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.
Unenforceable? For years, it was those fast-food chains that were doing the enforcing by NOT HIRING people with previous fast-food work experience. That's the only "enforcement" a worker really cares about. "Unenforceable" only matters if you can afford to hire a very expensive lawyer.
Also, we're not really talking about traditional non-compete clauses as most people know them, despite the headline. We're talking about clearly illegal collusion between major corporations to suppress already-low worker wages. Calling it a "non-compete clause" is like calling a bank robbery a "third-party withdrawal".
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
Dude. You don't get it if you are on the bottom of the food chain. The managers don't give a shit and will hire someone else instead. This was a result of a big mega fast food chain owner to prevent these poor guys from working 2nd or 3rd jobs to support their families and to always be oncall ... uncompensated of course.
You could whine about the evils of socialism like most Americans (assume you are but not everyone is) but unions were formed to prevent this from those who have 0 bargaining power to be fucked over.
http://saveie6.com/