Noncompetes are Now Illegal

[mcski]

Im sceptical the current scotus court will validate the law

[J. Barron DeJong]

Struck down: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/g-s1-...oncompetes-ban

The argument is basically that the FTC isn’t allowed to regulate:



Everyone somehow just missed that fact for the past 60 years or so.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Leave it to a FedSoc judge to throw a wrench.

FIFY.

[Rideski]

Ok Lumberg.

[mcski]

The argument is basically that the FTC isn’t allowed to regulate:



Everyone somehow just missed that fact for the past 60 years or so.

Chevron decision cucks

[Danno]

Yep. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Kevo]

Indentured servitude is going to make a comeback I guess.

If the FTC isn't allowed to fix this, congress should. Unfortunately they are useless.

[old goat]

Congress did when it gave the FTC the authority to regulate. What SCOTUS and the right wing bench wants is for Congress to have to pass regulations itself. No longer will the EPA decide how much lead is in your water, Congress would have to do it--the way Hamilton, Madison et al intended..

[mcski]

Actually it’s worse than that. Any dispute over enforcement will go to courts w zero expertise in resolving technical arguments vs the agencies w actual experts

[evdog]

Actually it’s worse than that. Any dispute over enforcement will go to courts w zero expertise in resolving technical arguments vs the agencies w actual experts

One silver lining to this I heard mentioned: if this goes ahead, republicans will no longer be able to pass vague laws and then have their own staff at agencies interpret them according to how conservatives want. They will have to very clearly spell out the intent and specifics in any legislation. They will be exposed for what they are. It's a two edged sword. And could make it harder for them to enact their own policies. That might be a good thing if Dumpf gets re-elected and fires all the career agency experts in favor of his own boot-licking lackeys. They might be tying their own hands.

[Harry]

Indentured servitude is going to make a comeback I guess.

Yup, legalized slavery will be here within 10 years. It won’t be called slavery, it will have a different name, but there will be a class of workers who can’t quit their jobs.



Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[warthog]

One silver lining to this I heard mentioned: if this goes ahead, republicans will no longer be able to pass vague laws and then have their own staff at agencies interpret them according to how conservatives want. They will have to very clearly spell out the intent and specifics in any legislation. They will be exposed for what they are. It's a two edged sword. And could make it harder for them to enact their own policies. That might be a good thing if Dumpf gets re-elected and fires all the career agency experts in favor of his own boot-licking lackeys. They might be tying their own hands.

Be honest with yourself, both sides do this. That shit is truly non partisan

[neufox47]

Yup, legalized slavery will be here within 10 years. It won’t be called slavery, it will have a different name, but there will be a class of workers who can’t quit their jobs.



Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

It won’t be that you can’t quit, just that you can’t go work for another company doing what you do. One of the big cases on this is for arborists. The democrats need to tell that story as much as possible. A blue collar tree climber can’t go work for a competitor. They don’t sell or control the work.

https://pacificlegal.org/press-relea...te-agreements/

[Mazderati]

^^^ Was not aware of the arborist angle. Shout it from the rooftops. Like right-to-repair issues, noncompetes should be an easy win.

[Kevo]

Most people who are affected by noncompetes believe that they won't be enforced or that it'll never happen to them.

I have seen careers sidelined and stunted by noncompetes for low and mid level workers. I have seen noncompetes selectively enforced against people who left for greener pastures- you mean to tell me that your $80k per year account manager is going to cause your business harm by getting a $100k job at a different company in the industry? Get fucked. You don't own that person.

I have refused to sign noncompetes since 2013, back when I first had an emergency fund that would float me for a year. Many people don't have the leverage to say no and end up with stunted wages and quantifiably reduced upward mobility.

This is a situation where the government should absolutely step in and ensure that workers have an actual free labor market.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Well said Kevo. It's all part of the continued erosion of the living wage job. Productivity and profits have never been higher. So ask yourself where did that standard of living go over the last forty-ish years.

[old goat]

One silver lining to this I heard mentioned: if this goes ahead, republicans will no longer be able to pass vague laws and then have their own staff at agencies interpret them according to how conservatives want. They will have to very clearly spell out the intent and specifics in any legislation. They will be exposed for what they are. It's a two edged sword. And could make it harder for them to enact their own policies. That might be a good thing if Dumpf gets re-elected and fires all the career agency experts in favor of his own boot-licking lackeys. They might be tying their own hands.

Be honest with yourself, both sides do this. That shit is truly non partisan

Congress will never be able to pass specific regulations. And the difference between the parties is that the Republicans are fine with no regulations, the Democrats are the party that wants regulation. So no action by Congress is fine with the former.

[mcski]

Big business calls them regulations. To the average person , they are protections.

Agencies w civil servants doing their jobs in their field of expertise is the only way of keeping them.

[neufox47]

^^Capital has been kicking the shit out of labor. Capital has almost every advantage in this fight over the past 40 + years. Today union workers are more likely to vote for a president who is completely opposed to unions than someone who has been a staunch supporter.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums