Support NeoGAF

[KSweeley]

This makes absolutely no sense, why are employers requiring non-compete agreements for low-wage workers???: http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-noncompete-low-wage-20170705-story.html

Employers have long relied on non-compete agreements to keep highly skilled and highly paid workers from jumping to competitors and stealing trade secrets.

But such agreements are spreading into the broader workplace, even among low-wage workers, new research shows. That’s sparking debate whether the contracts hurt employees by limiting limiting their freedom to get a new job and stunting wage growth or whether they offer vital protections businesses increasingly need in a service-based economy.

“Non-competes are being used systematically, even for workers who have no access to trade secrets or less than a college education,” said Evan Starr, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, Management and Organization who has done extensive research on the topic.

The arrangements typically prohibit employees from leaving to join or start businesses that would compete with their employer for a certain amount of time.

A few cases of low-wage workers challenging non-competes have grabbed headlines over the past few years, including a Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches employment contract that applied to low-wage sandwich makers and delivery drivers and a non-compete clause in contracts for Amazon warehouse workers, which prevented them from moving to competing companies for 18 months. After Amazon’s practice was publicized in 2015, the online retailer reportedly removed that clause.

Last month, New York’s attorney general reached a settlement with Jimmy John’s in which the sandwich shop franchiser agreed to stop including sample non-compete agreements in hiring packets it sends to franchisees. Under the agreement, sandwich makers who left Jimmy John’s could not work for two years at any business within two miles of any Jimmy John’s that made more than 10 percent of its sales from sandwiches.

 

[Stinkles]

The purpose of it at that level is to provide an illegal hurdle to competition. Subway for example would have a harder time hiring nearby.

At the high end it's to protect ideas, plans and methods, and a sandwich is none of these.


I would also say they're only rarely enforced and then with high stakes employees. It would duck to be mid tier and have your resume rejected because of the legal risk you present.

 

[Shauni]

Petty shit right there. I mean, realistically, how are they even going to enforce this if someone leaves Jimmy Johns to go to Subway or something? Like are they going to have roving patrols to each store to figure out if a fucking sandwich worker from nearly two years ago is working at the nearby competition?

 

[Carnby]

Non competes aren't even enforcable.

 

[jwk94]

Yep it sucks. If I want a new job, I'd have to leave the industry I'm in (and love) unless I want to be jobless for six months.

 

[smurfx]

Petty shit right there. I mean, realistically, how are they even going to enforce this if someone leaves Jimmy Johns to go to Subway or something? Like are they going to have roving patrols to each store to figure out if a fucking sandwich worker from nearly two years ago is working at the nearby competition?

maybe it acts as a deterrent from leaving? i know these stores have a high turnover rate so maybe they put this crap in to minimize it.

 

[Stinkles]

Non competes aren't even enforcable.

Yes they are. And it happens all the time. But not at the sandwich level...

 

[I H8 Memes]

From their perspective it cant hurt. Might not actually help anything but it cant hurt. If people are signing them then whats the problem. Got a problem with it then dont take the job.

 

[Steel]

Non competes aren't even enforcable.

Yes, they definitely are. At least to an extent they can bring it to court long enough to drown their opponent in legal fees.

 

[Carnby]

Yes they are. And it happens all the time. But not at the sandwich level...

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

 

[Alx]

Aren't you supposed to offer a financial compensation for all duration of the non competing period ? I know that my former (small) company didn't enforcce that clause even for its R&D engineers because it would rather not pay for it.

 

[Unicorn]

yeah, this was a thing when I was switching retail jobs. Went from grocery to walmart and they pulled the non-compete. I was like, lol, there's no competition as the grocery store is overpriced. My friend didn't get hired for whatever reason and we worked at the same place.

non-compete for people that need multiple jobs for income just to meet ends meet is such fucking bullshit. Fuck your petty "competition." Me scanning produce at one place and then scanning ramen at another isn't going to affect your CEO

 

[KSweeley]

Amazon even had a non-compete clause that prevented their warehouse employees from going to a competing company for 18 entire months:

a non-compete clause in contracts for Amazon warehouse workers, which prevented them from moving to competing companies for 18 months. After Amazon’s practice was publicized in 2015, the online retailer reportedly removed that clause.

 

[Nabbis]

Good thing those are illegal here. But realistically, you won't get a better wage in another low skilled position in this country. As i suppose is everywhere. Actual negotiation only applies to in demand positions, otherwise it's a wage that has been negotiated with your union.

 

[bengraven]

Would suck for my line of work. Everyone who quits or fired can find work with the competition instantly.

We already combat disclosure by not telling the employees a fucking thing.

 

[GrapeApes]

States really need to start legislating this. Corporations are just going to eat our lunch if we let them.

 

[rambis]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

What do you mean by enforcable?


Either way I know for certain that I wouldn't have gotten the job I got in March if my previous employer didn't waive my non compete. Thats as "enforcable" as it needs to be for me to think its an huge issue.

 

[Stinkles]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

I didn't say it succeeds all the time I said firms do it all the time. I found dozens of examples but here's a typical case - throws your life into chaos and eventually is challenged. The scary thing is if you're not all that important they may not fight for you.

It's an obstacle not necessarily a barrier.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...ogle-cloud-job-new-test-non-compete-laws/amp/

 

[Flying Toaster]

Only reason for non-compete is to protect ideas such as in the area of research and development... even at that level with a good lawyer one could get around it. This is utter crap and needs to stop at lower income based jobs.

 

[entremet]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

They are. We lost someone recently due to it.

 

[Faddy]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

It varies by state. California is probably the most notable in this area because it will not honor or enforce non complete clauses.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

It is honestly situational. Most people that have them honor them as to fight it is a damn nightmare and really expensive and time consuming.

 

[GuyKazama]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

Varies by state. They are not enforceable in California.

 

[GiantBombGamer]

Even the postal service uses them, for a good long time after too you cannot work for competing services such as UPS or Fed Ex because their methods of being slow and unreliable in package delivery are trade secrets!

 

[ZOONAMI]

In most states they are completely unenforceable so I don't know why employers try to use them.

Usually they are technically enforceable but courts tend to disfavor enforcing them in general. People need to make a living and doing so in the field they have experience in only makes sense. So usually they will consider them unreasonable and tell the employer to stuff it.

Usually the employer isn't actually going to pursue any legal action if they find you've taken a similar position as well. Unless you are an executive or some shit where they really feel you could hurt them. If you are just Joe blow it isn't worth their time. They just have you sign it hoping you think you have to honor it so you don't end up helping the competition for as long as possible after leaving.

 

[Condom]

'Free market™'

@Zoonami good to see it being non enforceable in most cases

 

[Flying Toaster]

Even the postal service uses them, for a good long time after too you cannot work for competing services such as UPS or Fed Ex because their methods of being slow and unreliable in package delivery are trade secrets!

I have a feeling this great post is going to be underappreciated.

 

[GiantBombGamer]

In most states they are completely unenforceable so I don't know why employers try to use them.

So are signs removing all liability from property owners in most cases, but that doesn't stop "at your own risk" signs from being everywhere.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

In most states they are completely unenforceable so I don't know why employers try to use them.

In the case of a low skill worker, they're probably reasonably banking on them not knowing the laws. Or even if they do, not having the ability to substantially fight the clause.

 

[Carnby]

Varies by state. They are not enforceable in California.

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything. Yeah, in my state non competes are toothless.

I recall an example outside of my state... Del Rio left WWE and immediately started working for Lucha Underground. WWE has a non compete clause on every wreslter. Del Rio was the first to say "you can't stop me from working." In return, WWE did nothing to enforce the non compete. The situation made it abundantly clear that non competes mean jack shit.

 

[Linkura]

Really? Based on personal experience and a quick Google search says they aren't.

Depends on the state. They're legal in MA, for one.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

That’s sparking debate whether the contracts hurt employees by limiting limiting their freedom to get a new job and stunting wage growth or whether they offer vital protections businesses increasingly need in a service-based economy.

How is this a debate? It what way doesn't this hurt employees?

 

[Saganator]

How is this a debate? It what way doesn't this hurt employees?

The debate is classic management vs labor. Management will argue it's for the good of business and labor says it's not right/fair. I guess people are debating on whether or not businesses should be allowed to make people sign these contracts.

 

[Straight Edge]

Non competes aren't even enforcable.

My buddy left a shitty job as a debt collector at a call center to work in an insurance company's subrogation department and they tried to sue him.

 

[Carnby]

My buddy left a shitty job as a debt collector at a call center to work in an insurance company's subrogation department and they tried to sue him.

Only tried? What happened in the end?

 

[robochimp]

I've heard that unless you're in Georgia non-competes are toothless.

 

[Dude Abides]

Depends on the state. They're legal in MA, for one.

They're legal in lots of places but generally to be enforceable they have to meet pretty strict criteria. They wouldn't be enforceable agains a MCDonald's cashier. But of course a McDonald's cashier is not likely to know that or be able to afford a lawyer and might be deterred by the possibility of being sued.

 

[TumblingHippo]

It's even worse that a lot of this is popping up in "Right" to Work states. If the business is allowed to fire you for any reason, and the worker is allowed to leave for any reason, then non-competes shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Carnby]

They're legal in lots of places but generally to be enforceable they have to meet pretty strict criteria. They wouldn't be enforceable agains a MCDonald's cashier. But of course a McDonald's cashier is not likely to know that or be able to afford a lawyer and might be deterred by the possibility of being sued.

I doubt McDonald's would even sue a cashier for changing jobs to Burger King. Sounds like a PR nightmare.

 

[kendrid]

Illinois actually got this right and made non-competes illegal for low-wage employees.

 

[Cat Party]

The reason Silicon Valley is in CA (and not MA) is because CA doesn't allow non-compete agreements outside of strict circumstances.

 

[Izuna]

In one part time restaurant job I had, I saw this shut in he contract. I ripped it out and handed the rest in signed.

It's typically generic, but usually is for chefs, managers etc. That is just kept for all regular employees.

 

[Draft]

My sister in law sells travel packages for students. Like two week European bus tours. Not to take anything away from her accomplishments, but she isn't some hot shot key employee that earns millions of dollars a year for her employer. They made her sign a non-compete, and it played at least some role in her not getting a job with a competitor. That is straight up bullshit. It's bullying. I'm positive she could fight and win, but what's the point? Potential employers have options, and they aren't going to take on the headache of taking this to court.

 

[theCalamity]

That's capitalism for you.

 

[Nipo]

I've heard that unless you're in Georgia non-competes are toothless.

I'm in VA. Coworker has spent ~$25,000 fighting a non compete over the last two years. Even if found not valid it is a long stressful process.

 

[Steel]

I've heard that unless you're in Georgia non-competes are toothless.

Father had to fight off a noncompete for years before having to settle because of legal fees in florida, so...

Sure, if you're rich you could probably get a ruling in your favor, but otherwise, not so much.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Terrible. I can't see a single argument for this that doesn't basically amount to "corporations are more important than low wage overly worked employees".

 

[Jon Armdog]

It's even worse that a lot of this is popping up in "Right" to Work states. If the business is allowed to fire you for any reason, and the worker is allowed to leave for any reason, then non-competes shouldn't be allowed.

This is a great point. Very infuriating.

If a business can fire you for any reason, an employee should be able to leave and get a new job in the industry immediately. Either make it 100% a free for all, or don't. But this only-favor-corporate-interests stuff is horseshit hypocracy.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything. Yeah, in my state non competes are toothless.

I recall an example outside of my state... Del Rio left WWE and immediately started working for Lucha Underground. WWE has a non compete clause on every wreslter. Del Rio was the first to say "you can't stop me from working." In return, WWE did nothing to enforce the non compete. The situation made it abundantly clear that non competes mean jack shit.

Yeah it's crazy. State law on the subject varies so much a lot of the battle is arguing what state law applies

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Johnny Jim's never had a chance.