Gotta love a shitty repub SCOTUS. Its awesome.
Fuck Texas, residents of the state can keep their fucking non-competes if they love them so fucking much… elsewhere let’s move ahead with this fucking awesome policy.
If your company has PTO hours and you leave your job in Texas they don’t require you get paid out those hours so they are just lost. My coworker learned that. Absolutely need better worker protections across the board and Non-competes getting tossed is huge.
Honestly, if you’re choosing to live in Texas at this point you should expect to have very few personal rights.
… do you just expect everybody who lives there to pack up and leave? Even though their entire lives might be there and moving costs a ton?
They said “choosing,” which is the key word in their statement. Some people don’t have a choice like you said, but that’s really just a matter of the push/pull forces of migration at this point.
Yeah that’s fair. I don’t quite know why I read that the way I did, but I read the “choosing” as “lives there and isn’t actively attempting to move”.
Yea, I honestly don’t know what low income folks and kids can do - it’s such a regressive place but if you’re stuck there you just have to bear it and hope for change.
The original comment I was responding to was talking about PTO reclamation which is, sadly, a pretty white collar concern.
Fuck Texas. Anytime I hear people complain about “Democrat policies” around me, I just wish they’d move to their utopia in Florida, Texas, or any of the other “who’ll come up with the stupidest bullshit freedom-encroaching laws next” red state.
Workers leaving states like CA for Texas are like anti-vaxxers who think vaccines are stupid because they don’t know anyone with polio.
If our country survives for another couple decades, they’ll be so proud of themselves for “inventing” all the same worker protections they left behind. But not before experiencing their economic polio first hand.
It’s just another bullet point in a half century long problem.
The FTC is an independent Federal anti-trust enforcement agency. After SCOTUS 1977 Continental TV v. GTE made the nuance of certain contact terms subjectively legal, allowing mergers likely in the interests of global competition, the FTC has been effectively neutered. The only significant action has been the breakup of the Bells in 1982 and some Microsoft anti-Netscape gibberish around 1999.
The FTC has effectively lost every significant case it’s brought since about 1970. Consumers haven’t had any significant protections since 1982, more than forty years ago.
I’d like my digital persona and its data to be an EU member, please
Weird cause I’ve got the FTC act right here. Says this:
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
And then later on it has this whole entire section where it lays out the process for how the FTC is supposed to make rules in regards to unfair or deceptive practices
Except as provided in subsection (h) of this section, the Commission may prescribe– (A) interpretive rules and general statements of policy with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title), and (B) rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title)
And more sections about how they can enforce those rules on individual rule breakers.
Sure sounds like congress was trying to give the FTC the authority to make rules about unfair competition. Both general rules and with “specificity” apparently. Specifically here, non compete agreements have been declared an unfair practice and they followed all rule making procedures as laid out in the law.
You missed the news where the Supremos say they’re the only regulators that matter now. In the decision before that they legalized bribery.
Not bribery, just a surprise gift after doing a favor without being promised anything in return! Totally different thing, you guys!! /s
You know they’ll start pulling shit like ‘You do this new thing for me and I’ll tip you for that other thing you did for me in the past <wink>’
A gratuity of 10k. I guess for the corrupt members of the court, $10k and $10 are about the same.
Yes, theoretically this should be fine even in a post-Chevron environment. Let’s see how it goes, though…
This is why we can’t have nice things.
It indeed is! They’ve been packing the courts since Regan. The US court system is basically the real government now.
There’s so much bullshit going on in courts lately. It’s hard to keep up enough to know if something is good or bad. It’s starting to get fucking exhausting.
“court ruling blocks decision to block court decision to block court decision to ban plumbuses from not not being not sold in stores” - that’s every other court releated headline.
To sum up: we recently got the awesome FTC instruction that noncompete agreements are disallowed in almost all cases.
Noncompete agreements keep workers from being able to work in their trained field just because they previously worked somewhere else in that field and had to sign a paper to do so. They’re a tool used to harm worker power; traditionally for knowledge workers, but now it’s being used all over the place.
The judge
SCsaid, you can’t ban those. Noncompetes are cool and good. Fuck workers.EDIT: This was a 5th circuit judge, so not the USSC. A little below that level.
This is bad.
A tax services firm called Ryan, LLC sued the FTC in an attempt to block the rule. The lawsuit was joined by the US Chamber of Commerce, two Texas business groups, and a lobbyist association that represents chief executive officers at US businesses.
If you squint a little, you could see a fairly well delineated class in there.
Theyre going as fast as they can in a mad blitz trying to cause as much harm as possible before they get stopped
Except no one’s stopping em. Its like a sloth trying to stop a mosquito.
Almost like they don’t really want them stopped… just to look like they’re trying
Everyone should expect to see A LOT more of this ‘lacks authority’ bullshit to regulatory bodies in the wake of the sup court’s Chevron decision and everything else the federalist society’s thinktanks come up with
Sovcit-tier reasoning from some of the highest points in our rotten justice system once again.
Rule of law is quickly being destroyed in the US. It’s a full-on coup of lawmaking ability
Congress blocks laws. Agencies can’t make laws. Judges can make laws. President is above the law.
Yet another reason why I’m willing to pay out the ass to live in California. If I become an expert in a technology field, and leave a toxic company for a different company in the same field, my previous employer can’t sue me.
Lina Khan looking fierce in that thumbnail. That’s what I’m voting for in November.
One of the highlights of the Biden admin, definitely.
That thumbnail of Lina Khan perfectly encapsulates how I’m feeling about the government lately.
It’s like peaceful reform is impossible.
Unfortunately, that’s the way things are looking right now. The Heritage Foundation is also threatening violence against the left if they don’t fall in line.
As if they won’t commit violence anyway. Domestic terrorists the lot. All of MAGA should be on no fly lists and banned from owning guns.
The case is in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, so appeals would be heard in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—which is generally regarded as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country.
In April, the FTC issued a rule that would render the vast majority of current noncompete clauses unenforceable and ban future ones. The agency said that noncompete clauses are “an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act,”
…
“The issue presented is whether the FTC’s ability to promulgate rules concerning unfair methods of competition include the authority to create substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition,” Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote.
Brown acknowledged that “the FTC has some authority to promulgate rules to preclude unfair methods of competition.” But “the text, structure, and history of the FTC Act reveal that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition under Section 6(g),” she wrote.
“Traditionally the FTC has been a wet noodle. Seeking to actually fix anything would be overstepping their bounds.”
Am I reading that right?
