DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cuckoo Dems-Part 6

Lets see what those crazy dems are up to;

US Chamber of Commerce and business groups are countering an FTC ruling that now bans employee non-compete clauses.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...ements-setting-legal-showdown-rcna149069


In a ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said noncompete clauses would henceforth be illegal. The measure was necessary, it said, for "protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increasing innovation, and fostering new business formation."



“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism,” said FTC chair Lina M. Khan in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

The FTC estimates nearly one in five Americans are subject to noncompetes. They have grown increasingly common in lower wage or hourly work industries like fast food franchises, restaurants, and security firms, where some employers have sought to limit the ability of workers to effectively raise their pay by looking for work at competing establishments.

In addition to banning all new noncompetes, the FTC's rule applies to all existing noncompete agreements. Employers will now have to provide notice to workers bound to a current noncompete that it will not be enforced against them.

The rule was hailed by labor groups and left-leaning policy experts.

"Noncompetes are about reducing competition, full stop. It’s in their name," said Heidi Shierholz, president of the progressive nonprofit Economic Policy Institute. "Noncompetes are bad for workers, bad for consumers, and bad for the broader economy. This rule is an important step in creating an economy that is not only strong but also works for working people."

The AFL-CIO, America's largest labor group, praised the new rule in a post on X Tuesday, saying noncompete agreements "trap workers from finding better jobs, drive down wages, and stifle competition."

But business groups are already hitting out at the ban, saying noncompetes are essential to protecting trade secrets and proprietary information. The groups also say noncompetes ultimately help workers by engendering a more collaborative firm environment and limiting so-called "free riders," or employees who seek to capitalize on a specific company's methods and taking that knowledge elsewhere.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobby, said it plans to sue the FTC over the ruling. In a statement, it called the ban an "unlawful power grab."

“This decision sets a dangerous precedent for government micromanagement of business and can harm employers, workers, and our economy," it said.

Separately. a Dallas-based tax services firm filed a lawsuit in Texas federal court — which has proven hostile to Biden administration rulings — challenging not only the ban but the very structure of the FTC itself.

"We stand firm in our commitment to serve the rightful interest of every company to retain its proprietary formulas for success taught in good faith to its own employees,” said chairman and CEO G. Brint Ryan said in a statement.

The FTC's rule is set to go into effect in August, but is unlikely to be enforced until the court challenges are resolved, something that could take years.

new rule to address airline fees

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...rline-cash-refunds-administra-rcna149087

Airlines must cough up cancellation cash and can no longer hide fees under new federal rule

Biden administration cracks down on airline refunds for passengers


April 24, 2024, 6:00 AM EDT
By Jay Blackman and Phil Helsel
A federal rule announced Wednesday will require airlines to quickly give cash refunds — without lengthy arguments — to passengers whose flights have been canceled or seriously delayed, the Biden administration said.

“Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them — without headaches or haggling,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement.

The rule from the Department of Transportation says passengers who decline other reimbursement like travel credits are to get a cash refund.

Image: Salt Lake City travellers
Travelers pass through Salt Lake City International Airport, on Dec. 24, 2021, in Salt Lake City.Rick Bowmer / AP file
It applies to canceled flights or when flights have a “significant change,” the administration said.

A “significant change” includes when departure or arrival times are three or more hours different than scheduled for domestic flights or six hours for international flights, and also cases where the airport is changed or connections added, it said.

Passengers are also to get a refund when their baggage is 12 hours late in delivery for domestic flights.



The new rule comes after promises to hold airlines accountable after major disruptions that made travel hell for passengers, including the 2022 Southwest Airlines meltdown that resulted in almost 17,000 significantly delayed or canceled flights and a missing baggage nightmare.

The Department of Transportation said that the new rule means refunds are automatic, and "airlines must automatically issue refunds without passengers having to explicitly request them or jump through hoops."

Also announced Wednesday was a rule requiring airlines to more clearly disclose so-called "junk fees" such as surprise baggage or other fees, up-front, the department said.

The department said that rule is expected to save fliers around $500 million a year.

The surprise fees are used so that tickets look cheaper than they really are, and then fliers get the unwelcome surprise of fees on checked bags, carry-on bags, or reservation changes — or even discounts that are advertised but the discount only applies to part of the ticket price, officials said.

Airlines will also have to tell fliers clearly that their seat is guaranteed, and they don't have to pay extra to ensure they have a seat for the flight, according to the department.

Airlines for America, an industry trade group, said that its member airlines “offer transparency and vast choice to consumers from first search to touchdown,” and that they do offer cash refunds.

The 11 largest U.S. airlines returned $10.9 billion in cash refunds last year, an increase over the $7.5 billion in 2019 but slightly down from the $11.2 billion in 2022, the group said.

“U.S. airlines are providing more options and better services while ticket prices, including ancillary revenues, are at historic lows,” Airlines for America said.

Left out of the federal changes announced Wednesday are those involving "family seating fees," but the Transportation Department said in a statement that "DOT is planning to propose a separate rule that bans airlines from charging these junk fees."

Travelers have complained to the DOT that children were not seated next to an accompanying adult, including in some cases young children, department officials said last year.

Fees on bags specifically have made up an increasing amount of airline revenues, the DOT said Wednesday in announcing the new rules.

A department analysis found that airline revenue from baggage fees increased 30 percent between 2018 and 2022, while operating revenue — which is from the flights themselves — increased by only half that amount, the DOT said.

Jay Blackman
Jay Blackman is an NBC News producer covering such areas as transportation, space, medical and consumer issues.


Phil Helsel
Phil Helsel is a reporter for NBC News.

Many more "salaried" workers now able to get overtime pay after new ruling


https://abc11.com/biden-salary-overtime-pay-rule-department-of-labor/14725430/


Millions more salaried workers will be eligible for overtime pay starting this summer
About 4 million more workers will qualify for overtime when the rule is fully implemented in January, the agency estimates.

ByTami Luhby, CNN, CNNWire
Wednesday, April 24, 2024 5:05AM






More salaried workers to qualify for overtime pay starting July 1

About 4 million more workers will qualify for overtime when the rule is fully implemented in January, the agency estimates.
Millions of salaried workers will soon qualify for overtime pay under a final rule released by the US Department of Labor on Tuesday.

The new rule raises the salary threshold under which salaried employees are eligible for overtime in two stages. The threshold will increase to the equivalent of an annual salary of $43,888, or $844 a week, starting July 1, and then to $58,656, or $1,128 a week, on January 1, 2025.

About 4 million more workers will qualify for overtime when the rule is fully implemented in January, the agency estimates. In its first year, the rule is expected to result in an income transfer of about $1.5 billion from employers to workers, mainly from new overtime premiums or from pay raises to maintain the exempt status of some affected employees.

"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," acting Labor Secretary Julie Su said in a statement. "Too often, lower-paid salaried workers are doing the same job as their hourly counterparts but are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay. That is unacceptable."

The current threshold is $35,568 a year, or $684 per week, which was put in place by the Trump administration in 2019.





The salary threshold will be updated every three years, starting July 1, 2027, the agency said.


Business groups are expected to fight the effort, as they successfully did when the Obama administration attempted to significantly hike the threshold. Trade associations quickly pushed back on the latest proposed rule when it was released in August, saying it would raise their members' costs and hurt their operations.

"I suspect that such substantial increases may be a particular burden for many smaller businesses, forcing some to choose between cutting jobs and raising prices," said Ted Hollis, a partner at Quarles & Brady, a law firm. "Some businesses that cannot do either may be forced to close, resulting in unintended but predictable side effects of this government action."

The rule will "exponentially increase" operating costs for small restaurant owners who are "trying desperately" to keep menu prices steady, Sean Kennedy, executive vice president of public affairs for the National Restaurant Association, said in a statement.


"And because DOL created a one-size-fits-all rule based on national income data, rather than regional data, this change is going to disproportionately impact restaurant owners in the South and Midwest," he said.

Ben Brubeck, vice president of regulatory, labor and state affairs at Associated Builders and Contractors, said the rule will disrupt the entire construction industry and noted that the trade group will consider all options, including a legal challenge. The rule will "greatly restrict employee workplace flexibility in setting schedules and hours, hurting career advancement opportunities," he said in a statement.

In 2016, then-President Barack Obama asked the Labor Department to overhaul federal overtime rules and raise the salary threshold to $47,476 a year, or $913 a week. That would have roughly doubled the level that was in place at the time.

But business groups and 21 states sued, and later that year, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction. The Trump administration said in 2017 that it would not defend the rule and later lifted the threshold to the current level.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246655366/ftc-bans-noncompete-agreements-lina-khan

From the article on NPR above; I think that number is really high, though

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.

I'm actually very much in favor of banning noncompetes, unless specific consideration (read $$$$$) was given separately, either as a clause or as a separate contract. In that case, I think it should be enforced.

From my own OG conservative viewpoint, I actually think it's the role of government to foster competition, because that drives companies to give a better product and try harder. In this case, it drives companies to be more incentivized to retain better talent. Let's face it. The pro-corporation element running rampant through neo-conservativism has driven both product quality and innovation down. See Boeing, et al.

The trade secrets and proprietary information assertions are a tired excuse. I've seen my corporate counterparts shout those from a rooftop for everything. "Hey, Bob, why didn't you give me that proposal on time?" "TRADE SECRETS AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION!"

"How's the weather?" "TRADE SECRETS AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION!!!!"

It's a lazy excuse. I would also be more than confident that they have other clauses or contracts with their employees that are essential non-disclosure agreements that would ban the sharing of that type of information anyhow. I didn't see anything about this ruling that would nullify those provisions.

Stop with your conspiracy theories!!





"manipulated props", couldn't have said it better myself.

Sad, disgusting and out of control. I wonder if anyone will tell Joe?

As a person that had to fight a Non Compete, I'm glad they are gone. It's like "Golden Handcuffs" that a company can use to control your life. You gotta leave your chosen field for a period of time before you can resume it. Besides they are worthless. There are a lot of ways around them.

Regarding the airline stuff, tell me again what's wrong with an airline paying for an inconvience to their customers?

Regarding the OT thing: Are you suggesting that a person on Salary, being required to work over 40 hours per week and not be paid for it is a good thing?

I guess I just don't see much wrong with these things.

Daman, see my top line about “what those crazy dems are up to.” it was satirical headline.
These are all very good for the working folk.

And they are also supposed to be going after Ticketmaster fees also.

All good things

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...y-hour-free-Palestine-Massachusetts.html

Libtard story hour.

"Four More Years. PAUSE."

What a dumbass.

.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/23/joe-biden-debunked-18-wheeler-campaign-stop-florida/

Demented Joe still claiming he used to drive an 18 wheeler.

We know who the real liars are. They’re all in court daily facing the music.

It's all a distraction from what's going on which they seemingly have nothing to say about.

Charles Payne rips California's proposed exit tax: You can check out any time...

Exit tax? If I want to move my business, I have to pay hush money??

It looks like they are initially doing it to go after billionaires leaving the state. Might be aimed at Musk, honestly.

However, the way it is set up, I think it will be challenged on constitutional grounds. I don't see how the law would stand up to a constitutional challenge either.

I do think the law may be aimed at a legitimate problem, which I call the "locust billionaire/corporation" problem. This is where corporations, like NCR out of Dayton, and a host of others, will move to a state with tax breaks, use it up for all it's worth, and then move to another place when it is more opportunistic and benefits in the current state run out. It ultimately results in a likely net loss for the state, despite the jobs and whatnot. It's not unlike how sports owners threaten to move if their home state/city won't build them a new stadium with taxpayer funds.

This law however seems like an unconstitutional band-aid to a greater problem. The bigger issue is states that seem to undercut others in order to entice corporations away. It is short-term gains for the politicians that get the company to move into the state, where they can say "It's someone else's problem" if the corporation then decides to up and move out down the road. Not sure what the fix is there because that would require states and politicians to cooperate with each other. In the post-Jack Welch environment, corporations and billionaires will shrewdly chase whatever benefits them. That much is consistent and dependable.

Not exactly billionaires.

I understand your explanation and love the locust moniker. I don't understand how this stops it though. Punishing those who leave does nothing to encourage someone else to come -- and in this case -- quite the opposite. It's actually a perfect picture of the "It's someone else's problem" example.

Food for thought in this example: I know I'm leaving because your state sucks. I reinvest a s___ton in tech that fiscal year (completely portable). Take any other advantage to make sure I'm at the lowest income possible, pay the tax, and stick a big middle finger in your face. So, for every ten large businesses that leave, Cali can build a new windmill. Not sure I would call that a net gain. Or do they entice new businesses to come with massive tax breaks? You've already explained how dumb that would be.

Drag queen story time reaching a new level.

"C'mon kids, all together... FREE PALESTINE!!"


'Queer Storytime for Palestine' slammed by former IDF sergeant: 'Indoctrination'



And look, so proud of themselves for being woke!!

Yeah, I agree. I got the "billionaires initially" reference from the article itself. I closed the tab now, but one of the points said something along the lines of "initially aimed at billionaires and then moves on progressively from there.

I don't think this stops it either, hence the band-aid reference. I perhaps should have expounded on band-aid over a leak in the hoover dam. It really seems more like posturing than anything else, because I think that it's prima facie unconstitutional.

As to your example, I think it's a good one. I don't really know what the overarching long-term goal of this was, if there even was one. Perhaps they had already enticed a lot of corporations to come in via those tax breaks and now they are taking the stick approach, vs the carrot, to keep them from leaving. Again, though, I don't think this will be a practical solution to that dilemma though.

Massive tax breaks have gotten us to where we are now. Billionaires paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. And each and every time they have gotten these tax breaks none of the money has been given in the form of discounts to the consumer or an increase in jobs. Yet they have states competing to give away millions in tax breaks to get them to move there. The loser always ends up bring the every day tax payer.

I agree this law ends up being counterproductive and wasn't well thought out. But someone needs to come up with a plan where states stop greasing the wheels for big business. And let's be honest here, none of this has to do with "I'm leaving because your state sucks". It's all about the money.

Still triggered about Drag Queen story time?

Very reasonable observations. I'm so big on common sense and see such a lack of it across the board.

This from The Center Square... slightly right leaning (although I never know how that matters when facts are presented).



This is a perfect example of:





(Since I know you love the memes )

I had n o idea dawglover loved memes?

We used to have that flag hanging up in our SCIF. It definitely seems like Texas is getting an influx of corporations from elsewhere, California being one of those places. I don't know anything beyond that in terms of the "why" substantively.

Haha. We had it hanging in the kitchen at my restaurant... right next to the "BANG HEAD HERE" target. 🤣

I'm glad the gubment is here to protect my eyes and ears, that video was scaaaary!

Mike Johnson is a Republican. You posted this in the wrong thread.

You may wish to move this to the Cra Cra Republican thread or I could help you with that if you like.

MAGAts playing victim, what’s new?

I was hoping that was the case. Thanks

Demented Biden at it again.

Hostage says the atmosphere inside was rather peaceful compared to many unpeaceful things...

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the protesters are actually students. Can you imagine forking up the money to send your kid to an Ivy League school and then they pull off crap like that? Oh man, the fire that would rain from me...

Columbia University building occupation led by people not affiliated with the university, spokesperson says

The demonstrators who broke into Hamilton Hall on Tuesday were led by people not affiliated with Columbia University, according to a university spokesperson.

“We regret that protesters have chosen to escalate the situation through their actions. After the University learned overnight that Hamilton Hall had been occupied, vandalized, and blockaded, we were left with no choice. Columbia public safety personnel were forced out of the building, and a member of our facilities team was threatened. We will not risk the safety of our community or the potential for further escalation,” the spokesperson said in a statement outlining the New York Police Department’s arrival on campus Tuesday evening.

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-n...30-24/h_a47be8736e6e739ec44ecb5d6a871b77

Over half arrested in UT pro-Palestinian protests had no campus ties, school officials say

Of the 79 people arrested Monday, 45 of them had “no affiliation with UT Austin,” a university statement noted.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2024/04/30/ut-protests-arrests/

At least half of the demonstrators inside Columbia are not affiliated with the school, law enforcement say

At least half of the demonstrators on the Columbia University campus are not affiliated with the university, a law enforcement official tells CNN.

The number of protesters on campus fades and surges depending on what’s going on, anywhere from 250 to 400 people, the official said.

While there is no official request from Columbia for New York Police Department assistance, teams of officers around the city are preparing to go in once word is given from the university, the official said.

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-n...30-24/h_135f8a215ab692d65079dab7d4802ac9

As a point of reference it states that there were between 250-400 protestors at any given point in time at Columbia University. Law enforcement said that at least half of them were not affiliated with the university. Columbia's student body consists of 36,649 students.

What's next, a peaceful beheading?

Kinda has a Summer 2020 vibe to it.......Oh, memories.

Yes. It seems that being a pig-agitator-terrorist is now a lucrative career choice, and openly funding them is perfectly acceptable. That doesn't excuse responsibility from students that participate though. Well, in most people's opinion anyway.

Eric Adams just spent most of his press conference blaming "professional agitators", it almost sounded like the poor innocent kids on drugs speak from the 90s, when we wanted it to be all the drug pushers' fault and alleviate all personal responsibility. We're still playing that game.

I can see where this is going now. The students will be "victims". Which bodes well for Biden's White House. Zero-dark-thirty for weeks on end will quickly become messages condemning "the agitators". The spoiled brats that started everything will walk away with little to no punishment. And the beat goes on.

We basically had that on Jan 6th. Not that I supported either. Also the people that took over that building are reportedly directed by outside influences not affiliated with the college.

Or a Jan.6th/Charlottesville vibe.