> The lawsuit claimed that noncompete clauses "benefit employers and workers alike—the employer protects its workforce investments and sensitive information, and the worker benefits from increased training, access to more information, and an opportunity to bargain for higher pay."
Oh, you’re serious. Sorry, let me laugh even harder.
Companies famously give out attractive raises to retain individuals. They definitely do not give out pittances, and then act shocked when said individuals leave for a competitor.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit if the FTC had the authority or not. Retroactively grant it to them or something. Non-competes are farcical for 99% of employees, and anyone trying to use them to bully people deserves to be mocked.
The administrative state is under attack and this is just one of the phalanx assaulting it in hopes of getting that sweet sweet 6-3 Love.
The argument, of course, is that only Congress can do everything, and no one else should. Of course, if Congress does do something, it may or may not be constitutional, so really, only the judiciary should determine, bearing in mind that the president is unilaterally endowed with the power of official acts to right all things without due process, as long as his acts can be officially blessed, regardless of his intent.
Yeah, if congress manages to function at all, they can makes the law, but the courts can declare those laws unconstitutional for reasons not mentioned in the constitution, and in the end the laws are executed by a President who has no reason to consider the law in his official duties (since he's above the law when it comes to official duties, thus, why have any regard for the law at all).
Don't get this. It was the Obama whitehouse (which included Biden as VP) that was proven to be spying upon Trump. So, how did Trump follow Nixon's footsteps ?
Unelected bureaucrats making up laws on a whim is a massive problem. If you want non-competes to be illegal, lobby your congressman. In the mean time, stop signing them.
This represents the fundamental legal struggle that should have been solved in the Carter years. Out of control government agencies cannot change the country by issuing “rules” decided on by non elected officials.
Congress needs to act for many of these items.
We need to give the current speaker a lot of credit, not for his content, which is controversial at best. But for splitting up bills and trying to get back to “regular order” instead of wasting the year and then jamming through a frantic and gigantic “omnibus” bill at the 11 and a half’th hour.
I don’t care which side of the political spectrum you’re on, the bush patriot act was wrong, bill clinton’s omni bus actions were wrong and trumps presidential actions were overreaching and were wrong.
Governing by instructing your appointed federal agency leaders is the same garbage. This literally is the swamp they talk about.
Congress needs to spend a lot more time exercising regular order. I encourage everyone to tell your congress-person this, the next time they ask for your vote or donation.
“Congress is broken” so fix it, don’t just say congress is broken and then embrace socialism and tyranny!!
The same centralization of power happened in Canada with the PMO’s office under Harper and then massively expanded again under the Trudeau liberals who expanded the size and role of the federal government in breathtaking ways.
Governing by instructing your appointed federal agency leaders is the optimal way to govern. It would be absurd for congress to micromanage everything - the world is too complicated for 535 people to even consider every rule a modern functioning country needs, nonetheless develop the deep understanding of the topics necessary to make a good decision. Good leaders delegate. Congress has been doing so since the 1800s, and the American people, by democratic election, have approved of this course of action the whole time. We want a functional government. Congress empowers these agencies, it defines the scope of the powers it delegates, it approves the appointment of high ranking individuals to these agencies, it can hold both individuals and agencies accountable, and it ultimately control the funding all these agencies need - the will of an agency is the will of congress.
Yep. So you believe that the states should print their own currency, set and collect taxes for the federal government, have their own military forces instead of a centralized military, set their own pollution standards, approve/ban drugs/medical equipment (pharmaceuticals, OTC, etc.), grant patents and trademarks and all manner of other stuff, right?
>If you want that, move to a state that limits your freedom in that way.
I don't need to, as I'm fine with the Constitution (although it appears that you'd prefer something like the Articles of Confederation[2], which was as you may or may not be aware, a failire) as it is (although I wouldn't mind if we passed ERA[0] and clarified that no one is above the law).
Do you believe that Federal law should not be the supreme law of the land? If so, I'm sorry to disappoint you on that. If so, I suggest you bone up on the last time[1] we had a dispute over that and see how that played out -- badly for everyone.
US patent and trademark law as well as the Food and Drug Act apply to the several states as well as the nation as a whole, thanks to the fourteenth amendment. As such, for you to live in a place where your ideas have currency, you'll need to move to not just a different state, but a different nation-state.
I understand food safety, drug and copyright laws are pretty lax in places like Somalia and Eritrea. Also, many back-country areas of Colombia, Brazil and a bunch of other nations have little government oversight. Good luck with your emigration plans.
> I understand food safety, drug and copyright laws are pretty lax in places like Somalia and Eritrea.
Do you think the lack of copyright laws cause more problems in Somalia than the US government funding warlords there, attacking with drones and running black sites[0]?
But you're moving the goalposts. Unless you're claiming that the Food and Drug Act and/or US patent/copyright law created the warfare and human suffering in those places. Are you making such an argument?
All that said, if you don't like the US, its laws and foreign policies, you aren't required to live there or support said laws/policies.
You can also attempt to change the Constitution and Federal laws to be more to your liking. And if you can convince enough Americans that such changes are a good idea, you can have everything you want. Good luck with that.
> if you don't like the US, its laws and foreign policies, you aren't required to live there or support said laws/policies.
Unless the CIA pays off warlords to implement the polices it prefers in the place you decide to live instead, as in your provided example. It wasn't a lucky pick, you could throw a dart at the map and get the same result.
I think that the people benefit from more expert regulation than congress or appointed judges can provide. I don't think a car dealership owner or a politically well-positioned lawyer should be the final say what is and isn't allowed in my drinking water.
Surely this is a balancing act, though. Federal regulatory agencies are such a revolving door that their expertise is a punchline and regulatory capture is now a mainstream concept.
One lens is that noon competes are bad and abusive, so this ruling is bad. And I get that, because I agree fundamentally with the premise. But another lens is that there are systemic issues at play, and allowing a federal agency to unilaterally restrict which types of contracts individuals can enter which express power to do so may have unforeseen consequences.
I guess I’d like to know what the rule is. What kinds of contracts could be restricted? Which ones would not be? Maybe Congress could pass a law stating no contract may restrict employment opportunities after the relationship is terminated, or something to that effect.
> Don’t just say congress is broken and then embrace socialism and tyranny!!
Ah yes, the FTC protecting workers is one more step on the way to tyranny and socialism! Funny, it’s always socialism when you guys don’t like something.
We are only closer to tyranny _because_ of Trump and the proto-fascists in the GOP.
And Congress is broken _because_ of the same fundamentalists who refuse to actually govern this country.
People like you are the reason this country is where it’s at.
yeah, the country went to hell in a handbasket just as the orange man came into play, was a shining example of greatness just a few moments before him.
The reason the country is where its at is because of hyperpartisanship like what you exhibit here. Other side bad, my side good.
Hate to break it to you, but you are a pawn, NONE of these parties cares even the slightest bit about you, and if it would enrich them even 1 dollar they would kill you and your entire family in an instant. AND throw poison on your grave so now flowers could ever grow there.
> The lawsuit claimed that noncompete clauses "benefit employers and workers alike—the employer protects its workforce investments and sensitive information, and the worker benefits from increased training, access to more information, and an opportunity to bargain for higher pay."
Oh, you’re serious. Sorry, let me laugh even harder.
Companies famously give out attractive raises to retain individuals. They definitely do not give out pittances, and then act shocked when said individuals leave for a competitor.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit if the FTC had the authority or not. Retroactively grant it to them or something. Non-competes are farcical for 99% of employees, and anyone trying to use them to bully people deserves to be mocked.
The administrative state is under attack and this is just one of the phalanx assaulting it in hopes of getting that sweet sweet 6-3 Love.
The argument, of course, is that only Congress can do everything, and no one else should. Of course, if Congress does do something, it may or may not be constitutional, so really, only the judiciary should determine, bearing in mind that the president is unilaterally endowed with the power of official acts to right all things without due process, as long as his acts can be officially blessed, regardless of his intent.
Yeah, if congress manages to function at all, they can makes the law, but the courts can declare those laws unconstitutional for reasons not mentioned in the constitution, and in the end the laws are executed by a President who has no reason to consider the law in his official duties (since he's above the law when it comes to official duties, thus, why have any regard for the law at all).
Precisely, just as, God intended.
he is above the law in official duties, UNTIL impeached by congress, at which point he very much is not immune
I must have missed that part of the constitution. What part says that?
Also, I think you mean not just impeached but also convicted.
Assuming what you say it true, it's good to know that a President is subject to the law whenever an event that has never happened occurs.
>Assuming what you say it true, it's good to know that a President is subject to the law whenever an event that has never happened occurs.
Mr. Trump followed in Mr. Nixon's[1] footsteps. The difference is that this time the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Trump.
As Mr. Trump explained in this interview[0].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OID_n4aX1o
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk
Edit: Added link to Mr. Nixon's statements.
> Mr. Trump followed in Mr. Nixon's[1] footsteps.
Don't get this. It was the Obama whitehouse (which included Biden as VP) that was proven to be spying upon Trump. So, how did Trump follow Nixon's footsteps ?
Unelected bureaucrats making up laws on a whim is a massive problem. If you want non-competes to be illegal, lobby your congressman. In the mean time, stop signing them.
Customer noncompete is also bad and most of the biggest AI companies are doing it right now. I worry about the impact on medical research.
This represents the fundamental legal struggle that should have been solved in the Carter years. Out of control government agencies cannot change the country by issuing “rules” decided on by non elected officials.
Congress needs to act for many of these items.
We need to give the current speaker a lot of credit, not for his content, which is controversial at best. But for splitting up bills and trying to get back to “regular order” instead of wasting the year and then jamming through a frantic and gigantic “omnibus” bill at the 11 and a half’th hour.
I don’t care which side of the political spectrum you’re on, the bush patriot act was wrong, bill clinton’s omni bus actions were wrong and trumps presidential actions were overreaching and were wrong.
Governing by instructing your appointed federal agency leaders is the same garbage. This literally is the swamp they talk about. Congress needs to spend a lot more time exercising regular order. I encourage everyone to tell your congress-person this, the next time they ask for your vote or donation.
“Congress is broken” so fix it, don’t just say congress is broken and then embrace socialism and tyranny!!
The same centralization of power happened in Canada with the PMO’s office under Harper and then massively expanded again under the Trudeau liberals who expanded the size and role of the federal government in breathtaking ways.
Governing by instructing your appointed federal agency leaders is the optimal way to govern. It would be absurd for congress to micromanage everything - the world is too complicated for 535 people to even consider every rule a modern functioning country needs, nonetheless develop the deep understanding of the topics necessary to make a good decision. Good leaders delegate. Congress has been doing so since the 1800s, and the American people, by democratic election, have approved of this course of action the whole time. We want a functional government. Congress empowers these agencies, it defines the scope of the powers it delegates, it approves the appointment of high ranking individuals to these agencies, it can hold both individuals and agencies accountable, and it ultimately control the funding all these agencies need - the will of an agency is the will of congress.
> It would be absurd for congress to micromanage everything
Then don't and let the states do it.
>Then don't and let the states do it.
Yep. So you believe that the states should print their own currency, set and collect taxes for the federal government, have their own military forces instead of a centralized military, set their own pollution standards, approve/ban drugs/medical equipment (pharmaceuticals, OTC, etc.), grant patents and trademarks and all manner of other stuff, right?
How, exactly, would that work?
Edit: Clarified my prose.
Some of those are duties of the federal government as outlined in the constitution. They would do those and nothing else as intended originally.
I don't think you should be able to own ideas.
I don't think you should be able to ban drugs/medical equipment.
If you want that, move to a state that limits your freedom in that way.
>If you want that, move to a state that limits your freedom in that way.
I don't need to, as I'm fine with the Constitution (although it appears that you'd prefer something like the Articles of Confederation[2], which was as you may or may not be aware, a failire) as it is (although I wouldn't mind if we passed ERA[0] and clarified that no one is above the law).
Do you believe that Federal law should not be the supreme law of the land? If so, I'm sorry to disappoint you on that. If so, I suggest you bone up on the last time[1] we had a dispute over that and see how that played out -- badly for everyone.
US patent and trademark law as well as the Food and Drug Act apply to the several states as well as the nation as a whole, thanks to the fourteenth amendment. As such, for you to live in a place where your ideas have currency, you'll need to move to not just a different state, but a different nation-state.
I understand food safety, drug and copyright laws are pretty lax in places like Somalia and Eritrea. Also, many back-country areas of Colombia, Brazil and a bunch of other nations have little government oversight. Good luck with your emigration plans.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
> I understand food safety, drug and copyright laws are pretty lax in places like Somalia and Eritrea.
Do you think the lack of copyright laws cause more problems in Somalia than the US government funding warlords there, attacking with drones and running black sites[0]?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Somalia
Nope.
But you're moving the goalposts. Unless you're claiming that the Food and Drug Act and/or US patent/copyright law created the warfare and human suffering in those places. Are you making such an argument?
All that said, if you don't like the US, its laws and foreign policies, you aren't required to live there or support said laws/policies.
You can also attempt to change the Constitution and Federal laws to be more to your liking. And if you can convince enough Americans that such changes are a good idea, you can have everything you want. Good luck with that.
> if you don't like the US, its laws and foreign policies, you aren't required to live there or support said laws/policies.
Unless the CIA pays off warlords to implement the polices it prefers in the place you decide to live instead, as in your provided example. It wasn't a lucky pick, you could throw a dart at the map and get the same result.
Further reading on why that is a silly concept in the modern world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
And that has what to do with the FTC and Non-compete agreements?
You've moved the goalposts so far at this point, I'm not really sure what you're blathering on about. But please, don't stop on my account.
You're so obviously posting in bad faith, it would be epic if you weren't so bad at it.
Have a great day. This is the last feeding you'll get from me. Now back under your bridge!
State legislatures delegate rulemaking to state agencies as well. It's how every functional institution works.
I think that the people benefit from more expert regulation than congress or appointed judges can provide. I don't think a car dealership owner or a politically well-positioned lawyer should be the final say what is and isn't allowed in my drinking water.
Surely this is a balancing act, though. Federal regulatory agencies are such a revolving door that their expertise is a punchline and regulatory capture is now a mainstream concept.
One lens is that noon competes are bad and abusive, so this ruling is bad. And I get that, because I agree fundamentally with the premise. But another lens is that there are systemic issues at play, and allowing a federal agency to unilaterally restrict which types of contracts individuals can enter which express power to do so may have unforeseen consequences.
I guess I’d like to know what the rule is. What kinds of contracts could be restricted? Which ones would not be? Maybe Congress could pass a law stating no contract may restrict employment opportunities after the relationship is terminated, or something to that effect.
Congress has be made to be beholded to the very people who want the administrative state to be impotent.
Congrats on being that guy who believes it's just a series of tubes.
> don’t just say congress is broken and then embrace socialism and tyranny!!
This escalated quickly. How does socialism arise from what you're describing?
It doesn't. It just a case of perceived socialism is when capitalist governments 'do bad things' (aka things I don't like).
> Don’t just say congress is broken and then embrace socialism and tyranny!!
Ah yes, the FTC protecting workers is one more step on the way to tyranny and socialism! Funny, it’s always socialism when you guys don’t like something.
We are only closer to tyranny _because_ of Trump and the proto-fascists in the GOP.
And Congress is broken _because_ of the same fundamentalists who refuse to actually govern this country.
People like you are the reason this country is where it’s at.
yeah, the country went to hell in a handbasket just as the orange man came into play, was a shining example of greatness just a few moments before him.
The reason the country is where its at is because of hyperpartisanship like what you exhibit here. Other side bad, my side good.
Hate to break it to you, but you are a pawn, NONE of these parties cares even the slightest bit about you, and if it would enrich them even 1 dollar they would kill you and your entire family in an instant. AND throw poison on your grave so now flowers could ever grow there.
Oh, a Texas judge. I'm shocked. Fucking shithole