• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

Not surprising. But two Americans being involved makes it an international incident.
 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...romoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/

A lot of really good stuff in here. Here's hoping 2022 Dems can run on a lot of this stuff. So much commonsense, legislation-avoiding, cutting through red tape nonsense initiative in here, things that progressives have been asking administrations to do for decades.

Among other things, they will:

Make it easier to change jobs and help raise wages by banning or limiting non-compete agreements and unnecessary, cumbersome occupational licensing requirements that impede economic mobility.
Lower prescription drug prices by supporting state and tribal programs that will import safe and cheaper drugs from Canada.
Save Americans with hearing loss thousands of dollars by allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter at drug stores.
Save Americans money on their internet bills by banning excessive early termination fees, requiring clear disclosure of plan costs to facilitate comparison shopping, and ending landlord exclusivity arrangements that stick tenants with only a single internet option.
Make it easier for people to get refunds from airlines and to comparison shop for flights by requiring clear upfront disclosure of add-on fees.
Make it easier and cheaper to repair items you own by limiting manufacturers from barring self-repairs or third-party repairs of their products.
Make it easier and cheaper to switch banks by requiring banks to allow customers to take their financial transaction data with them to a competitor.
Empower family farmers and increase their incomes by strengthening the Department of Agriculture’s tools to stop the abusive practices of some meat processors.
Increase opportunities for small businesses by directing all federal agencies to promote greater competition through their procurement and spending decisions.
The Order also encourages the leading antitrust agencies to focus enforcement efforts on problems in key markets and coordinates other agencies’ ongoing response to corporate consolidation.
 
That is a very encouraging EO that addresses long-standing problems that limit competition and hurt consumers.
 
The EO doesn't purport to regulate non-competition agreements. Instead, it encourages the FTC to promulgate regulations governing them. That is an area of law that has traditionally been left to the states, and I would like to understand better how the FTC has authority to regulate them.

Some states, like California, have banned non-competes outright, and other states allow them but subject them to heightened scrutiny to ensure that the employer really has a legitimate business interest and that the departing employee will not be precluded from putting food on the table. In my experience, even where permitted, the thumb is very heavily on the side of the scale that favors employee mobility. That said, employers invariably have a bigger war chest than any individual employee, so even the threat of a lawsuit by an employer can deter an employee from violating a likely impermissible non-compete.

Also, based on what I have read about the issue, the FTC isn't likely to ban non-competes outright, but rather to ban them for some subset of the workforce, like hourly or low-wage workers. The idea is that, for these workers, employers just don't have a protectable interest in a non-compete. Unlike the executive or other high-level employee, the hourly or low-wage worker isn't likely to have been exposed to the company's business plans or other trade secrets, or at least not in sufficient detail that their knowledge could actually be useful to the next employer. Plus, the company's business plans or other trade secrets are going to be protected by trade secret law anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the FTC actually does with this. I would expect there to be legal challenges to it, but, again, I don't have knowledge about the scope of the FTC's authority in this arena.
 
Last edited:
Make it easier and cheaper to switch banks by requiring banks to allow customers to take their financial transaction data with them to a competitor.
Click to expand...

Lol, the only way this is going to be complied with is granting access to reports or csv dumps. There isn't some homogenous DB format that banks store transactions in.
 
Some cool stuff in there. Really glad to see the right to repair stuff get in to give farmers a hand. I've heard so many stories about that nightmare, specifically with John Deere.

Now sign an XO opening the border back up to the UK for vaccinated travellers, so they will finally drop their bullshit quarantine requirements when we go over there.
 
TownieDeac said:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...romoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/

A lot of really good stuff in here. Here's hoping 2022 Dems can run on a lot of this stuff. So much commonsense, legislation-avoiding, cutting through red tape nonsense initiative in here, things that progressives have been asking administrations to do for decades.

Among other things, they will:

Make it easier to change jobs and help raise wages by banning or limiting non-compete agreements and unnecessary, cumbersome occupational licensing requirements that impede economic mobility.
Lower prescription drug prices by supporting state and tribal programs that will import safe and cheaper drugs from Canada.
Save Americans with hearing loss thousands of dollars by allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter at drug stores.
Save Americans money on their internet bills by banning excessive early termination fees, requiring clear disclosure of plan costs to facilitate comparison shopping, and ending landlord exclusivity arrangements that stick tenants with only a single internet option.
Make it easier for people to get refunds from airlines and to comparison shop for flights by requiring clear upfront disclosure of add-on fees.
Make it easier and cheaper to repair items you own by limiting manufacturers from barring self-repairs or third-party repairs of their products.
Make it easier and cheaper to switch banks by requiring banks to allow customers to take their financial transaction data with them to a competitor.
Empower family farmers and increase their incomes by strengthening the Department of Agriculture’s tools to stop the abusive practices of some meat processors.
Increase opportunities for small businesses by directing all federal agencies to promote greater competition through their procurement and spending decisions.
The Order also encourages the leading antitrust agencies to focus enforcement efforts on problems in key markets and coordinates other agencies’ ongoing response to corporate consolidation.
Click to expand...

This can't be correct- I thought Democrats only created job-killing regulations
 
WakeBored said:
The EO doesn't purport to regulate non-competition agreements. Instead, it encourages the FTC to promulgate regulations governing them. That is an area of law that has traditionally been left to the states, and I would like to understand better how the FTC has authority to regulate them.

Some states, like California, have banned non-competes outright, and other states allow them but subject them to heightened scrutiny to ensure that the employer really has a legitimate business interest and that the departing employee will not be precluded from putting food on the table. In my experience, even where permitted, the thumb is very heavily on the side of the scale that favors employee mobility. That said, employers invariably have a bigger war chest than any individual employee, so even the threat of a lawsuit by an employer can deter an employee from violating a likely impermissible non-compete.

Also, based on what I have read about the issue, the FTC isn't likely to ban non-competes outright, but rather to ban them for some subset of the workforce, like hourly or low-wage workers. The idea is that, for these workers, employers just don't have a protectable interest in a non-compete. Unlike the executive or other high-level employe, the hourly or low-wage worker isn't likely to have been exposed to the company's business plans or other trade secrets, or at least not in sufficient detail that their knowledge could actually be useful to the next employer. Plus, the company's business plans or other trade secrets are going to be protected by trade secret law anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the FTC actually does with this. I would expect there to be legal challenges to it, but, again, I don't have knowledge about the scope of the FTC's authority in this arena.
Click to expand...

I think this is largely correct, after talking about it with some law friends. Fast food employees don't have access to actual trade secrets, and even if they did, they're covered by other protections. Where a non-compete makes a little more sense, though not a lot more, is for director and executive level white collar corporate jobs, but even in those cases, an argument could be made that nondisclosure agreements are a better fit for what interest the law has here. In most cases non-competes are hard or impossible to enforce anyway.
 
MichDeac25 said:
Laborers and low-wage employees are being presented with non-competes? That's even a thing?
Click to expand...

I’ve definitely seen stories about workers at Jimmy John’s having to sign non competes from working at other sandwich shops. I think it’s happened at some Wendy’s too.
 
TownieDeac said:
I think this is largely correct, after talking about it with some law friends. Fast food employees don't have access to actual trade secrets, and even if they did, they're covered by other protections. Where a non-compete makes a little more sense, though not a lot more, is for director and executive level white collar corporate jobs, but even in those cases, an argument could be made that nondisclosure agreements are a better fit for what interest the law has here. In most cases non-competes are hard or impossible to enforce anyway.
Click to expand...

I believe CA ruled a couple years ago that non-competes were unenforceable.
 
MichDeac25 said:
Laborers and low-wage employees are being presented with non-competes? That's even a thing?
Click to expand...

This is not a thing ( to my understanding). Non-competes are generally for high wage employees. If the above post are accurate it is a travesty to society. Low wage people should never be subjected to this sort of bullshit. Hell I hate that I am…
 
Last edited:
warak said:
This is not a thing ( to my understanding). Non-competes are generally for high wage employees. If the above post are accurate it is a travesty to society. Low wage people should never be subjected to this sort of bullshit. Hell I hate that I am…
Click to expand...

Yes, it’s a thing. I’ve seen them for line workers on a factory floor, receptionists at a software company, and LPNs at a doctor’s office.
 
Non compete clauses are absolutely in the best interests of capitalism. I mean who benefits from denying people the right to work wherever they want for whatever the free market will pay? The worker right? Its not the boss wanting to pay as little in money and benefits as they can to maximize their own profits. Just protecting the little guy from their own poor judgement about the best place to work... Right?
 
i was under the impression that non-competes were fairly difficult to enforce specifically because of the hardship it can put on the signatory.
 
Anybody else think we should take some of the money we're going to save on not having our military in Afghanistan and look to stabilizing Haiti and Cuba in our favor for centuries to come ?

I'll standby while everyone calls me a colonizer or imperialist or Teddy Roosevelt or something.
 
BiffTannen said:
Anybody else think we should take some of the money we're going to save on not having our military in Afghanistan and look to stabilizing Haiti and Cuba in our favor for centuries to come ?

I'll standby while everyone calls me a colonizer or imperialist or Teddy Roosevelt or something.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, why would a utopia like Cuba need any stabilizing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top