is that there is a conflict of interest / misaligned incentives when you allow the same org do both. We've already seen this play out with various federal agencies in various contexts. For example, those agencies are not incentivized to provide clarity of policy, because they don't need it to justify their enforcement. They can say "you violated this thing because we say so here is a fine". Whereas, if you were to split this power into two separate agencies (let's say the "Federal Communications Commission" and the Federal Communications Enforcement Agency"), the former would need to provide clarity to the latter (and everyone else) before the latter could enforce anything. This type of transparency is: 1. good, 2. something we don't currently have, 3. hard to promote with the current structure.
Edit: In 1941, so it's been a while
The rule “is arbitrary and capricious because it is unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation”
California’s experience can be used to show that the rule is not capricious or unreasonably broad. The act establishing the FTC gave it broad powers and it does have the authority to do what it did. However, it is clear that the Supreme Court is going in a direction to greatly reduce regulatory authority. This ruling will likely stand but it shouldn’t.
Just because Congress is gridlocked on dumb stuff doesnt mean I want agencies doing it. I’m glad those agencies got handicapped ensuring this wont survive on appeal. There are consensus bridging Americans that can be elected to Congress, I don’t think its so absurd to prefer the people take that route instead of trying to shove through conveniences or ideological things by any means.
you know we’re going to have this Supreme Court’s law of the land for the next 50 years, instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you have you considered shaping the country in ways that are practical?
Genuinely curious because thats what I don’t get about the SCOTUS dismay crowd. Isn't there some agency out there you hate? Some regulation thats set you back? Go after that one. Focus on what you can control instead of what you cant.
What’s going to happen is that companies are going to pollute a lot more with impunity. It will be a wild west sort of situation. Our quest to become Ferenginar is well on its way.
A huge component of why I can’t take this “agency delegated” view seriously is because the people preferring it seemingly have no perception of just how much other agencies do, often in a protectionist way to an incumbent thats totally captured that agency. How difficult it was to get standing to even take an agency to court to alter it.
This adds color to my view: instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you, considered shaping the country in ways that are practical for you
See e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/405/156
Regardless, a federal judge need not consider the laws of any state when making a ruling on something like this.
Edit: read via archive link. So yeah:
> ... US District Judge Ada Brown in the Northern District of Texas wrote in the decision on Tuesday, concluding that the regulator “lacks statutory authority” to issue the rule.
And:
> Brown [...] was appointed by then-president Donald Trump
So she's a conservative-leaning judge who's skeptical of the executive branch's regulatory powers. Not news.
From which statute?
I'm not sure what a mostly boring procedural case about standards for summary judgement has to do with the FTC and/or non-compete clauses:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_I....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...
Non-competes are unfair methods of competition, unfair practices affecting commerce, etc.
Section 5c states, in part:
> The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive.
Which is to the opposite side of the spectrum... "even if you have the authority, I can just say "I'm not convinced by the argument that you don't owe me, so I'll still block it"."
Either way, this will likely end up in a different court, and at a higher level, and get decided again.
What would require a special explanation is if the court found the opposite. It’s really appalling how many supposedly educated lawyers would arrive at the wrong answer to something a bright 10th grader could figure out from first principles.
But there’s probably some version of both the minimum wage and the ban on non-compete agreements that’s constitutional under the Commerce Clause. For example, if they were limited to employers that do business in multiple states or if they purported to apply when employees moved to a different state where non-competes were unenforceable.
The bigger problem is the separation of powers aspect. As you seem to recognize, banning non-competes seems like banning an unfair labor practice. That something that should be the subject of Congressional legislation, like the FLSA. Congress almost certainly didn’t intend to delegate to the FTC power over employment contracts, nor could it have given the FTC such an open-ended delegation of legislative authority.
While the US's particular brand of federalism might imply that (or might not), that specific bit need not be a feature of federalism in general.
> separation of powers (executive branch agencies enforce the law, they don’t make it)
Decades of legislative delegation and executive rulemaking would seem to disagree with that, no? I'm not making a value judgment on whether or not this is a good thing, just stating the facts on the ground. (SCOTUS seems to want to dismantle all that, though.)
> It’s really appalling how many supposedly educated lawyers would arrive at the wrong answer to something a bright 10th grader could figure out from first principles.
Or maybe reasonable people well-versed in the law can disagree in their interpretations? Not sure if you're a lawyer yourself (I'm not), but it seems to me that disagreements on legal interpretation aren't particularly uncommon, especially when it comes to disputes around separation of powers and state vs. federal powers.
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
If there was anything in federal legislation that did so, California wouldn't need to.
"If there was anything in federal legislation that [banned marijuana], [Kansas] wouldn't need to."
It's entirely possible for a state to think the Feds have the ability but not the will to do something, and go further while they wait.
Not only do you need to have the jurisdiction and authority, but some random judge can decide you haven't justified it to her liking and block it anyway.
[1] Acknowledging that in this case, the judge also believes it's not within their authority.
Our legal system is far from infallible.
Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment.
On what basis? What provision in the Constitution gives Congress that power?
The supreme court can strike it down, but congress very much can introduce federal bills pertaining to labor.
Are you saying there was a Constitutional amendment empowering Congress to impose a minimum wage? Which one?
Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design.
>Which one?
In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
Then why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question?
> Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution".
No, that's not how it works. The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass any law it likes as long as it follows the process given in the Constitution.
> There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage.
Again, this is backwards. I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. If there isn't, Congress can't do it (unless the Constitution is amended to add that to the list of things Congress can legislate about).
> Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution
There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended, which is what the more difficult process you describe does, but that doesn't "override" it or pass a "stronger law" in spite of it, it amends it.
Because I'm not a lawyer and my main point was "yes, congress can control this stuff"
>The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutio
I'm going to guess "setting minimum wage" isn't specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8. But yes, we have federal laws we revise overtime outlining that.
>I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage.
Probbaly not. But there are mechanisms on how congress can draft laws to enforce a minimum wage. Of course it can be challenged by the SCOTUS, but that's one hell of a hill to die on, even by 2024 standards.
It not adjusting for 15 years is pretty close. Sometimes apathy is the best malice.
>There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended
Did you want to talk about congress passing laws or argue pedantism against the spirit of HN? I'm not a lawyer so my language will not be precise as the centuries and thousands of pages of law talking about this.
My main point was that yes, congress can pass laws that regulate employment. No it doesn't need to be the 28th amendment to take effect. There's no point grilling me on the legalese because that is far outside my purview (and frankly, far outside the scope of a comment on Hacker News. I'm not drafting an entire book try and likely fail to convince someone who is simply prodding instead of giving their own opinions on the matter)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Ok. I am posting in another discussion downthread on whether "commerce" includes employment.
There are 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Those 5 simple axioms have a vast number of implications as evidenced by all the theorems in Euclidean Geometry. In the same way there are logical conclusions to the statements in the Constitution. It is settled law that Congress can regulate employment.
Which ones, and how?
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8:~...
You are welcome to research the topic yourself. There are lots of books on the history of labor rights and labor struggles in the U.S. and the role courts have played in this.
But you might be right that the experts on this topic know less than you and that there is no justifiable implied power of Congress to regulate labor markets.
The same vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers, and those knowledgeable on the subject also believe:
That Congress can delegate legislative power to Executive Branch agencies, in spite of the explicit statement at the beginning of Article I that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" to guide the Executive branch agency (Hampton Co. v. United States);
That Congress can regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use, that never leaves his property, under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn);
That seizing private homes, evicting their owners, and turning the property over to a private developer is a "public use" under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (Kelo v. New London).
Given the above (and those are just a few examples I thought of off the top of my head), I do not accept that what such a "vast majority" believe is a good guide to what the Constitution actually says.
Yes. The FTC’s powers over employment aren’t as clearly defined.
However, the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and transfer that authority to unelected judges. Now, the federal government is all screwed up because none of the laws work as intended, and, so far, the judges wielding this newfound authority have demonstrated some mixture of incompetence and corruption.
I'd like to think they're all taking night school engineering and economics classes to bridge the newly-created skills shortage, but, somehow, I doubt it.
For example: In this case, the courts have come to the nonsensical conclusion that (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition", doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses, and further claims there's no evidence that the proposed regulation would do anything beneficial (despite 80+ years of case studies from California, which happens to have the largest economy in the US.)
No, the idea was to supply more power to unelected officials who are not under the scrutiny of the people. Said unelected officials being bought for by various private interests and ruling in their favor whenever and however possible, regardless of the constitution.
> However, the Supreme Court decided… transfer that authority to unelected judges.
No they didn’t. The authority went back to where it belonged, the legislative branch. The legislative branch has no power to defer legislation to anyone but themselves.
> [The FTC] doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses
They do; in regards to the federal law as it is written, of which there are no laws currently. If they wish to see non-competes die (and I would like for them die) then they have to do it properly: by getting a law made. Not by making a “ruling” which has no legal standing in a post-Chevron world.
Chevron deference has little to do with the legislative branch's power to delegate authority (and nothing at all to do with the legislative branch's power to explicitly delegate authority). It was about the judiciary not overturning a "reasonable interpretation" of ambiguities in the law by an agency, under the assumption that any ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority.
Overturning Chevron merely means that a judge can decide which of multiple reasonable interpretations of the law most represent Congress' intent, rather than deferring to the reasonable interpretation chosen by the agency.
To quote Chevron:
> Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.
> (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition"
The issue is that you are quoting an article and not the actual law. There is no law that says the FTC has blanket authority to regulate "competition".
Here's US code Title 15§45(a); note that the subsequent acts have broadened the FTC purview rather than curtailed it. Later clauses in the subsection limit the FTC's power for foreign commerce, and define "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" but do not define "unfair methods of competition":
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
Its always up for debate whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but without Chevron much of what the agencies have done for decades wouldn't have been allowed.
Edit: to the replies– It's not just housing. Granted, housing is a big chunk of the budget. But it's everything else too. My grocery bill would go up 33%. My state income tax would go from zero to 8%. Gas is, on average, 43% more expensive. And I'm not looking at moving to the Bay Area. I'm looking at moving to Fresno.
The anti-non-compete is a good thing but it’s not anywhere near a big factor for the vast majority of people.
And yes, it's more expensive. But that's the price you pay for reaping the benefits of living in CA.
Edit: State of California Department of Finance also estimates this, but states that 2023 saw "Domestic out-migration slowed in 2022-23, to a net domestic migration loss of 260,400 people." [1]
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-2/
What benefits? They said they are moving to Fresno, so not even decent weather.
If you can do your job remotely, then go for that.
If you can, but don't want to or you opted for hybrid, that's on you.
Otherwise, that shouldn't be a huge factor unless you drive a gas guzzler.
Is your job worth dieing for?
How many really "opt for hybrid" in these times where so many places are forcing RTO?
In some important ways, CA is very expensive. In others, its ludicrously cheap.
1. Whether Congress gave rulemaking power to the FTC under the provision cited supporting the ban on non-competes, and
2. Whether, assuming FTC had been granted the authority by Congress to issue the rules, it acted properly procedurally under the Administrative Procedure Act when it did so.
The court ruled "no" on both.
(I haven't reviewed it in detail to have an opinion on whether it is correct on either point; banning non-competes is good policy, and it would be good if Congress did so directly.)
While the best approach would be a law, relatively few questioned the initial change because 1) It is good for nearly all parties 2) It makes sense that they could 3) Congress obviously was in no rush to make this change soon, if ever
Mathematical proofs are similar, rarely limited to a page. You want to leave little room for doubt.
That's not a policy judgement is a procedural one. Its not "it should not be done", but "the FTC did not do what is substantively required in assessing the facts and applying the law".
I'm not saying it is right, I am saying "arbitrary and capricious" is specifically a procedural finding in federal administrative law.
Procedures are imperfect. But they were introduced to keep away worse imperfections.
FTR, I do think that unpaid non-competes should be considered null and void. I also want this to be codified properly, so that no judge would have grounds to proclaim it frivolous and revoke.
If we had a proper congress, we wouldn't need to rely on these powers, but the supreme court has used their past 4 years to play into that chaos.
How is the power to regulate commerce not an enumerated power of Congress?
Historically (IANAL, etc.), if it didn't cross a state line, then it was not Congress' business.
On the other hand, it was also used to justify why the federal government can prevent states from legalizing marijuana, even if it won't leave the state. It's certainly a ruling with a complicated moral legacy, in that it has some clearly good use cases, a few bad ones, while also brazenly defying the clear meaning of the constitution because doing so was convenient to the state.
Not sure how I feel about it, but I guess it was inevitable anyway.
That’d effectively be a blanket ban anyway, so sure.
and Aliens, they forgot the Aliens.
Also, even if we assume employment is commerce, is it commerce "with foreign nations, or among the several States"?
It's commerce because money exchanges hands. Labor is sold and bought. To me, and I think almost anyone reasonable, it is obviously commerce.
Personally, I think this entire textualist idea of "let's interpret the constitution like its the 1800s" is bogus. The founding fathers were not stupid and short-sighted. They could see the growth of this country and understood, as time goes on, technology changes and culture changes. They wrote the constitution in such a way where it will remain reasonable.
If this is correct, then on the assumption that employment is commerce, Congress cannot possibly have the power to regulate employment in general under the Commerce Clause; it could only regulate employment in cases where the employees are in a different state or country.
> It's commerce because money exchanges hands. Labor is sold and bought.
Some definitions of "commerce" are this general, but others are not. The term is ambiguous.
> I think this entire textualist idea of "let's interpret the constitution like its the 1800s" is bogus.
For things which didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, of course we have to make decisions about what it means that the Founders couldn't possibly make. For example, the Supreme Court had to rule on whether wiretapping is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and they couldn't just ask what the Founders thought since wiretapping didn't exist then.
But employment did exist then, and it wasn't a new technology or cultural development. In such cases I think the intent of the Founders is a pertinent question.
kind of, but not really. Because corporations as we know them did not exist. Times were very, very different. A non-compete COULD make sense in mom & pop contexts in a small 1800s town. In a multi-national corporate context things change.
So no, the type of employment we have now and that most people experience did not exist in the 1800s. To me, while both share the word "employment", they're fundamentally different arrangements.
Yes, they did. Corporations existed in the British Empire in the 1600s. The Founders were quite familiar with the concept.
> the type of employment we have now and that most people experience did not exist in the 1800s.
This is simply false as a historical claim. If anything, workers had less leverage relative to corporate employers in the 1800s than they have now.
We can't interrogate them to find out and the world has changed enormously since then. Why should we be bound to the unverifiable world view of dead men?
You cannot have commerce without labor and the understanding of markets now include employees/labor as a market.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. The way to update it to take changes in the world into account is to amend it, which has already happened twenty-seven times. It is not to just ignore what it says or pretend it says something different if you don't like what it says.
And again how can you have commerce without labor? It's not separable from the rest of the process.
I wasn't doing this, so whatever you are arguing against, it isn't me.
> Every other part of law and jurisprudence deals with the words as they are written
So you think that, for example, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use under the Commerce Clause, was just dealing with the words as they are written?
> how can you have commerce without labor
Of course producing things that will be traded in commerce requires labor, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether employment counts as "commerce", which is what I was asking about.
That's the core of what you're asking, "would they have understood it as part of commerce". That's literally asking us to peer into the past and into the minds of the Founders. It's the core problem of originalism too, we cannot actually know what they meant to mean or would think now.
> Wickard v. Filburn
The logic is sound in the case intrastate actions have interstate consequences. It wasn't the first time these kind of controls had been passed either. But also I don't think we should be wedded to the exact nature the Founders thought the country should take. They gave us a system with the ability to interpret their words and we should use it.
> Of course producing things that will be traded in commerce requires labor, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether employment counts as "commerce", which is what I was asking about.
So it IS an inextricable part of it but somehow doesn't count as part of it legally?
No, it isn't, because Article I, Section 8 does not say that Congress can regulate anything that might have "interstate consequences" for commerce. It only says Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
> It wasn't the first time these kind of controls had been passed either.
I know that. But it was a well know Supreme Court ruling whose disconnection from what the Constitution actually says should be obvious (and that observation is certainly not original with me).
> So it IS an inextricable part of it
Labor is, but that doesn't mean employment is. Labor is not the same thing as employment. A person can produce goods or services that are traded in interstate commerce without employing anyone.
Seriously, I've read that sentence five times now and can't even begin to imagine what you're asking.
Right. Like you actually have a fucking choice when every employer does it and you've come out of college with some $300k in student debt. This judge needs to step down on Earth. Or is he on a Boeing spacecraft?
The proposed noncompete had a 10-year lockup for a freelance contract…obviously nonsense. But it was so helpful to say “these aren’t sticking around so let’s just cut it out.”
These changes make a big difference in encouraging entrepreneurs and helping our economy, as well as just reducing stress for a lot of people.
If you're specialized to that thing, you're out of well paying work for a year.
If there's such a contract, the company should be paying you either equivalent or more to prevent you from working to your best ability
I once has an employer try to get me to agree to a broad noncompete clause for an unskilled laboring job. When I questioned it, he just deleted it. If he hadn't, I'd have turned down the job because it sounded terrible.
Most people wouldn't, then the whole "job search" process begins again for both parties.
Sounds like a huge waste of time for all involved, which could have been avoided by no having unreasonable crap in the contract and no willingness to remove it. ;)
However, I wasn't commenting on my opinion, just the opinions of my local court system.
In many countries if you want to have an employee bound by a non-compete, you have to compensate the employee for that restriction ('garden pay', I believe?), because by restricting who they can work for, you're by that very nature restricting their ability to seek the most competitive pay. Not to mention, if going to work for a competitor would cost you, say, $1M - then surely you can afford to pay them $50k; that's the deal of the century, in fact! Allowing corporations to foist the cost of a non-compete onto the employee is a pretty American concept.
"But but otherwise it would be really expensive!", I hear the Entreprebros screech. "I couldn't possibly be in business! Muh Burn Rate!"
My response is, "...but I thought you said the employee going to work for a competitor is such a huge financial/competitive threat to your business that you should be allowed to restrict how they can make a living to be able to afford food, housing, transportation, to care for their family members, and so on? Which is it?"...and then I point to all their European competitors who seem to be doing just fine with these supposedly infeasible prohibitions on uncompensated non-competes (and requirements around greater benefits, lower work hours, greater workplace rights, etc.)
Technically non-competes should be illegal simply because the contract bears no benefit or compensation to the employee in exchange for the restrictions imposed that wildly benefit their employer. There's zero benefit to working for an employer who requires one versus ones who do not, but the employer gains (by the very nature of the claim of how necessary the noncompete is!) a great deal.
The situation is absurd. Imagine McDonalds requiring their burger-flippers to not work for any competitors because those competitors might benefit from proprietary McDonalds business practices, training, etc. We'd laugh them right out of the building and point out how stupid it is because all other things aside, where the fuck else is a McDonalds burger-flipper supposed to work, except a place that is likely a competitor to McDonalds?
But Google, MS, Amazon, et al do it to tech workers - even ones who work positions that are compensated an order of magnitude less than engineering talent - datacenter technicians, and it's okay?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/opinion/noncompete-agreem...
What courts deem "reasonable" and have codified under their own case law isn't necessarily the same as what you or I think.
If someone asks me to not work for anyone making widgets that measure the sun's IR emissions at 2222nm with a semiconductor, they can make that 10 years sure.
If they want me to not work for anyone that is competitive with General Electric, 10 seconds is too long because I'll be in breach as soon as I sign it...
But even that can easily be unreasonable on its own. For example, think of people working at places like Google, Unilever or some other large entity with its hands it every industry you can imagine because just about everyone is their direct competitor in some industry or another.
Makes the -plantation- er I mean business owners very competitive.
Point being, many/most companies know these clauses are insane, but they see no harm in try to throw in the kitchen sink in their contracts because they know a lot of people won't push back. But for the ones the do push back (in a reasonable fashion), decent companies will say "fine".
I think legally, such bans can easily be justified by the fact that a corporation is not actually a person. Corporations do not have the constitutional right to free speech as people do.
Personally, I tend to lean much further on this issue as I believe that corporate personhood and limited liability are unethical, socially harmful and economically inefficient (in the long run).
There's seems to be a conservative judge in Texas for just about any regressive thing you need.
Shocker.
I hope she leaves them nothing.
Who said that employers had the authority to tell ex employees what to do to begin with ?
I mean, you can't just put whatever you want in a contract. It's never worked that way. Not to mention that employees often can't amend contracts, and they can't say no either. In some industries it's impossible to find a job without a non-compete.
At that point, it's not an agreement, its coercion.
They either are contracts with all the requirements of being a contract (agreement, consideration, etc..), or they are nothing.
Courts can, and regularly do, find certain parts of a contract are unreasonable and won't be enforced. Doesn't matter if both parties understood and agreed. Just because something is a contract doesn't mean it's really for real!
Let's say this was marriage, and you had people requiring spouses sign a "noncompete agreement" with marriage, so that the person, upon divorce, agrees not to date or marry anyone else within a certain distance, which amounts to hundreds of miles.
Is there really any question that that would not be an enforceable contract?
It doesn't seem any different to me legally.
It might also seem extreme but I also don't see how this doesn't violate the 13th amendment ban on involuntary servitude. You're not working for the employer, but you are in effect providing some labor benefit to them against your will, without compensation.
which this was going to do...
Non-competes for anyone below director level is beyond useless and simply an abuse of employees.
AND as long as it's reasonable and well-understood. If I put something ridiculous in there, like "you can't ever work again after this", that doesn't fly.
>"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.
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.
Brown is a member of ... the Federalist Society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
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?
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.
The battle over cost was left for another day.
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.
Where on the chart did Obamacare get passed / implemented?
It was always about access, not cost. That pissed me off back then that single payer was not even on the table in negotiations. It was watered down to get it through, but I am still thankful that something got passed... I would still have a messed up rotator cuff from when I was 15 otherwise.
Artificially limiting the ability of new participants to enter the market on the supply side, for example, creates an artificially-oligopolistic environment without the natural competitive pressures that force pricing down.
Even worse, this in turn results in an environment that attracts people and organizations who want to exploit these government-created inefficiencies for personal profit, rather than attracting people and organizations who want to provide higher-quality and lower-cost service than their competitors.
The end result of this government intervention is artificially-high costs for abysmal service.
The situation only gets worse when government tries to intervene with even more "solutions" for the problems that government itself created in the first place.
It is insane to me you are going to sit there and try to act otherwise.
Linked elsewhere: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Figure-1-12.p...
That's a pretty straight line, with no noticeable change because of ACA.
> But it’s purely at the expense of the healthy subsidizing them with overly expensive policies.
This is how insurance works.
The US needs a proper public healthcare system. Good luck finding a way to make that happen though.
The point is not about insurance in general, it’s the isolation of the individual market from the pools of large employers.
Yes the healthy will always be subsidizing the rest, but it’s a specific subset of healthy bearing that burden. It’s not the system as a whole.
> The US needs a proper public healthcare system. Good luck finding a way to make that happen though.
Ban corporate self insured policies so that the risk pools are unified to contain everyone.
Eliminate the deduction for offering insurance. Right now the same policy is cheaper if paid by the company as its pretax dollars (vs after tax dollars for an individual policy).
There should be only state or nation wide risk pools.
The individual mandate has been gone since 2019.
They were going up before, during, and post ACA mandate, though. They've been on an upwards march alongside the underlying per-capita healthcare costs for decades. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... ("Total national health expenditures, US $ per capita, 1970-2022" - $2k/year --> $13k/year per person)
There were some pandemic era programs that increased the number of insured people, so it is possible things have changed since 2022. Either way, there is no evidence that the repeal of the individual mandate actually resulted in less people with health insurance.
If everyone is ensured, no matter the pre-existinf conditions, people take more risks, live more dangerously, drive a little faster, eat a bit worse, etc. Nobody ever talks about the hidden consequences of these oh so wonderful government programs.
This creates an incentive to pass laws prohibiting products and lifestyles deemed unhealthy.
I think the stigma point is definitely true, but it's not doing anything to improve things. Obeise people are looked down at by society, but in the US 70% of the population is obese and the number just keeps growing. The natural incentive system is broken by government programs. Why should I bother eating healthy and limit my diet when I can just get health insurance when I get diabetes?
Are you ok? Did you just wake up from a coma and suffering from some selective amnesia? Have you been living under a rock? Maybe you missed any and all libertarian content? Or the articles about how safety precautions give a sense of safety which result in more risky behaviors? (From bicycle helmets to OSHA stuff.) But maybe you have ran into articles about how car safety standards act as a birth-rate suppressor? No?
Spare us this "why nobody thinks of the consequences".
Premiums are going up because healthcare costs are going up, because there's a growing number of elderly, also because all services related costs are going up. (Because the Baumol effect, and so on.) Not to mention that as economic surplus grows (ie. GDP grows) people are willing and able to spend more on healthcare.
...
Check veterinary service costs and pet insurance premiums. Obama did that too?
Anecdotally, when the ACA marketplace went live, and I purchased individually, my health insurance costs decreased for a year (no subsidy)
Of course the price went down after Obamacare got passed. Can you imagine how much outrage there would have been if it had passed and everyone found out that it was going to cost them double or triple what they used to pay? The government took out some loans (using your future and your children's future taxes as collateral) and made sure they were lower. And then a year or two later when everyone stopped focusing on it and it had gotten normalized they stopped propping it up.
We've been seeing healthcare costs (and premiums, which largely have to match those) go up in pretty much a straight line since at least 1970.
Eg: 90-95% of diabetes cases in the US are Type 2 (Lifestyle related)
I would say it’s because most Americans don’t walk or bike much, food desserts are plenty, transit infrastructure sucks, overworking, and lack of time for vacation/self-care all contribute.
You are forced to have a job if you expect typical medical coverage, and making people do something they don’t want to do won’t incentivize them to take care of their health.
They all have to report yoy increase of earnings right?
So there enjoy your capitalistic health insurance. Which by the way dumps you once you are old, then I have to pay for you too despite the fact it is you who wanted a completely deregulated health insurance market.
https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Figure-1-12.p...
It should be obvious, right?
I don't deny that it sucks that health insurance is so expensive. Of course it sucks. And I have tons of empathy for anyone who is suffering under the expenses. But blaming our current costs on PPACA is just not supported by the evidence I'm seeing. If you have other evidence I should look at, I welcome it.
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
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.
Since that basically happen approximately never, noncompete agreements without pay should be illegal.
If they did have to pay, it could definitely be advantageous to pay employees not to leave, on a selective basis.
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.
That was mentioned in the second paragraph.
> 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.
Global warming is the same thing. If everyone pollutes, we all die and the world ends. Individually however, if I'm in a world where everyone is burning coal, I don't see any gain to setting up my own wind turbine. Meanwhile everyone who kept burning coal has a slightly better existence until we all die a horrible death. The flipside is also true, if I'm the only one burning coal in a world of wind turbines, I won't have a significant effect on the climate and I get cheaper energy.
The economic solution to this is regulating greenhouse gas emissions so nobody can gain an advantage from burning coal. We all live and businesses make more money (because Earth will still exist to make money on).
It's also possible to do this with non-competes. If a world without them is economically better, we need to put our efforts into banning them globally. It doesn't make sense to only ban them in the US or Canada, because companies can just outsource to where it's acceptable.
I think everyone does really. In fact, I'd say this is the "big idea" behind conservative fiscal policy as a whole. This assumption is the seed of it all.
The first statement is largely true, the second statement is not. Somebody has to buy the stuff you make. At the level of an individual company this isn't a thing -- Ford isn't really going to sell a big percentage of its cars to its own employees -- but at the national level it is, because Ford does sell a substantial percentage of its cars to Americans. And it's easier for companies to sell domestically than internationally because domestic customers will favor them and foreign governments use protectionism to varying degrees.
The reason that most "labor rights" make companies uncompetitive is that they're inefficient. Requiring companies to provide specific benefits, rather than money with which employees can buy whatever they want, lowers real compensation because wages adjust to compensate (typically by rising slower than global GDP) and then you're stuck with whatever version of the benefit the employer provides instead of having the option to take the money instead and being able to choose yourself in a competitive market. Which raises the company's costs relative to their perceived attractiveness to workers. Unions for structural reasons typically prioritize things like seniority rules that aren't to the benefit of all their members (namely the newest ones) and in turn make it hard for the company to attract new talents who don't want to wait 30 years to get the salary a foreign competitor can offer today. This is why, when given the choice between higher pay and some other employer-provided benefit, people typically take the money. But the rules get passed because they're sold as a free lunch, and then industries decline there because they're not.
Non-competes are the opposite because they have a similar effect on the industry as a whole as do the inefficient labor rules, i.e. they increase the costs of other companies in the same jurisdiction. John was working for company A and wants to work for company B, but isn't allowed to, so company B have to hire Chris, who isn't as good -- otherwise company B would have hired him to begin with. It hurts the workers and every company except for company A. Then company A (or as a group, large incumbents) go to the government to lobby to let them do this even though it hurts the industry and country as a whole.
In general, anti-trust rules improve the competitiveness of a country's industries, because they improve the competitive fitness of its companies and allow them to survive when new foreign competitors come who would eat the lunch of a wasteful bureaucratic incumbent that isn't accustomed to competitive pressure but can't touch a hundred nimble entrepreneurs who are already doing what it takes to win the customer's business in the face of stiff competition. It turns out this is also the same thing that actually helps workers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=non-compete+route+128+vs+sil...
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.
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?