White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @03:54AM (#12794692)

You said "My first piece of evidence" and now "I didn't provide any evidence at all". Given all the downvotes you've gotten, I recommend that you sharpen your debating tactics. You'll probably get better engagement that way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by nickff on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @04:08AM (#12794751)

Ah I'm sorry, I got confused thinking that we had gone back to my comment on taneq's last parent of this branch.

I attribute the downvotes to the unpopularity of non-complete clauses on HN. In addition to that, most of the libertarian and right-leaning users seem to be in North America, so I can count on less sympathy from ~4-12 GMT. It is also possible that my writing has gotten substantially worse in the last few hours, but it seems unlikely that I am being more rude or unfair than I normally am.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by eli_gottlieb on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @11:58AM (#12797536)

Mostly you're getting downvoted because you want to make legal policy based on what you suppose or imagine, rather than what you can demonstrate actually happens.

[ Parent | on HN ]