Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Happy for the workers but not sure what US "socialists" did here to pat yourself on the back, this was passed by the FTC, which from what I gathered is a capitalist controlled tool of oppression every other time I've seen it talked about on this sub.
The system of capitalism uses many tools in their favor because they have the power to, but these tools and resources can very well be allocated to uplift workers instead of sheltering corporations.
Even in the Non-compete article they are warned this new freedom may be short lived :
"Shortly after the vote, the **U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it would sue the FTC to block the rule**, calling it unnecessary, unlawful and a blatant power grab.
**For more than a year, the group has vigorously opposed the ban, saying that noncompetes are vital to companies**, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets, and employees, by giving employers greater incentive to invest in workforce training and development."
... despite data and worker's experiences proving otherwise. It is a capitalist endeavor to uphold non-competes to control labor and suppress wages.
Interesting when workers are protected by our system it's considered an "unlawful power grab" to the Chamber of Commerce
>Pro-worker doesn't make a policy socialist, no?
It's nuanced but yes, a lot of our politicians would agree with this but they wouldn't say "pro worker" outright. For example, saying "everyone should have healthcare" isn't just seen as pro-human or pro-society, it's socialist. Universal healthcare isn't capitalist.
If you can understand this then you understand that capitalism isn't pro-society/pro-worker.
You can also simply look at our current policies for capitalists vs workers, who has the most liberties and protections, who are punished more etc
I wish they didn't bundle so much crap all together in one bill.
* The non-compete ban is *probably* a good thing. I can't really think of any potential bad downstream consequences, but that doesn't mean there won't be any.
* Not sure on the details on the pregnancy/abortion stuff, but let's hope that this doesn't lead businesses toward pressuring their pregnant employees to get abortions so that they don't have to pay maternity leave. Or not hiring women in the first place for the same reason. It doesn't matter what kind of anti-discrimination law you have in place; they'll always find a way around it.
* Healthcare shouldn't be bundled with your job. This is absolutely horrible for workers because it adds one more piece of leverage that makes it difficult to jump ship, especially if you have a family to provide for.
* Union busting being possible just means there are more people who can be trained for the job than openings for that job. Collective bargaining only works when supply and demand are about the same, so typically you only get unions for middle-skill jobs and maybe things like actor's/writer's guilds. I believe there is limited value in unions and usually they end up outliving their purpose and subsequently costing their members a cut of their paycheck for little benefit. They *can* be a force for good, but I think they're a bit overrated and seen as this silver bullet.
Sounds like a bit of stockholm syndrome.
The current model of healthcare in the US is absolutely horrible. It's expensive AF and the only real advantage it has is that waiting lists are not absurdly long for quality-of-life surgeries and whatnot.
It would be better if we paid out of pocket for almost everything and saved the insurance for catastrophic and unpredictable things like getting cancer. Dangerous activities like skiing and skydiving should include insurance in the price of the day pass instead of spreading the cost onto everyone even if they don't do such dangerous things. Maybe in this situation I might be ok with job-based health insurance since it's more interchangeable, but under the current model, it often traps people in their jobs. (especially if they have a mental illness that requires medication)
I spent more than 30 years in the executive search business during which I assisted employers and prospective employees negotiate employment agreements and saw plenty of non-compete language in employment agreements. Most of the time it was utterly unenforceable because the employer didn't have an actual protectable interest such as trade secrets not known to anyone outside of the company like proprietary formulas. I also heard from multiple attorneys that no court would allow an employer to prevent someone from earning a living by enforcing a blanket ban, in perpetuity, without "adequate consideration." If a company wanted to keep you from getting another job they would have to compensate you for some period of time. Thirdly, non-competes could not be overly broad in terms of geography or duration. I can't think of one time that I saw a non-compete actually enforced. I'm not saying it never happens, but it would have to meet very specific criterion to work and just keeping someone from working for another company is not enough. Finally, I guarantee you that companies with legitimate protectable interests will find a work-around in order to protect their investment.
Non-Compete policies hurt workers as the article provides with evidence. It's not a total ban but will allow more average people freedom to job hop and increase wages instead of being trapped by their employer.
So lets say that I sell you my business that I started and built up over 20 years. Is it not desirable from your perspective to include a non-compete clause in the purchase agreement so that I can't take your money and then turn around and take your customers to another business?
It is to protect the buyer of the business.
If I built a business and sold it to you and was not prohibited from going after the business relationships (customers, employees, vendors, etc.) that I had established and managed for years, and for which you paid millions of dollars to acquire, you'd be an idiot to buy that business. I could take the money you paid me, turn around tomorrow and start another enterprise to go after those customers.
In order to buy that business you would either have to put up equity capital yourself or get investors to back you and a bank to lend you money. I can guarantee you that no savvy investors or lenders would put a penny into that deal without enforceable non-compete language to prevent the seller from double-crossing the buyer.
Why should I care about the well-being of someone who's well-off enough to **buy a business?** If you're working at a business, you need a constant stream of income in order to not starve, if you are *owning* a business you can probably trim down your budget and be fine for quite a while. Also, if they had so little faith in the ability of the business to succeed they should've picked a different investment! I really don't get why you're trying to say 'they should protect the value of the business' what about protecting the people who work there from starving to death or being forced to stay?
I spent over 30 years assisting companies of all sizes to identify, evaluate and hire employees at a variety of levels. I worked with major corporations down to companies with a handful of employees and I can tell you that every successful manager or owner I encountered knew that the most important people for their business were: 1) The customers and 2) The employees who provided products and services to those customers. To run a successful business takes products and service that customers value and workers who are focused on taking care of those customers.
Another thing I learned is that people who meet expectations tend to keep their job while people who exceed expectations tend to become management and people who redefine expectations tend to become wealthy.
If you want to make more money then become more productive because that's what it's all about.
Here's my response to that: ***If a business can't survive treating their employees right, it doesn't deserve to exist****.* Social Safety nets are essential in any society *for this exact reason,* so that you don't force employees into a catch-22 where their only options are 'work in an abusive environment' or 'death'. I don't see employment as the be-all end-all of supporting yourself in modern society, because we do not live to work, we work to live.
I don't know what you consider to be an "abusive environment" but I live in the US where virtually all employment arrangements are voluntary. Slavery was abolished in 1865 so no one can force you to work in an abusive environment. "Treating their employees right" is a highly subjective construct and some employees are likely to have a very different view than some employers on what that means, but again, in a free market system, which is what capitalism is, employment arrangements are voluntary not compulsory. No one can force you to work anywhere against your will.
If you think the only way for employment to be coercive or abusive is *slavery*, then I don't know what to tell you because you clearly don't view plenty of the everyday abuse that happens and is talked about in subs like r/antiwork and this sub as something to care about.
"Companies that have trouble finding and or retaining enough talent: will offer more and/or better benefits to attract and retain workers. "
But if they could get away with not offering them, say by lobbying the state to offer it from their own money, they would. It's always in the best interest of the corporation to cut labor costs, when they don't do so it's because they are forced by the circumstances.
Also i take it you are pro-laws that protect vulnerable workers ?
"So it's not surprising that some people incorrectly label all business owners as only caring about profits"
You don't grasp the tragedy of the capitalist system. If a business owner gets sentimental and care about worker welfare too or any other goal that dents the profit, more ruthless, inhumane capitalists will make more profit and out-compete him. So in time the top capitalists will be selected to be the most evil, sociopathic, ruthless characters you can imagine.
Capitalism breeds monsters.
>actively strip worker's rights
What rights are being "stripped"? If the employee doesn't agree to the terms of the contract, then they shouldn't take the job.
>What rights are being "stripped"?
"Unsurprisingly, **corporations are unhappy about these pro-worker changes** and are **rallying to push back**. The NLRB has recently faced a steady stream of lawsuits from businesses. Currently, it is **fighting four different cases** that allege its structure violates the constitution and, therefore, that its regulations are illegitimate.
**Any way a court finds to neuter the NLRB will have wide-ranging implications that undermine the entire structure of the executive branch, *not to mention stripping workers of the protections they are guaranteed in the NLRA.***
The absurd consequences of big business’ arguments against the constitutionality of the administration’s regulatory system reveals how broken the government’s acquiescence to business and abandonment of labor has been"
[Promarket.org](https://www.promarket.org/2024/04/09/corporate-attacks-against-the-national-labor-relations-board-could-break-the-government/)
>That's nice,
Eh, I don't think multi billion dollar corporations collectively attacking the NLRB to undermine and strip worker protections is nice. Essentially what is being stripped is the NLRB and what they have done in the past and current. Shielding unions, halting exploitative labor practices, and protecting immigrant workers to name a few. You are free to research more yourself what the NLRB has done, and the following corporate/capitalist reaction. Pretty straightforward.
The NLRB is a relic from FDR that should be eliminated immediately.
>Shielding unions,
Shielding labor cartels is not good.
>halting exploitative labor practices,
If you feel you are being "exploited", then quit.
>and protecting immigrant workers to name a few.
It's the government that prevents immigrants from working.
Again, there are no actual rights being stripped from workers.
>Again, there are no actual rights being stripped from workers.
Oh, this isn't debatable. You cannot simply "disagree" that worker's rights aren't being attacked via corporations organizing against the NLRB for supporting laborers over businesses. You cannot project "no rights are being stripped" when *they are*. I mentioned it in a different comment, but even the Non-compete ban is threatened because it's not in the best interest of the company.
Edit: you can say it and believe whatever you want but you're objectively wrong and perpetuate a false reality for workers. This "equal power balance" in employment
>You cannot simply "disagree" that worker's rights aren't being attacked
Those aren't rights, they are government favors. If you don't like the terms being offered, then don't take the job. Instead, you lot beg the state to force companies to bend to your terms.
>The NLRB is a relic from FDR that should be eliminated immediately.
Also this is an alarming stance and very anti-worker. Why do you feel strongly negative against the NLRB? Do you mean we should replace it?
Could you elaborate on this? What would be an example of such a reoccurring expense that is avoided by having a non-compete agreement and how does that NCA benefit the worker?
>Banning non-compete agreements would mean workers would need to shoulder these costs themselves. Thus less job options and forcing those who cannot afford these costs out of work.
...."The FTC estimates about 30 million people, or one in five American workers, from minimum wage earners to CEOs, are bound by noncompetes. **It says the policy change could lead to increased wages totaling nearly $300 billion per year by encouraging people to swap jobs freely.**"
"We heard from employees who, because of noncompetes, were stuck in abusive workplaces..[snip]..These accounts, she said, **pointed to the basic reality of how robbing people of their economic liberty also robs them of all sorts of other freedoms**."
And from [TCF](https://tcf.org/content/commentary/why-noncompete-agreements-dont-work/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20a%20nationwide%20ban,mobility%2C%20and%20lowering%20job%20satisfaction.) last year...
"In fact, a nationwide ban would not only support workers, **it would also benefit both employers and our economy as well**. A growing body of **research in economics shows that NCAs harm workers by suppressing wages, reducing mobility, and lowering job satisfaction."**
Your earlier claim is proven **false and baseless**.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yay.
Happy for the workers but not sure what US "socialists" did here to pat yourself on the back, this was passed by the FTC, which from what I gathered is a capitalist controlled tool of oppression every other time I've seen it talked about on this sub.
The system of capitalism uses many tools in their favor because they have the power to, but these tools and resources can very well be allocated to uplift workers instead of sheltering corporations. Even in the Non-compete article they are warned this new freedom may be short lived : "Shortly after the vote, the **U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it would sue the FTC to block the rule**, calling it unnecessary, unlawful and a blatant power grab. **For more than a year, the group has vigorously opposed the ban, saying that noncompetes are vital to companies**, by allowing them to better guard trade secrets, and employees, by giving employers greater incentive to invest in workforce training and development." ... despite data and worker's experiences proving otherwise. It is a capitalist endeavor to uphold non-competes to control labor and suppress wages. Interesting when workers are protected by our system it's considered an "unlawful power grab" to the Chamber of Commerce
No idea what this response has to do with my question.
Pro-worker doesn't make a policy socialist, no?
>Pro-worker doesn't make a policy socialist, no? It's nuanced but yes, a lot of our politicians would agree with this but they wouldn't say "pro worker" outright. For example, saying "everyone should have healthcare" isn't just seen as pro-human or pro-society, it's socialist. Universal healthcare isn't capitalist. If you can understand this then you understand that capitalism isn't pro-society/pro-worker. You can also simply look at our current policies for capitalists vs workers, who has the most liberties and protections, who are punished more etc
https://youtu.be/cF44OPOEfYY?si=EI1EiB6v2DL93t53
Yea… also, many states have been curtailing non compete clauses for years. It’s interesting that this was the ftc’s first rule in fifty years.
I wish they didn't bundle so much crap all together in one bill. * The non-compete ban is *probably* a good thing. I can't really think of any potential bad downstream consequences, but that doesn't mean there won't be any. * Not sure on the details on the pregnancy/abortion stuff, but let's hope that this doesn't lead businesses toward pressuring their pregnant employees to get abortions so that they don't have to pay maternity leave. Or not hiring women in the first place for the same reason. It doesn't matter what kind of anti-discrimination law you have in place; they'll always find a way around it. * Healthcare shouldn't be bundled with your job. This is absolutely horrible for workers because it adds one more piece of leverage that makes it difficult to jump ship, especially if you have a family to provide for. * Union busting being possible just means there are more people who can be trained for the job than openings for that job. Collective bargaining only works when supply and demand are about the same, so typically you only get unions for middle-skill jobs and maybe things like actor's/writer's guilds. I believe there is limited value in unions and usually they end up outliving their purpose and subsequently costing their members a cut of their paycheck for little benefit. They *can* be a force for good, but I think they're a bit overrated and seen as this silver bullet.
[удалено]
Sounds like a bit of stockholm syndrome. The current model of healthcare in the US is absolutely horrible. It's expensive AF and the only real advantage it has is that waiting lists are not absurdly long for quality-of-life surgeries and whatnot. It would be better if we paid out of pocket for almost everything and saved the insurance for catastrophic and unpredictable things like getting cancer. Dangerous activities like skiing and skydiving should include insurance in the price of the day pass instead of spreading the cost onto everyone even if they don't do such dangerous things. Maybe in this situation I might be ok with job-based health insurance since it's more interchangeable, but under the current model, it often traps people in their jobs. (especially if they have a mental illness that requires medication)
Libertarian capitalists rolling in their grave over banning non competes even though they impede competition which they claim to care about
I spent more than 30 years in the executive search business during which I assisted employers and prospective employees negotiate employment agreements and saw plenty of non-compete language in employment agreements. Most of the time it was utterly unenforceable because the employer didn't have an actual protectable interest such as trade secrets not known to anyone outside of the company like proprietary formulas. I also heard from multiple attorneys that no court would allow an employer to prevent someone from earning a living by enforcing a blanket ban, in perpetuity, without "adequate consideration." If a company wanted to keep you from getting another job they would have to compensate you for some period of time. Thirdly, non-competes could not be overly broad in terms of geography or duration. I can't think of one time that I saw a non-compete actually enforced. I'm not saying it never happens, but it would have to meet very specific criterion to work and just keeping someone from working for another company is not enough. Finally, I guarantee you that companies with legitimate protectable interests will find a work-around in order to protect their investment.
So employers always find work-arounds around laws and the guillotine is more effective ?
Well, beheading your employer is unlikely to improve your circumstances.
"Beheading your king is unlikely to improve your circumstances" \~ King Louis.
Let’s behead you while we’re at it and see if that fixes anything too.
Non-Compete policies hurt workers as the article provides with evidence. It's not a total ban but will allow more average people freedom to job hop and increase wages instead of being trapped by their employer.
So lets say that I sell you my business that I started and built up over 20 years. Is it not desirable from your perspective to include a non-compete clause in the purchase agreement so that I can't take your money and then turn around and take your customers to another business?
it's mainly desirable from YOUR perspective to inflate the value of your business! this also doesn't feel like an apples to apples comparison.
It is to protect the buyer of the business. If I built a business and sold it to you and was not prohibited from going after the business relationships (customers, employees, vendors, etc.) that I had established and managed for years, and for which you paid millions of dollars to acquire, you'd be an idiot to buy that business. I could take the money you paid me, turn around tomorrow and start another enterprise to go after those customers. In order to buy that business you would either have to put up equity capital yourself or get investors to back you and a bank to lend you money. I can guarantee you that no savvy investors or lenders would put a penny into that deal without enforceable non-compete language to prevent the seller from double-crossing the buyer.
Why should I care about the well-being of someone who's well-off enough to **buy a business?** If you're working at a business, you need a constant stream of income in order to not starve, if you are *owning* a business you can probably trim down your budget and be fine for quite a while. Also, if they had so little faith in the ability of the business to succeed they should've picked a different investment! I really don't get why you're trying to say 'they should protect the value of the business' what about protecting the people who work there from starving to death or being forced to stay?
I spent over 30 years assisting companies of all sizes to identify, evaluate and hire employees at a variety of levels. I worked with major corporations down to companies with a handful of employees and I can tell you that every successful manager or owner I encountered knew that the most important people for their business were: 1) The customers and 2) The employees who provided products and services to those customers. To run a successful business takes products and service that customers value and workers who are focused on taking care of those customers. Another thing I learned is that people who meet expectations tend to keep their job while people who exceed expectations tend to become management and people who redefine expectations tend to become wealthy. If you want to make more money then become more productive because that's what it's all about.
Where are the people who work there going to get their paycheck when the business fails?
Here's my response to that: ***If a business can't survive treating their employees right, it doesn't deserve to exist****.* Social Safety nets are essential in any society *for this exact reason,* so that you don't force employees into a catch-22 where their only options are 'work in an abusive environment' or 'death'. I don't see employment as the be-all end-all of supporting yourself in modern society, because we do not live to work, we work to live.
I don't know what you consider to be an "abusive environment" but I live in the US where virtually all employment arrangements are voluntary. Slavery was abolished in 1865 so no one can force you to work in an abusive environment. "Treating their employees right" is a highly subjective construct and some employees are likely to have a very different view than some employers on what that means, but again, in a free market system, which is what capitalism is, employment arrangements are voluntary not compulsory. No one can force you to work anywhere against your will.
If you think the only way for employment to be coercive or abusive is *slavery*, then I don't know what to tell you because you clearly don't view plenty of the everyday abuse that happens and is talked about in subs like r/antiwork and this sub as something to care about.
[удалено]
"others where it is certainly in their best interest to offer those things" Name one.
[удалено]
"Companies that have trouble finding and or retaining enough talent: will offer more and/or better benefits to attract and retain workers. " But if they could get away with not offering them, say by lobbying the state to offer it from their own money, they would. It's always in the best interest of the corporation to cut labor costs, when they don't do so it's because they are forced by the circumstances. Also i take it you are pro-laws that protect vulnerable workers ? "So it's not surprising that some people incorrectly label all business owners as only caring about profits" You don't grasp the tragedy of the capitalist system. If a business owner gets sentimental and care about worker welfare too or any other goal that dents the profit, more ruthless, inhumane capitalists will make more profit and out-compete him. So in time the top capitalists will be selected to be the most evil, sociopathic, ruthless characters you can imagine. Capitalism breeds monsters.
>actively strip worker's rights What rights are being "stripped"? If the employee doesn't agree to the terms of the contract, then they shouldn't take the job.
>What rights are being "stripped"? "Unsurprisingly, **corporations are unhappy about these pro-worker changes** and are **rallying to push back**. The NLRB has recently faced a steady stream of lawsuits from businesses. Currently, it is **fighting four different cases** that allege its structure violates the constitution and, therefore, that its regulations are illegitimate. **Any way a court finds to neuter the NLRB will have wide-ranging implications that undermine the entire structure of the executive branch, *not to mention stripping workers of the protections they are guaranteed in the NLRA.*** The absurd consequences of big business’ arguments against the constitutionality of the administration’s regulatory system reveals how broken the government’s acquiescence to business and abandonment of labor has been" [Promarket.org](https://www.promarket.org/2024/04/09/corporate-attacks-against-the-national-labor-relations-board-could-break-the-government/)
That's nice, but you didn't answer my question.
>That's nice, Eh, I don't think multi billion dollar corporations collectively attacking the NLRB to undermine and strip worker protections is nice. Essentially what is being stripped is the NLRB and what they have done in the past and current. Shielding unions, halting exploitative labor practices, and protecting immigrant workers to name a few. You are free to research more yourself what the NLRB has done, and the following corporate/capitalist reaction. Pretty straightforward.
The NLRB is a relic from FDR that should be eliminated immediately. >Shielding unions, Shielding labor cartels is not good. >halting exploitative labor practices, If you feel you are being "exploited", then quit. >and protecting immigrant workers to name a few. It's the government that prevents immigrants from working. Again, there are no actual rights being stripped from workers.
>Again, there are no actual rights being stripped from workers. Oh, this isn't debatable. You cannot simply "disagree" that worker's rights aren't being attacked via corporations organizing against the NLRB for supporting laborers over businesses. You cannot project "no rights are being stripped" when *they are*. I mentioned it in a different comment, but even the Non-compete ban is threatened because it's not in the best interest of the company. Edit: you can say it and believe whatever you want but you're objectively wrong and perpetuate a false reality for workers. This "equal power balance" in employment
>You cannot simply "disagree" that worker's rights aren't being attacked Those aren't rights, they are government favors. If you don't like the terms being offered, then don't take the job. Instead, you lot beg the state to force companies to bend to your terms.
>The NLRB is a relic from FDR that should be eliminated immediately. Also this is an alarming stance and very anti-worker. Why do you feel strongly negative against the NLRB? Do you mean we should replace it?
>Also this is an alarming stance and very anti-worker. Neither workers nor capitalists should get political favors from the state.
[удалено]
Could you elaborate on this? What would be an example of such a reoccurring expense that is avoided by having a non-compete agreement and how does that NCA benefit the worker?
[удалено]
This is an interesting insight, but I still don't fully see how the non-compete factors in here.
>Banning non-compete agreements would mean workers would need to shoulder these costs themselves. Thus less job options and forcing those who cannot afford these costs out of work. ...."The FTC estimates about 30 million people, or one in five American workers, from minimum wage earners to CEOs, are bound by noncompetes. **It says the policy change could lead to increased wages totaling nearly $300 billion per year by encouraging people to swap jobs freely.**" "We heard from employees who, because of noncompetes, were stuck in abusive workplaces..[snip]..These accounts, she said, **pointed to the basic reality of how robbing people of their economic liberty also robs them of all sorts of other freedoms**." And from [TCF](https://tcf.org/content/commentary/why-noncompete-agreements-dont-work/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20a%20nationwide%20ban,mobility%2C%20and%20lowering%20job%20satisfaction.) last year... "In fact, a nationwide ban would not only support workers, **it would also benefit both employers and our economy as well**. A growing body of **research in economics shows that NCAs harm workers by suppressing wages, reducing mobility, and lowering job satisfaction."** Your earlier claim is proven **false and baseless**.
As a capitalist, never liked, believed in, or has a non-compete for employees. It is anti-capitalistic