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

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by hammock on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @08:44AM (#12795964)

This comes one week after - and in contrast to - Donald Trump promising in his first 100 days in office a five-year ban on White House officials and Congressman from becoming lobbyists, and a lifetime ban on White House lobbyists from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by MrMullen on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @12:23PM (#12797790)

This, yet again, demonstrates that Trump does not understand how the US Government works. The President does not make laws, Congress does. You think the very people who signed up for a job so they can get rich later are really going to pass a law that limits their ability to get rich later?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by Cabal on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:53AM (#12796410)

Which is a good idea. If you showed someone from 30 years ago how lobbying worked today, they'd declare it was straight-up bribery.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by 0xffff2 on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @03:23PM (#12799600)

a) How is this article in any way related to lobbying?

b) Even if we assume Trump somehow managed to implement his plan, how is it not going to be struck down immediately as a violation of the first amendment? Campaign finance and lobbying are incredibly broken right now, but they currently exist because of a legal framework that can only be changed by a constitutional amendment that (partially) exempts political speech from the promises of the first amendment.

[ Parent | on HN ]