Slashdot Mirror
Finally, Non-Compete Clauses Eliminated... For Fast Food Workers (npr.org)
"Non-compete clauses are common among professionals, justified by a variety of innocuous-sounding and apparently reasonable business reasons," writes Slashdot reader Beeftopia. "This story shows that, surprisingly, it is a very effective wage suppression mechanism as well, used in industries where it would seem unnecessary."
NPR reports: For many years, fast-food franchises agreed not to recruit or hire one another's workers within the same chain. These "no-poach agreements," as they are known, meant a worker couldn't get better pay or move up the ladder by going to another franchise. Bob Ferguson, Washington's attorney general, said such agreements are clearly illegal. "These no-poach clauses, I think, are an example of a rigged system," he said. "I think you're a worker, you have no idea this clause exists, you haven't signed it. And yet when you try to go to another business to improve your wages, you can't do it, because of this condition in a contract that you never signed..."
Princeton economist Alan Krueger says such restrictions make the labor market work inefficiently, keeping wages artificially low. "I think it's very hard to come up with a sound business justification for this practice, other than reducing competition for workers," he says.
Arby's, Carl's Jr., and five other fast food chains agreed "under pressure" to stop enforcing their non-compete agreements, while eight more chains are currently being investigated by a coalition of 11 state attorney generals. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey reports that 80% of fast food workers are currently locked into non-compete agreements, according to Food & Wine magazine.
"Though a statement from the International Franchise Association argues that these agreements are necessary to keep employees from jumping ship before the expense to train them has been recouped, opponents of these clauses suggest the industrywide benefit of suppressing wages may be the real driving factor."
NPR reports: For many years, fast-food franchises agreed not to recruit or hire one another's workers within the same chain. These "no-poach agreements," as they are known, meant a worker couldn't get better pay or move up the ladder by going to another franchise. Bob Ferguson, Washington's attorney general, said such agreements are clearly illegal. "These no-poach clauses, I think, are an example of a rigged system," he said. "I think you're a worker, you have no idea this clause exists, you haven't signed it. And yet when you try to go to another business to improve your wages, you can't do it, because of this condition in a contract that you never signed..."
Princeton economist Alan Krueger says such restrictions make the labor market work inefficiently, keeping wages artificially low. "I think it's very hard to come up with a sound business justification for this practice, other than reducing competition for workers," he says.
Arby's, Carl's Jr., and five other fast food chains agreed "under pressure" to stop enforcing their non-compete agreements, while eight more chains are currently being investigated by a coalition of 11 state attorney generals. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey reports that 80% of fast food workers are currently locked into non-compete agreements, according to Food & Wine magazine.
"Though a statement from the International Franchise Association argues that these agreements are necessary to keep employees from jumping ship before the expense to train them has been recouped, opponents of these clauses suggest the industrywide benefit of suppressing wages may be the real driving factor."
One of the first things you learn in law school is that this kind of non-compete clause is virtually unenforceable in most U.S. jurisdictions as it is unconscionable as a matter of public policy. If you are so unskilled as to only be able to get a fast food job, then a non-compete clause would make it so you couldn't get -any- job.
"Though a statement from the International Franchise Association argues that these agreements are necessary to keep employees from jumping ship before the expense to train them has been recouped," - I'd recommend creating a workplace where employees wont want to 'jump ship'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of the competition process?
Clearly since the clauses exist and are apparently being defended something is going on here, but how is that possible? Fast food work is only a couple rungs up from the bottom. I would have guessed that there's no meaningful gains to be had by pursuing lateral mobility. Given the managers are exploited even more than the hourly types, well, I must be ignorant of something.
He's the best, ok? Offer him 11.25..no, 11.50 an hour! He makes the best fries in all of Boston!
Yes, non-compete agreements are definitely the reason fast food workers receive low wages. Without non-competes, we would see an elite class of fast food worker who can market their skills to the highest bidder.
We can not allow the competition find out what's in our secret sauce. Capcha=appetite
the economy sucks for workers right now. The unemployment rate is always bogus but the 'gig' economy means millions of people are being counted as working because they drive for Uber just enough to pay rent. They're on borrowed time when their cars break down, but this is considered 'employed'. We've doubled productivity in 40 years while simultaneously outsourcing and bringing in tons of H1-Bs for the high skill jobs we were promised when the factory work shipped overseas. Meanwhile automation is kicking up. I know IT workers who've lost net ops jobs to monitoring software. You can say their job wasn't much if they got replaced, but this is a recent thing that the software was good enough to replace them. Like last year or two. You can thank "AI" for that (I know, I know, it's not a "real" AI, doesn't get them their jobs back).
TL;DR: we need to start redistributing those productivity gains with taxes and social programs or we need to get used to being a second world hell hole ala Flint, Mi.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Many of these non-compete agreements exist in states that have Right to Work laws. In a right to work state, how can non-compete agreements even be remotely legal!?
I got a handy payout after the hi-tech equivalent of this was shut down.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/...
Yes, Mr. Krueger. That's why the businesses have them. Businesses are generally against things that make them less profitable.
Nice headline... helps to read the article, though.... to avoid making up shit.
A McDonald's on Gause Blvd can't try to poach workers from the McDonald's on Front Street....
Note that this is NOT about Arby's hiring your expert McDonald's people, it's about another McDonald's hiring them.
As to the legality, I really couldn't say. Depends on whether any two McDonald's are considered part of the same company or not. If not, then it's illegal. If so, then it's probably legal.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I can see expensive executives and senior software architects in order to protect IP, trade secrets, and less wages, but fast food workers? Talk about greed and if these poor saps didn't have life as hard as it already is but what to save a few dollars an hour?
Talk about being kicked when you are down.
I suppose this means the minimum wage is below the market demand already and the owners are just finding loop holes to artificially manipulate the supply/demand curve to their benefit.
It's funny these owners in the States are far right wing and are Free Market Absolutist when it benefits them. The minute they offer below what the Free Market will bear they cry uncle and go out of their way with lawyers about how unfair it is.
http://saveie6.com/
is these shenanigans. Another reason is that minimum wage is the floor. I don't make min wage, but I'm clever enough to realize that my wages are effected by the floor. If somebody can't make enough money to live they'll struggle to make more. Many will fail, but a few succeed. Those guys percolate up the economy, displacing workers at increasingly higher tiers until some of the workers they displaced are competing for my wages.
I'd say low minimum wage cost me at least $10k/yr, and I've got coworkers hired post 2008 who lost closer to $20k to it. I'm basing this off wages after economic crash vs wages pre-economic crash and during stronger economies (pre-H1-B Bonanza).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is a splendid example of capitalism working as it should, i.e. downward pressure on workers' pay that directly benefits shareholders. This is the reason rich people buy shares - in order to get richer.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
How are secret sauces even legal in he US?
Don't you have to, by law, tell people what you are putting in the "food" you sell them.
Or are they simply ageeing that is is not food, and hence does not need a list of ingredients and should not actually be eaten by anyone, but some catch-22 allows people to eat it anyway?
Aka the (part of the) money you got, that wasn't earned.
People are realizing more and more, that the entire "for-profit" economy is merely a crime scheme.
Oh, and "inflation" is anoter word for "Everybody gets a salary reduction! Because we got more money.".
Right-to-Work means that employees can not be forced to pay union dues.
BUT
Non-participating employees receive all of the benefits of a contract negotiated at union expense.
AND
Unions CAN be forced to represent non-participating employees.
It would be fair if the non-participating employees negotiated on their own or represented themselves. Union members compelled to work for someone without restitution is also known as slavery. That is why RTW is also known as Freedom-to-Freeload.
This is collusion and price fixing, all rolled into one.
Who's being arrested for this and put in jail?
And no, restitution to just the workers who got hit by it is not enough.
You need to put the executives in jail and put felony convictions on their records so they can never run another company again.
hadn't doubled in the last 40 years while wages stayed the same or declined. When productivity is skyrocketing and wages are declining something is broken. That is precisely why minimum wage exists.
Demand for wages is only going to fall as new automation kicks into high gear. Slave labor wages have kept that mostly at bay in China, but even there Foxconn is starting to replace workers paid with tea & biscuits with robots. We know exactly what a healthy economy looks like. It looks like Sweden, Norway and Germany. Basically democratic socialism. We're rapidly heading for a post-capitalism economy, and we're already at the point where we need to start implementing solutions to distribute productivity gains because the market is not doing it. This is why economists keep going on about how unemployment is 3.8% and wages aren't going up. The honest ones admit that the economy just doesn't need everybody working anymore. The dishonest ones just scratch their heads...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Money is NOT a commodity. It's a convenient unit of measure used to track the exchange of goods and labor. We've been off the gold standard for a very long time. We had to, our economy was growing to fast for the amount of gold in this world. It was no longer a useful concept.
H1-Bs do hurt, but they're not the only factor. It's naive to assume that everybody at McDonald's is incapable of bettering themselves. Yes, few will make it to my level, but I know damn well some will because _I_ did. I was a pretty laid back guy working a cake walk call center job until I needed more money for my family and picked up some new skills and gunned for new jobs. I didn't do that because I'm overly ambitious, I did it because I needed the money to support my family. I took my hat out of the low end call center ring (where I wasn't making enough to live) and put it into the high end tech support ring (API development, project management and support). Sure, there's 1 less call center employee, but there's 1 more project manager. In that way I've effectively lowered their wages.
A much larger example of this is when women left the home and entered the workforce. They didn't do this for fun or equality. They did it so they could buy nicer houses in nicer neighborhoods where their kids could go to decent schools.
tl;dr. Supply and Demand goes both ways. More labor in a market means lower wages.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is not close to as restrictive as "non-compete" clauses in employee/employer agreements. These clauses (in the cases they are enforceable) typically restrict the employee's right to work for any competitor for some period of time. If enforced, this can make a specialist almost unemployable in some cases. As well, the action will be taken by the ex-employer against the employee -- resulting in the employee incurring legal expenses and, perhaps, requiring her to pay the ex-employer's legal fees as well if she loses the battle.
The agreement in question here is between franchise owners from the same franchisor. As such, it only potentially restricts an employee at one Burger King franchise from working for another Burger King franchise -- that employee is free to work at the other 95%+ of the restaurant jobs in the area that are NOT Burger King franchises. It's an agreement between the franchisees, not the employee and a franchise. As a result, any resulting legal action will not cost the employee legal fees or result in here having to pay the legal fees of the franchisee bringing the legal action in case of a violation.
If one entity owns many franchises (which is not unusual - in fact, one entity may own all the franchises for a particular brand within many miles), the owner is free to have a policy that no store manager is to hire an employee from another one of the owner's franchises unless the applicant has worked at their current store for at least two years. I don't think anyone would argue with that just as they would not argue that a large engineering company can't have a rule that workers can't transfer between groups at their own initiation more than once every two years (such a policy may be unwise, but it certainly is not illegal). If you consider that the franchisor is the owner of the brand, it controls many aspects of the franchisees operations (including cleanliness, consistency of food product, product offerings, employee training, and employee policies) and this is just one more such restriction on employee recruitment so franchise owners don't get screwed by other franchise owners (just as if one franchise was putting out horrible food, it would screw other franchises).
What about a common case where two businesses enter into a relationship for one to sell consulting or contract services to the other? It's very common for the contract to include terms that prohibit the purchaser of these services from poaching the employees of the supplier of the services without the approval of the supplier. Surely no one would argue that's not acceptable. This agreement, like the fast food case, is an agreement between two businesses, not a business and an employee, and doesn't prevent the ex-employee from doing anything or require them to do anything. Both the consultant and the fast food worker are free to apply for jobs at the client of the contracting firm or fast food franchise respectively and accept a job if offered -- they probably won't get hired because the potential employer will probably honor their contract with the other business, but if the potential employer is willing to fight a legal battle, they might make an offer. Note that in small markets and in specialty fields, the contractor/client restriction may narrow an employee's options way more than the fast food restriction does. There may be only three companies within 100 miles that need aeronautical engineers on permanent staff and if an aeronautical engineer ends up working for a job shop that places them into one of these three companies, 1/3 of the employee's future employment options (at least in the near term) have just vaporized. It's quite rare that 1/3 of the fast food jobs in an area with at least three fast food outlets would be at franchises of the same brand.
This does not seem to be nearly as insidious or restrictive as some are claiming.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
that's part of the 40 years of productivity gains. Better software, faster CPUs, longer life cycles for existing hardware. It's not all just AI taking jobs. Not that AI doesn't cost jobs. I've got friends who used to do net ops monitoring who've been replaced by AIs (e.g. the kind that can learn which alerts need to be actioned after some training).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Did the NPR really say, âoe... investigated by a coalition of 11 state attorney generalsâ? The NPR has editors and proofreaders, they know that itâ(TM)s not âoeattorney generalsâ but âoeattorneys generalâ, plus they know that DC is not a state. What their article said was, âoeNow, 10 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia are taking on the issue with an investigation into eight national fast-food chains.â
Copy/paste is your friend.
I ALMOST signed one that would have prevented me from working on this quarter of the globe for 2 years after I left one company I interviewed with.
THey had a short "You will not work for any company listed as a client, potential client, or competitor for 2 years in any position" The list of their Clients, Potential Clients, and Competitors looked like the New York City Phone book.
Yeah, chief. NO. Not for $60K and a 401k