Texas. Because of course it is.

Aug 23, 2024 2:12 AM

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/g-s1-18376/federal-judge-tosses-ftc-noncompetes-ban

"Do as you're told" is damn near literally what that article says. You aren't allowed to intervene for workers. You aren't allowed to say big businesses are doing bad things and stiffling the economy. If big Corp wants it, then they get to have it. Why even have an FTC?

political

current_events

Why the fuck do we keep letting texas have a fucking say? If they say that no one has a right to vote are we just going to listen to them?

2 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

Keep fighting Khan, keep fighting.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If they want you to sign a non-compete it probably means they can't compete to begin with and your wages will stagnate over time. Best to just look for a job with another company right then.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

What hope do we have when even modest, commonsense crap like this can't make any headway? Monopoly-busting and raising the minimum wage seem like moon-shots compared to this. Keeping Democrats in power, with things as awful as they are, for another 40 years so they can slowly replace all these corrupt & partisan judges doesn't seem likely.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"Mr. Martin reviewed in detail all the changes wrought by Mrs. Barrows. She had begun chipping at the cornices of the firm's edifice and now she was swinging at the foundation stones with a pickaxe." - Thurber, "The Catbird Seat"

This is what the GOP has been doing since Nixon. Now they're going at the entire structure of our Democracy with a wrecking ball, in plain sight - and they don't care who knows it, because they think they are untouchable.

Vote Blue, all across the Ballot in November.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It was banned on being overly broad. This way employees have to sue on a case by case basis making it so much work it protects crappy companies.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Can't compete with a business that has been burned to the ground.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

D U M B F U C K I S T A N

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Democracy will not be taken from you in one fell swoop. It will be chipped away piece by piece until all that is left is your freedom to serve the ruling class… or die.

2 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

Doesnt help that the "opposition" party agrees with fascists 70% of the time. And that was just the data from 2018, back when Trump was in office

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

Is there anything worse than a Republican law maker. Nope.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

"would poach valuable employees" funny how they dont like competition while claiming to want liberty and free markets. If your employees are getting poached its cuz youre not competitive

2 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 1

"let the market decide..." "... but not like that."

2 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

You mean they blocked another form of slavery?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just about over Texas.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Burn texas to the fucking ground.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It's August, it's pretty much happening.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I worked for a company where I signed a noncompete and their own lawyer told me it's nearly impossible to enforce them.

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Because he didn't want you to question it.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If your employees can be poached then you haven’t made them feel as indispensable as your non-compete says they are.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yet Another fucking trump-McConnell judge.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Of course it's in the single-star state.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Is this about noncompete clauses?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, knew this was going to happen. Their ban was far too broad. Non-compete agreements do have a place, the issue is companies using them for a corrupted purpose rather than what they were originally made for.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Maybe we should ban “venue shopping” so that right wing assholes can’t bring all of their suits in Texas, where the judges are insane.

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Honestly yes. If your headquarters is not in that state and neither party resides there, you have no business going to court there.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not the point, but… “sniffling the economy?”

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Smells like economy!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Autocomplete error for "stifling", I'd assume?

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Correct! Lol, I fixed it.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Because it's a sad sad day for the economy.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

It's funny how they put "Honorable" in front of judge's names in Texas.

2 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 3

They also do that basically everywhere else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honourable

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They probably do, but in the picture that's the FTC chair.

2 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

I want to know how one judge can stop a federal policy.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can not another Judge say it's fine?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. And then it ends up at the SCOTUS to resolve.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ok

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

we still have them in California and i know theres other states that ban them too. Check yours if you're curious.

2 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 0

which is the problem. To illustrate: SLAPP suits are penalized in many states. Which means all SLAPP suits are filed in the one state that has no limits on them. We need fedral rulings, federal legislation, and the abolition of the illusion of "states rights" or else were gonna get the abolition of individual rights under fascism.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

abolition of states rights is a thing people potentially facing 4 more years of trump should be real careful about advocating for.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

so in other words you're hoping that the system that allows fascism to grow will be your check against a fascist system? And that sounds like a good plan to you?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think its a better solution than abandoning the idea of states rights and allowing washington DC to govern the entire nation directly yes

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

cool literally all historical evidence says you're wrong.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, California has prohibited non-compete agreements for over 150 years, and new laws went into effect on January 1, 2024 that further strengthen the state's prohibition. California's Business and Professions Code sections 16600-16607, codified in 1941, declare that any contract that prevents someone from engaging in a lawful trade, business, or profession is void.

2 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

Man that judge has resting bitch face on steroids

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's not the judge, that's the FTC person who's sick of this bullshit.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are better ways to keep your employees from leaving and taking their talents to competitors. My company planned family events like science fairs and “bring your daughter to work” day to make the company and coworkers feel more like family. Then everyone was exterminated with deadly neurotoxin. Nobody needed a non-compete after that.

2 years ago | Likes 136 Dislikes 1

The cake is a lie.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Username checks out

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

"it looks like I've run out of deadly neurotoxin. HA! I'm making more..."

2 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

They do what they must, because they can.

2 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

For the good of all of us...

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Wait a minute... That sounds an awful lot like this potato I knew....

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The SCOTUS has already ruled that federal agencies have no authority. They're dismantling every regulatory body they possibly can.

2 years ago | Likes 327 Dislikes 1

Yes, SCOTUS is trying to dismantle regulatory powers. Essentially, they are removing power from the Executive and Legislative branches in order to consolidate it within the Judiciary. Federal Agencies still have authority, it's only if a motion is filed by a plaintiff claiming ambiguity in the law that the agency acted upon. The courts first have to rule if the law is in fact ambiguous, if yes, the court renders a judgment to remedy. Unelected Officials w/lifetime appointments! THANKS GOP! BLECH

2 years ago | Likes 60 Dislikes 1

And how many battalions does SCOTUS have?

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

What's astounding too me, is that no one talks about how SCOTUS essentially gave themselves power, outside that listed within the Constitution, in what amounts to a judicial coup over 200 years ago, and no one has ever actually done anything about that.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Vote.org

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No, they ruled federal agencies only have the explicit authority given in laws and interpretations of laws is up the the courts. If you think an agency is doing TOO LITTLE you can take them to court for that too.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 8

a power they did not previously have and not granted by the constitution but by the SCOTUS who has taken it upon themselves to make policy.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yeah, it sucks. But it isn't without upside.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

and there are no less than 7 options Biden could have personally taken in the past 4 years to stop this. Instead he was busy maintaining thus fascist status quo, like we havent already seen literal decades of proof how how ineffective appeasement and liberals are at fighting fascism

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 54

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

2 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

Mr Rogers says deliberately defending a man who funds genocide is bad. Have you tried being more like Mr Rogers?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Says the guy who wants to vote for a convicted felon fascist. Get ready to cry in November you piece of scum in the gene pool.

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Biden's not running for reelection sweetheart. Criticizing him says nothing about elections. Love how you haven't bothered to update your script of generic responses to legitimate criticism of the sitting fucking president though

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

We know Biden isn't running for re-election. But Trump will lose to Kamala. Maybe that's who we are referring to? And dont call me "sweetheart".

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

funny how you have no response to "Biden does bad things" except "if you criticize the current sitting president who isn't even running for reelection it's because you're the enemy". Definitely not a fascist mentality

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

cool story bud, I'm sure that all those palestinian kids killed by Biden's funding their genocide appreciated your sick burn

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

so what is your suggestion? Given that neither of us is Biden so we can't just do the things you think are obvious moves for Biden, what do you suggest we do to make things better in the US?

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

ever heard of dredd scott? look it up.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They won't respond. They never do. I've tried playing this card in hopes of getting real answers from the other side. I want to know how they think and why, I want to learn new things.... They never respond. It's just trolling. Idk why people do it.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

brought to you by an account that never can answer for Biden's bad policies except with an appeal to worse problems or other fallacies

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

well, why don't you prove to be the better account and answer my question instead of just mouthing off to the other guy. What's your idea for making things better, you and me? Is it to just troll people on the internet because that's not working.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm actually one of the ones who usually asks questions like these, so you sort of slashed your credibility from the other comment you posted (thanks for that, btw) by assuming this about me. I will look into the things I haven't heard of, but the whole checks and balances thing sort of keeps presidents from unilaterally making sweeping decisions.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0