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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would posit it devolves into either slavery or serfdom based on historical records. We all started “in free market” lol
Most people can’t the differentiate between capitalism and free market on conceptual level
The thing is that the government absolutely knows better than the markets.
Left unchecked, markets would bring back slavery.
Ha ha, I came to see who you were replying to but I can’t because I already blocked them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Odds are good I didn’t find their style or content particularly edificatious)
I think thats from the article?
Okay, so I can see your comment, so I’m not on the block list… Woot!
Lmao the irony “I didn’t find their style or content particularly edificatious.” My partener in christ you are the unedificatious one!
Actually I’m antidisunedificatory.
Is there any legal argument besides this?
This sounds like a personal opinion lol
It’s the Chamber of Commerce statement, so it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the law. It is just personal opinion.
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.
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”
Found another article with more information:
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.