this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
341 points (98.6% liked)

News

23303 readers
5672 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump judge?

Trump judge.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sunzu@kbin.run 110 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Have the courts ever addressed the conflict between "employment at will" and this?

On side, we get rid of you when and how we please...

But you can't go get another job because "slave master has property interest in you"

It seems like "master" mentality is still very strong within elites.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 53 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Judges aren't interested in being consistent, it's just about oppressing you and upholding capital.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes it does appear to be that way. Even when Congress does a good thing, it gets stalled or shut down.

Can't rely on elected officials to deliver proper laws, executive appears to be useless and judges will stop any progress.

How many generations of this now 2 or 3?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How many generations of this now 2 or 3?

It's been continuous since colonial times. It's an unbroken thread from "indentured servitude" and "slavery," to "sharecropping" and "vagrancy"/"convict leasing," to "non-compete agreements" and prison labor being managed by prisons directly (instead of having inmates leased out).

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

most people aint ready for this one lol

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

To be fair, I wasn't entirely happy with my comment either. There was something missing, and I just figured out what it was.

Along with "sharecropping" I should've mentioned "sweatshops," and along with "non-compete agreements" I should've mentioned anti-union laws like "right-to-work" and "at-will employment."

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 93 points 4 months ago (8 children)

sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets

Wtf. You could say this about literally any law. Outlawing murder-for-hire sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. Making people pay income tax sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. Speed limits set a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. What a terrible argument.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No kidding. Even regular staunch capitalists recognize that regulation is sometimes necessary. Regulation against anti-competitive practices exists because a market left to its own devices will devolve into monopolies that will be much less efficient than a competitive market. Non-competes are just employers establishing monopolies over their workforce.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 6 points 4 months ago

a market left to its own devices will devolve into monopolies

I would posit it devolves into either slavery or serfdom based on historical records. We all started "in free market" lol

Even regular staunch capitalists recognize that regulation is sometimes necessary.

Most people can't the differentiate between capitalism and free market on conceptual level

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago

The thing is that the government absolutely knows better than the markets.

Left unchecked, markets would bring back slavery.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is there any legal argument besides this?

This sounds like a personal opinion lol

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 months ago

It's the Chamber of Commerce statement, so it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the law. It is just personal opinion.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yes.

Under employment laws you can quit basically at any time with given notice and you can apply to any job no matter who you are or what you did before. The non compete clauses are always part of the employment contract. Usually, what's in the contract is binding, but: there's things that might be voided upon examination. Here things like consideration and unconscionability come into play. I assume this clause would be ruled unconscionable against employment laws, therefore the clause is basically removed from contracts after the fact and precedent allows for it to be voided upon future use.

employment laws > contract law. That's all it boils down to I assume, just what weighs more.

A lot of European countries allow only very limited non compete clauses or none at all. Moving in that direction is not really without precedent, so there's your legal argument.

Also obligatory IANAL, if you think I'm wrong and you got sources, please correct me. I wanna learn what I don't know.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think we are talking about two different things. I was mainly asking for legal reason for the judge's injunction, looks like it is not a ruling but a stall tho.

She will rule later. That's what I was getting, what is the reason to disagree for the judge here.

I think you described how employment law works correctly though. non compete clause is hard to enforce in many places and for most jobs maybe save of some super red states.

But I also don't think that is their primary goal either, I would posit the goal is to "send a message" or "chill employees will to shop for work"

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Found another article with more information:

The court found that the FTC’s effort to implement the rule likely exceeds its congressional authorization under the FTC Act and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious approach to the issue of regulating non-competes.

Rather than issue a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the rule across the country, the court’s ruling is limited to the parties in the case.

The court intends to issue a final ruling on the merits by August 30, 2024, before the FTC rule is set to go into effect. The court’s subsequent ruling may prevent the ultimate implementation of the rule on a national level.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/natlawreview.com/article/federal-district-court-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-ftc-rule-banning-non%3famp

So basically If I understand this correctly, the court is slapping the FTC for jurisdiction and saying "until further ruling Ryan LLC can legally use their non compete clauses".

So the judge has a vague notion to rule against the FTC but it's not clear if they do or if it's gonna have national consequences, as this could just as well be a case specific ruling.

So yeah, the indicators lean a little bit towards non competes staying legal, but we're still way out from knowing what will happen.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 52 points 4 months ago (2 children)

My first question coming into this thread was, "is this a Trump judge?" I'm glad OP answered that in the post!

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago

It’s always a Trump judge!™

It’s the legal corollary to “Did Trump actually say this fucked up thing?” Ha ha! You know he did, Timmy.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Also in the northern district of Texas. I smell some judicial venue shopping. Northern district of Texas is basically now the Mordor of the legal world.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Corporations are presidents, my friend!"

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Sad but true.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In all of human history, conservatives have oppressed the normal people. That's just who conservatives are at their core. They are natural, instinctive oppressors.

Never in history have conservatives been defeated by pacifism. Never. Swift, direct, forceful action is always required to defeat them.

The slower we are to act, the less likely we are to survive this. Every normal person you know is in mortal danger and no one is coming to save us. We need action.

[–] duderium2@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It would be nice if liberals like biden and his supporters stopped either enabling or aping conservatives.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] duderium2@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Yes, Biden is a liberal, which is one of many reasons why he supports genocide. It’s nothing new for liberals. Just look at the history of the USA for instance. This hellhole couldn’t exist without genocide.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden should overrule that as an official act.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Yeah he could still go ahead with the student loan relief too for that matter. All the stuff they say no to he has the power to say yes again now

[–] duderium2@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

What is the point of “democracy” in the USA if unelected judges who were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the presidency due to the slaveowner-designed electoral college can just nullify anything that is even slightly good? It’s almost as though amerikkka has always been a fascist dictatorship toward anyone who is not a rich white male and that this country desperately needs a communist revolution right now.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Not everyone was a fan of the non-compete ban, this year or last. Republicans and other proponents of the clauses said they help prevent trained employees and their skills from being poached by competitors.

Wah! Pay people better and treat them like real people and they won’t need to be poached.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

What's hilarious is that they don't really do all that much training anymore.

They just hire people who already have the skills. or tell people to "figure it out". They might pay you to go to a conference or something to improve skills... if those skills are hard to come by. It's a cost benefit analysis, and new-hires are generally cheaper.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 4 months ago

they help prevent trained employees and their skills from being ~~poached~~ given optimal pay according to market forces by competitors.

This is fundamentally an anti-free-market opinion. But Republicans don't care about markets, they care about corporations.

[–] kamenoko@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

That's the Free Market. Your skills to the highest bidder. Where are their strong libertarian values lol?

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Looks like a limited injunction so far, but she intends to rule before the ban goes into effect and we can probably guess whose side this Federalist Society judge will come down on.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 5 points 4 months ago

Could be stalling tactic to appease her handlers... what legal argument is there for blocking this?

Did DoL issue this ruling? I guess could be first post chevron consequence?

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 months ago

So how big of a tip do we think this company gave when the judge swiveled her iPad around?

[–] maxinstuff@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Aren’t non-competes basically unenforceable anyway? At least for individual contributors. You can’t contractually ban an individual from making money from their literal profession.

Senior execs and company founders with privileged information are a different story.

Not American, but in my country non-compete clauses are routinely put into employment contracts even though they have been demonstrated to be illegal in most cases.

It’s simply used to intimidate the ignorant.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 4 months ago

Intimidating the ignorant is bad though.

When I was at the worker's council in a company a couple decades ago, we insisted that the company update the contracts to remove illegal clauses. The companies' position was that since they were illegal and therefore unenforceable that they did not matter. We argued that employees are less likely to know which particular laws impact which clause of their contracts than, say, full-time HR staff. And that not knowing they might assume that they are legal.

I'm happy to have moved to a country with worker councils in the law to protect workers in this way.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Depends on how bad you want to go to court, and how big of an asshole your former company is.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In my field of work this is relatively important. For one thing there are company secrets that give the company an edge temporarily. Those things you generally don't patent because you don't want to disclose them yet.

So if you could just find another job and tell others these things, then yeah that could hurt a company. Usually we keep those things a just need to know level. So the guy who orders parts or the lady who does budgets don't get to know details.

But then on the overall it hurts us workers because we would like to be paid more or get a promotion or a new higher income somewhere else. But we are trapped. But I think this sort of thing is very niche. I mean, I literally spent 3 years of my life trying to find another team member with the right engineering background.

And it also hurts the country overall. People who know the technology are few and far apart so when we loose one to old age or disease so goes all that knowledge.

I for one try to grow engineers. I find those who are open minded and hungry for new ideas and then I bring them to the water. If the donkey drinks, then my job is done. It's really hard to see one of my guys just leave. It's years of my life and effort gone. But for them, it's spin-off open season. Or maybe they teach others the principles we developed together. And this in turn makes better and more engineers. Putting a limit on what we can say or do just sucks balls.

[–] 555_2@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like your field of work should pay their employees a lot and treat them well.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

And they do. I got no complaints from that end of the bargain myself. But It depends on when you start. Like if you start at a point when the company is not doing well, you are probably not going to get a good bump. But then you don't know what others make so it's mostly going to be compared with rumors from the net as to how much you might ask for. Anyway if you join in a bad year you get stuck with that pay while new people probably get a lot higher when profitability comes back. The owners have no incentive to pay you more just because they are making more.

There's a new law here in Washington State where the new positions must state the pay range. But then you can have a rate range that is far too large to be of any comparison or gage use.

The reason I would want freedom from these laws is so that I can get a good job doing what I like. Chasing a project from company to company just to learn more about it for example is not uncommon.

load more comments
view more: next ›