Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

Locally, the answer was that the folks who could open up a competing practice were under non-compete agreements if they left the PE-owned place. (We had a local legislator step in to help void them.)

https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&catId=3115&Id=1186...

> Marion said early efforts to enlist former VSES doctors or others in the community to start an ER were discouraging. Some VSES doctors had already left the area, some had signed contracts for new jobs locally, most were worried about the constraints of noncompete agreements they signed with Thrive, and "no one seemed eager to take on the tremendous responsibility of owning, managing and running an emergency hospital even with the help and support of the local veterinary community."

View on HN

Good thing non-competes are now illegal.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...

Maybe. After the inevitable judge shopping (I'd predict northern Texas; https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/politics/judge-shopping-north...) leading to a national injunction goes up to SCOTUS, we'll see.

hahahaha. Imagine if SCOTUS decides said law banning non-competes is unconstitutional. Could they do it in such a way to kill the "non-competes are unenforceable" law in CA? that would suck.

No, it's the FTC doesn't have the authority - this is an easy thing to do federally, just convince congress to ban them... most things should not be decided by the executive.

The FTC has had authority to regulate unfair trade practices since 1914.

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

> Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress.

It's hard to see non-competes as anything other than an "unfair method of competition", and it's shameful it has taken this long to act.

And then conveniently load the congress up with conservatives that would never ever deprive a business of their profits. because profits are sacred.

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition Number Ten

My only concern in this context is that this is in relationship to employee relationships. If said vets had an ownership stake in a sold practice, could they be restricted by virtue of this different context?

Will be interesting to see how the recent FTC non compete ban plays out in this space. It seems like a prime candidate to promote competition as the key licensing is held by the individual (the vet) as opposed to the company.

Yes, I'm hoping that holds up in SCOTUS.

I hope you’re planning on voting in November.

Of course, but ask Obama if that guarantees anything as far as SCOTUS goes.

It doesn't guarantee anything, especially given the Republican super-majority already ensconced in SCOTUS, but there's only one small-d democratic way out of this situation...

I don't it's a blatant power grab by a federal agency that doesn't have the authority.

That being said I hope Congress takes up the issue and actually passes a law banning it.

Congress already passed a law granting the ftc the authority to prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair practices affecting commerce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com