Hacker News Reader

Comment by mxwsn | Hacker News Reader

Why now?

Because excesses finally became so ridiculously over the top that it was finally politically viable to address it. Remember, chain restaurants have started using non-competes to ban servers and cooks from moving to another employer. The situation is finally in the eyes of the general public.

That's just absurd. Non-competes should never apply to commodity-skill jobs. I wonder how often they were ever enforced?

Enforcement does not matter. It is the chilling threat an employer can use against someone without options.

If you are flipping burgers for minimum wage and your boss says they can sue you if you leave for a competitor, are you willing to chance it?

If I had no real net worth, yeah probably. What are they going to take? I'd like to see a judge's reaction to a non-compete on a burger-flipping job. Non-competes already get voided if they are too restrictive; you can't prevent someone from earning a living. But yeah, I can see a young kid might be intimidated.

They absolutely were, such in the case of Prudential Security[0]

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...

> Remember, chain restaurants have started using non-competes to ban servers and cooks from moving to another employer.

It's so dystopian that this was ever a thing.

Non-competes were supposed to exist to prevent employees from bringing trade secrets to competitors. Instead, they were used to trap people in poorly paying jobs.

I had not heard about the chain restaurants; that is one of the scummiest things I've ever heard and it angers me that it takes place.

Never forget: college degree requirements, high housing costs, union busting, salary secrecy, return to office, sub-inflationary raises, 1099 contractors and "temporary" permanent workers, outsourcing, H-1B visas, NCAs, and lack of universal healthcare are just some of the ways corporations lord power over employees to reduce wages and worsen income inequality. (Oh and illegal things like wage theft.)

Lina has been pretty busy, but she's been making progress on a large backlog of bad corporate behavior.

What were these guys up to? https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/commissioners-staff/former-com...

> What were these guys up to?

Not losing in court every other month.

Because we have a Democratic administration that is taking this stuff seriously.

Seriously, though. Why now?

Because that administration needs red meat to activate their base ahead of an election cycle

Same as student loans. It’s election season.

Oh no, a sneaky politician trying to win my vote by making material changes that improve my life!

They could/should have been doing this stuff from day one tho not waiting until the 11th hour.

See my comment above; administrative rules generally take a couple of years to work their way through the system before they can take effect.

But.. why did you have to wait so long? Politicians should have been making material changes to improve your life without it being an election year. We should demand better of public servants.

New rules take time. Depending on the complexity of the regulation it can take a year or two to write (lots of internal reviews) and then there's a long statutorily-required public comment period during which an agency is required to read and address every comment. For this regulation, the public comment period appeared to start Jan 8, 2023.

You can see the public history here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2023-0007/document

Political will.

Why not now?

Lina Khan

Election year

Which is good, right? Politicians serving the interest of their constituents in the hopes of being re-elected is, like, the intended operation of democracy.

If only we could have an election year, every year, without all the annoying ads and stress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com