9 ms·

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is likely to file suit: https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments-on-ftc-proposed-rule-to-ban-noncompetes https:

by timf 2y ago

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is likely to file suit: https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments-on-ftc-proposed-rule-to-ban-noncompetes https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
macintux 2y ago
I suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court, unfortunately.
- arcticbull 2y ago
  It'll be interesting to see what happens. It does sound like this clearly falls under interstate commerce, so within the scope of Fed action. Is there something that makes you think otherwise? Beyond court composition, that is.
  - Uvix 2y ago
    That this is coming from the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
    - arcticbull 2y ago
      Sure, but FTC was authorized by congress (FTC Act 1914) to "prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" which seems pretty cut and dried? I may be missing something, this just feels pretty reasonable.
      - ixwt 2y ago
        You're missing the fact that the current Supreme Court has been doing everything they can to kill Chevron Deference.
        cogman10 2y ago
        Yup, this is very much the key to why I think this will be killed. This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules.
        iamthirsty 2y ago
        > This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules. Very dramatic. Really, it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas.
        runako 2y ago
        > it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas. Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at Federal Agencies like the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are work for Federal Agencies that are the US Courts. Progress?
        cryptonector 2y ago
        > Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at e.g. the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are paid by the US Court system. Progress? Where do you get that from? Reversing Chevron will mean that Congress will have to work harder to get the regulations that it and the Executive want. If Congress were not disfunctional that would be a very good thing. And heck, reversing Chevron might well function to help Congress function more normally.
        macintux 2y ago
        Republicans originally celebrated Chevron because it took regulations out of the courts' hands.
    - ixwt 2y ago
      And the current Supreme Court is not a huge fan of Chevron Deference, which this certain falls under...
  - jfengel 2y ago
    From a purely meta point of view: This was something passed by a Democratic administration. Therefore Republicans hate it, and since 2/3 of the Supreme Court is Republican, it's likely to be struck down. The actual reasoning comes later. Something-something-Federalist-Papers-something. I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. I know a great many lawyers, of both parties, who have more respect for the Supreme Court than I do. They are more informed and better educated than I am, so you should take my cynicism with a grain of salt. But in my experience, treating the Supreme Court as a partisanship machine yields extremely accurate predictions.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. When this country was founded, a lot of its residents were slaves, so I'm sure Thomas and Alito will find plenty of fodder in that for their "originalist" stance denying workers rights.
      - VS1999 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure the constitution was not written for slaves and no "originalist" stance would consider them. This is a silly "gotcha" that you just made up so you can get mad.
        gamblor956 2y ago
        The 3/5th clause has been used by prior SCOTUSs to justify decisions, so it is not a gotcha. It's history... On that note, Alito and Thomas had to use a pre-U.S. colonial law as their grounds to overturn Roe, so there is no limit to how far they will go to use "orignalism" to further their ideology.
        unclebucknasty 2y ago
        >constitution was not written for slaves That's the point.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Interstate commerce would allow congress to make such a law. However, the real question will be if congress gave or intended to give the FTC the authority to perform this action. This supreme court has been very down on federal powers, so it really would not be surprising if they pulled "the major questions doctrine" to ultimately kill this off.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      > Interstate commerce would allow congress to make such a law. However, the real question will be if congress gave or intended to give the FTC the authority to perform this action. That's my take as well. There is almost certainly no doubt that the commerce clause (under current precedents since the 30s) gives Congress the authority to make legal rules like this one. If there be doubt here then it will be about a) the ability of Congress to delegate this power with b) such a vague and all-encompassing term as "unfair" to describe the practices that the FTC may regulate, and/or c) whether this particular rule violates the "major questions" doctrine found in the recent W. Virginia vs. EPA case.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court It may be aimed at prodding the Congress into action.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  I am not entirely sure. Without anti compete stealing your competitors staff becomes a valid business strategy. Buy up the competitions best people and cripple them. This favors those with the most capital not the least.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    It also favors workers. By increasing salaries. And forcing companies to compete for them. Labor is a market. It is too often ignored in favor of private equity concerns.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    I'd love for my company's competitor to buy me up. Shit let them all go to war for the privilege of employing my ass.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I doubt you are that valuable. Sure software developers are high priced, but without even knowing what company you work for I bet I can do your job at a competitor and after 3 years I'd be just as good - that is worst case when I have to learn a new programming language to expert level as well as the domain. There are only a few people who have special skills that it is even worth thinking about protected. Someone who hires you away from a competitor gains at most a couple months vs hiring someone with similar skill who doesn't work for a competitor (and thus doesn't have domain knowledge).
      - triceratops 2y ago
        Then the person I responded to has nothing to worry about.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    I believe it will die more because of the originalist/textualism of the supreme court rather than considerations to which big businesses benefit (or are harmed by) this the most. The question will ultimately arise "by what authority can the FTC make such a sweeping judgement" and it would not surprise me to hear the SC rule that this is an overstep of the authority they were given by the laws creating and maintaining the FTC. Previously, the FTC could have argued that the chevron doctrine gives them this right. However, that is almost certainly about to be completely abolished this term. The right of contract is almost certainly going to be more important to most members of the supreme court than any other considerations. That's my 2 cents.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cryptonector 2y ago
  If the SCOTUS overturns the Chevron doctrine, then this rule and probably all of the FTC's authority is on thin ice until Congress passes an act that says something more substantial and significantly less vague that "unfair business practices".
  - seanw444 2y ago
    Which would be great. These agencies and bureaus have grown to an enormous scope, completely without the consent of the governed. Doesn't sound like a republic to me.
    - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
      It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating. This is why the little stuff gets delegated to unilateral decision-making withing the executive branch: If making new rules was left to congress, they could never keep up. The world moves fast, congress moves slow. Instead, they delegate powers to agencies that can make rules within some tight purview and pursuant to some defined purpose, and if they step out of line Congress is completely within their power to legislate their preferred stance into law.
      - polski-g 2y ago
        > It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating That is one theory; another is that they don't legislate because they have no need to -- because the bureaucracy handles everything.
      - logicchains 2y ago
        >It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating. Congress is very capable of legislating about something that's relevant to their interests: look how fast the TikTok ban was passed.
fabianhjr 2y ago
I thought that non-governmental business association was pro-competition; guess not. Edit: it was a dig to the pro-competition façade some pro-business people put forward.
- sailfast 2y ago
  They are pro-business (and maintaining the rights of businesses to control their labor force), not pro-competition.
- DamnableNook 2y ago
  Why would you think that? Lobbying organizations exist to advance the interests of their members. Their members in this case are businesses. This will restrict the control businesses have over their former employees. Therefore, they don’t like it.
  - NominalNews 2y ago
    Ironically, it hurts their business overall (unless control of employees is something they intrinsically value).
- supercheetah 2y ago
  Needs a /s.
nerpderp82 2y ago
Total aside, but I think it is ridiculous that CoC larps as a quasi governmental organization. When in actuality it is a Union of Capitalists.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I don’t get that appearance. Their website does not end in .gov and their about page does not indicate they are an official agency: https://www.uschamber.com/about https://www.uschamber.com/about
  - bogwog 2y ago
    I have heard the name "US Chamber of Commerce" before, and as someone who isn't a politics/government nerd, I always assumed that was some kind of government organization responsible for something...commerce related. Clicking through to the website and seeing the kind of articles on there makes it pretty obvious that's not the case though, even ignoring the .com domain.
    - 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
      It's the largest lobbying group in the USA. It was created by Taft to fight organized labor. It's a core part of the Republican party, though it will diverge in the interests of capitalism. They denied climate change until 2019.
  - ZeWaka 2y ago
    I think people get that idea due to most cities also having chambers of commerce with lots of influence, sponsoring and hosting events and such.
- CalChris 2y ago
  Yes, it was started by Taft as a business 'union' that the government could deal with. Now they're funded primarily by multinationals and so they place the concerns of those large corporations first and well before upstart startups.

by timf 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

macintux 2y ago

I suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court, unfortunately.

arcticbull 2y ago
It'll be interesting to see what happens. It does sound like this clearly falls under interstate commerce, so within the scope of Fed action. Is there something that makes you think otherwise? Beyond court composition, that is.
- Uvix 2y ago
  That this is coming from the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    Sure, but FTC was authorized by congress (FTC Act 1914) to "prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" which seems pretty cut and dried? I may be missing something, this just feels pretty reasonable.
    - ixwt 2y ago
      You're missing the fact that the current Supreme Court has been doing everything they can to kill Chevron Deference.
      - cogman10 2y ago
        Yup, this is very much the key to why I think this will be killed. This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules.
        iamthirsty 2y ago
        > This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules. Very dramatic. Really, it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas.
        runako 2y ago
        > it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas. Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at Federal Agencies like the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are work for Federal Agencies that are the US Courts. Progress?
        cryptonector 2y ago
        > Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at e.g. the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are paid by the US Court system. Progress? Where do you get that from? Reversing Chevron will mean that Congress will have to work harder to get the regulations that it and the Executive want. If Congress were not disfunctional that would be a very good thing. And heck, reversing Chevron might well function to help Congress function more normally.
        macintux 2y ago
        Republicans originally celebrated Chevron because it took regulations out of the courts' hands.
  - ixwt 2y ago
    And the current Supreme Court is not a huge fan of Chevron Deference, which this certain falls under...
- jfengel 2y ago
  From a purely meta point of view: This was something passed by a Democratic administration. Therefore Republicans hate it, and since 2/3 of the Supreme Court is Republican, it's likely to be struck down. The actual reasoning comes later. Something-something-Federalist-Papers-something. I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. I know a great many lawyers, of both parties, who have more respect for the Supreme Court than I do. They are more informed and better educated than I am, so you should take my cynicism with a grain of salt. But in my experience, treating the Supreme Court as a partisanship machine yields extremely accurate predictions.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. When this country was founded, a lot of its residents were slaves, so I'm sure Thomas and Alito will find plenty of fodder in that for their "originalist" stance denying workers rights.
    - VS1999 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure the constitution was not written for slaves and no "originalist" stance would consider them. This is a silly "gotcha" that you just made up so you can get mad.
      - gamblor956 2y ago
        The 3/5th clause has been used by prior SCOTUSs to justify decisions, so it is not a gotcha. It's history... On that note, Alito and Thomas had to use a pre-U.S. colonial law as their grounds to overturn Roe, so there is no limit to how far they will go to use "orignalism" to further their ideology.
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        >constitution was not written for slaves That's the point.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Interstate commerce would allow congress to make such a law. However, the real question will be if congress gave or intended to give the FTC the authority to perform this action. This supreme court has been very down on federal powers, so it really would not be surprising if they pulled "the major questions doctrine" to ultimately kill this off.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    > Interstate commerce would allow congress to make such a law. However, the real question will be if congress gave or intended to give the FTC the authority to perform this action. That's my take as well. There is almost certainly no doubt that the commerce clause (under current precedents since the 30s) gives Congress the authority to make legal rules like this one. If there be doubt here then it will be about a) the ability of Congress to delegate this power with b) such a vague and all-encompassing term as "unfair" to describe the practices that the FTC may regulate, and/or c) whether this particular rule violates the "major questions" doctrine found in the recent W. Virginia vs. EPA case.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> suspect this won’t survive a challenge in front of the current Supreme Court It may be aimed at prodding the Congress into action.
zer00eyz 2y ago
I am not entirely sure. Without anti compete stealing your competitors staff becomes a valid business strategy. Buy up the competitions best people and cripple them. This favors those with the most capital not the least.
- akira2501 2y ago
  It also favors workers. By increasing salaries. And forcing companies to compete for them. Labor is a market. It is too often ignored in favor of private equity concerns.
- triceratops 2y ago
  I'd love for my company's competitor to buy me up. Shit let them all go to war for the privilege of employing my ass.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I doubt you are that valuable. Sure software developers are high priced, but without even knowing what company you work for I bet I can do your job at a competitor and after 3 years I'd be just as good - that is worst case when I have to learn a new programming language to expert level as well as the domain. There are only a few people who have special skills that it is even worth thinking about protected. Someone who hires you away from a competitor gains at most a couple months vs hiring someone with similar skill who doesn't work for a competitor (and thus doesn't have domain knowledge).
    - triceratops 2y ago
      Then the person I responded to has nothing to worry about.
- cogman10 2y ago
  I believe it will die more because of the originalist/textualism of the supreme court rather than considerations to which big businesses benefit (or are harmed by) this the most. The question will ultimately arise "by what authority can the FTC make such a sweeping judgement" and it would not surprise me to hear the SC rule that this is an overstep of the authority they were given by the laws creating and maintaining the FTC. Previously, the FTC could have argued that the chevron doctrine gives them this right. However, that is almost certainly about to be completely abolished this term. The right of contract is almost certainly going to be more important to most members of the supreme court than any other considerations. That's my 2 cents.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cryptonector 2y ago
If the SCOTUS overturns the Chevron doctrine, then this rule and probably all of the FTC's authority is on thin ice until Congress passes an act that says something more substantial and significantly less vague that "unfair business practices".
- seanw444 2y ago
  Which would be great. These agencies and bureaus have grown to an enormous scope, completely without the consent of the governed. Doesn't sound like a republic to me.
  - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
    It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating. This is why the little stuff gets delegated to unilateral decision-making withing the executive branch: If making new rules was left to congress, they could never keep up. The world moves fast, congress moves slow. Instead, they delegate powers to agencies that can make rules within some tight purview and pursuant to some defined purpose, and if they step out of line Congress is completely within their power to legislate their preferred stance into law.
    - polski-g 2y ago
      > It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating That is one theory; another is that they don't legislate because they have no need to -- because the bureaucracy handles everything.
    - logicchains 2y ago
      >It would be catastrophic, because Congress as it stands is utterly incapable of legislating. Congress is very capable of legislating about something that's relevant to their interests: look how fast the TikTok ban was passed.

fabianhjr 2y ago

I thought that non-governmental business association was pro-competition; guess not. Edit: it was a dig to the pro-competition façade some pro-business people put forward.

sailfast 2y ago
They are pro-business (and maintaining the rights of businesses to control their labor force), not pro-competition.
DamnableNook 2y ago
Why would you think that? Lobbying organizations exist to advance the interests of their members. Their members in this case are businesses. This will restrict the control businesses have over their former employees. Therefore, they don’t like it.
- NominalNews 2y ago
  Ironically, it hurts their business overall (unless control of employees is something they intrinsically value).
supercheetah 2y ago
Needs a /s.

nerpderp82 2y ago

Total aside, but I think it is ridiculous that CoC larps as a quasi governmental organization. When in actuality it is a Union of Capitalists.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
I don’t get that appearance. Their website does not end in .gov and their about page does not indicate they are an official agency: https://www.uschamber.com/about https://www.uschamber.com/about
- bogwog 2y ago
  I have heard the name "US Chamber of Commerce" before, and as someone who isn't a politics/government nerd, I always assumed that was some kind of government organization responsible for something...commerce related. Clicking through to the website and seeing the kind of articles on there makes it pretty obvious that's not the case though, even ignoring the .com domain.
  - 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
    It's the largest lobbying group in the USA. It was created by Taft to fight organized labor. It's a core part of the Republican party, though it will diverge in the interests of capitalism. They denied climate change until 2019.
- ZeWaka 2y ago
  I think people get that idea due to most cities also having chambers of commerce with lots of influence, sponsoring and hosting events and such.
CalChris 2y ago
Yes, it was started by Taft as a business 'union' that the government could deal with. Now they're funded primarily by multinationals and so they place the concerns of those large corporations first and well before upstart startups.