Slashdot Mirror
Too Many Workers Are Trapped By Non-Competes (bloomberg.com)
Why have wages been so slow to rise at a time when demand for workers has pushed the U.S. unemployment rate to its lowest point in nearly half a century? One answer: contracts that tie millions of unspecialized workers to their jobs. Bloomberg reports: In far too many cases, these so-called noncompetes are an unwarranted restriction on freedom to transact and a drag on growth. If Congress won't act to narrow their scope, states should take the lead. The desire to keep workers from defecting to rival employers is as old as employment itself. As far back as the 15th century, English masters, such as dyers or blacksmiths, made apprentices promise not to set up shop nearby. Courts often refused to uphold such agreements, viewing them as coercive. As a House of Lords decision put it in 1893, "There is obviously more freedom of contract between buyer and seller than between master and servant or between an employer and a person seeking employment."
More than a century later, the idea is back in vogue, as companies exploit the power that comes with increasing size and market concentration. In the U.S., new employees are commonly required to sign contracts that forbid them to work in the same industry for a given period. The practice makes sense for highly paid jobs involving big investments in training, and for staff with valuable proprietary knowledge. But it isn't being limited to those kinds of employees. A 2014 survey found that about two in five workers were or had at some point been bound in this way, including workers such as security guards and camp counselors. Some 12 percent of employees without a bachelor's degree and earning less than $40,000 a year were tied down.
More than a century later, the idea is back in vogue, as companies exploit the power that comes with increasing size and market concentration. In the U.S., new employees are commonly required to sign contracts that forbid them to work in the same industry for a given period. The practice makes sense for highly paid jobs involving big investments in training, and for staff with valuable proprietary knowledge. But it isn't being limited to those kinds of employees. A 2014 survey found that about two in five workers were or had at some point been bound in this way, including workers such as security guards and camp counselors. Some 12 percent of employees without a bachelor's degree and earning less than $40,000 a year were tied down.
Met an employer that deserved to be trusted with a non compete and I have never agreed to such a thing
Companies should be forced to pay the full salary + benefits + average bonuses for the non-compete period. So if they don't want you working for a competitor for 12 months, then they should give you a full salary for 12 months while you are on gardening leave.
Non competes are hardly enforceable. It might be a legal battle if you are a CEO that ran off with trade secrets to start a new company, but a guy making 40k? Please, no one gives a fuck what you do, they only wrote it in the contract because people fall for it.
Those, along with arbitration agreements, should be considered abjectly invalid agreements in terms of being asked to give up important fundamental rights to important freedoms in any society.
Rather, going forward, groups that demand you sign such invalid contracts should be considered to be committing an act of fraud by pressuring you with 'agreements' involving you giving up such important access to important rights and freedoms.
The focus should rather be on making the justice system itself more accessible, less expensive and filled with delays. Less focused on basically ruining lives for the sake of vengeance and filling jails, and more on making society function with less harm over time, and more companies shut down for bad intentions or deception.
Ryan Fenton
In general, non-competes for non-executive employees are not enforceable. I can't think of a single case where a noncompete against a developer has been upheld in court.
If You Can't Do The Time!
DON'T DO IT!
Trump Powa!
1) These kinds of contracts that are completely one sided toward the employer are unethical business practice and should be limited.
2) In many cases, it's not really about training, it's about poaching. Take, for example, service techs. Service techs are very often the front lines of a company's sales. They have the client's ear better than anyone else, and often clients like working with a company specifically because they like working with a particular service tech who is reliable and efficient and they trust. If Company B can poach that service tech, then they can often also poach a lot of potential clients. In reality, that's the primary reason why these contracts exist, companies don't want to lose employee investment to competitors, but the REALLY don't want to lose clients.
3) Rather than enslavement contracts, companies should handle this problem by making sure their employees are happy in their current jobs and are very difficult to poach.
We have the same situation here without people being tied to contracts. I think the reason lies elsewhere.
truth+mercy=justice.. time to ask the kids what to do next? in the moms we trust...
Non-competes are a problem, yes, but not the cause of wage stagnation. Job mobility is higher than it's ever been, despite the rash of non-compete contracts. Changing jobs (or threatening to) is often the only way to get a raise now, but it wasn't always this way. The main problem is that companies no longer value experience (except perhaps at hiring time but often not even then) and believe every employee with similar education is interchangeable.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
jimmy johns had an non compete for min wage works and they dropped it after an lawsuit.
The practice makes sense for highly paid jobs involving big investments in training, and for staff with valuable proprietary knowledge.
No, it does not make sense. What are the companies gonna do? Go without? There are other ways to tie employees to a company. Make it beneficial to the employee to not harm the company. Stock options, pensions, etc. can all be used to increase loyalty, even after employment ends. Non-competes should simply be illegal, full stop. If the company stops paying, their right to control what the employee can do ends.
If you don't like the terms, you dont have to take the job, you dumb as rock libtard.
In Belgium (and probably the rest of Europe in some form or another) a non-compete clausule is possible. However it is limited to those who make serious money (thing CxO) if generic and pretty limiting when it is more specific to the function if not.
If you are working in a distribution center lifting boxes, it will be meaningless.
And if you have one, it will be said that the fine is e.g. 6 months pay. What many people do not know is that the fine is for the company to pay.
i.e. if I work at Microsoft as a webdeveloper on their website and I quit and go work for the postal service, I would be allowded to do so, as it is not the competition.
Not only that (here comes the kicker) the company I left must pay me 6 months as signed by them. The excuse that can be said is that I was unable to work for the competition and they pay me for that. See it as a sort of severance pay.
I used to work for a company where I had something like that in my contract. The day I was let go, the also retracted that part of the contract.
As always, if you are in a situation like this, consult a lawyer that is knowledgable with these kind of laws. The one who did your divorce will not know enough about this.
So to make it enforcable, they will need to pay. If you still went to the competition AND they have a problem with it, you wil loose your job as of immideately.
Again: IANAL, I just followed some courses concerning the matter. Contact a real one. If you take legal advice on /. you are legally an idiot.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
In many states non-competes are DOA from a legal perspective and serve only as a scare tactic. However, you need to know the applicable law and your rights before signing any kind of contract. For example, would you sign a loan agreement without knowing the interest rate and your legal obligations?
Even if it's enforceable, unless you're taking a couple million worth of accounts or technology with you to a competitor the legal costs of enforcing a non-compete doesn't make it worth the trouble.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
10 years ago, non-competes were invalid under Georgia law. Then we had a referendum on a ballot to put them in. You'd think that normal people would vote against this, right? But here's how it was worded (from ballotpedia.org) on the November 2, 2010 ballot:
And 68% of the idiot voters fell for it.
Perhaps that's a little unfair to the voters. The wording was clearly insanely misleading; to the point where if I were challenging a non-compete in court, I'd probably start with attacking the validity of the ballot referendum as fraudulent (probably a hopeless avenue, I know).
t might be a legal battle if you are a CEO that ran off with trade secrets to start a new company, but a guy making 40k? Please, no one gives a fuck what you do, they only wrote it in the contract because people fall for it.
While it's true that usually companies don't much care, the terms are in there to give them the option to act if they decide they have a reason to care. And someone making 40K isn't going to be able to afford the lawyers to fight that fight so the threat alone tends to be enough to have the desired effect that most companies want. Plus, it's fairly unusual for someone making low wages who isn't doing anything involving trade secrets or sales relationships to be asked to sign a non-compete.
I don't agree that non-competes are what is currently stopping employees from jumping ships. I know plenty of friends not under any contractual loyalty, that could easily switch companies for higher salaries, but never will.
We live in a much different world than 25 years ago.
In the past, when you wanted more money out of your career, you wanted that more money for something real. Maybe you wanted to pay for a boat. Or a car. Or a wife. Or a child.
But these days, most of what people want in their l life is pretty cheap. Watch movies from home. Music collections cost nothing. Good speakers cost little. Cars are way cheaper, and alternative transportation is too -- zipcars, scooters, bike rentals, ride-sharing. Houses are cheaper in that mortgage interest rates are a tenth of what they used to be. Air travel is way cheaper and more accessible. Vacations are cheaper, especially with airbnb options.
In short, going through the effort to change jobs, and the risk that the salary won't actually be higher, and the risk that there might be a week without pay between jobs, isn't worth the actual pay increase at the end of the day -- no one with an existing job is missing out on any popular cultural opportunity.
If you already have all the music in the world, all the movies you want, all the knowledge on the internet you want, all the transportation that you need, and can afford your mortgage payments, well then who really cares to put in the work to get more money? What you want is more time to enjoy your stuff.
Hey, I'm in that position in a very different way. I've owned and operated my own small business for those same 25 years. I've amassed enough hobbies to fill a full year. I'm not looking for more work to make more money. I'm not even working full-time on the work that I have now. I'm desperately searching for more time to enjoy the hobbies that I have waiting for me -- most of which cost nearly zero dollars at this point -- I already own the toys/cars/instruments/hammocks/gardens/tvisions/computers/games, and it costs almost nothing to play with them all; but it costs a lot of time to play with any of them.
Having a job is not a fundamental right. No one forces you to sign the contract. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. Outlawing this kind of perfectly reasonable thing would have consequences of less jobs, higher taxes and lower pay for every ones. Is that what you want? What am i saying, of CORSE it is, you are a libtard.
Non-competes are a problem, yes, but not the cause of wage stagnation.
As a general proposition this is correct. Most people aren't asked to sign non-competes.
Job mobility is higher than it's ever been, despite the rash of non-compete contracts.
Recent data seems to dispute your assertion. Non-competes are an issue in some places but they aren't a systemic problem because most people never sign one.
The main problem is that companies no longer value experience (except perhaps at hiring time but often not even then) and believe every employee with similar education is interchangeable.
They value it but experience does have limits to its value. Some companies perhaps don't adequately value experience like they should - usually to their long term detriment. On the other hand some workers think their experience is worth more than it really is. Remember that experience does not equal performance. I know lots of people with long experience who still somehow manage to be pretty bad at their job.
People that switch jobs the most are young people with the least experience. I don't think you'll find any hiring manager who thinks that people are interchangeable. That said they do have some constraints on how much pay differential they can offer for doing the same work. Experience doesn't matter once you are hired unless it translates into measurable job performance results.
Where I used to work everyone signed a non-compete, but I never once heard about anyone becoming of it when they left, most of which did go to competitors. I even made it clearn when I was leaving that I was going to a competitor for more pay. Nothing ever came of it.
This may be unique to where I worked, but I suspect most would have nothing to worry about it. I'm sad for those who do get hit by these non-competes. They should fight them.
Come to California, where it's always sunny, and non-competes are laughed at by the courts.
The magical market will sort it out with magical fairy dust.
I wonder if Jimmy Johns (or rather anyone high up enough to enact such policy) actually cared, or if the dickbag lawyers just put it in there to create more work for themselves when someone eventually brought a lawsuit against the company.
I'm trapped by our healthcare system. With the ACA under attack I can't risk leaving, and even is I could I'd be without healthcare for the 90 to 180 days most jobs make you wait for benefits. I'm not saying noncompetes don't suck, but I've got bigger fish to fry.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The practice makes sense for highly paid jobs involving big investments in training, and for staff with valuable proprietary knowledge.
No it doesn't. Here in the Netherlands, non compete clauses can only be enforced in a few very specific cases. Pay doesn't (and shouldn't have) anything to do with it. Neither does training: if a company invests a lot of money in your training, they usually add a clause that you have to partly refund the cost of training if you leave within x number of years, the cost being written off during that period. For proprietary knowledge there are things like NDAs. And in most cases a judge will invalidate overly broad clauses: you can keep someone from working for a direct competitor for a reasonable amount of time, not ban him from the entire industry for years.
There are a few things for which one might consider a non compete clause to be valid: having a valuable client network (e.g. such as someone in Sales would have built up during his employment), or knowledge of corporate working practices and processes. For the first, companies here generally a different clause that only forbids you from taking your clients to your new employer (judges usually uphold those). As for the second issue: non compete clauses are generally limited to a period of time too short for that knowledge to become obsolete, but way too long for a person to go without employment. As such it is pointless and unreasonable, and in its current form serves only to keep the employee chained to his desk.
The fair thing would be to allow companies to enforce non compete clauses in cases where there is a danger of a direct competitor benefiting from proprietary knowledge, but to require the company to continue to pay wages to the employee if they choose to enforce it.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If you have that big of an issue with signing non-compete agreements, then don't sign it and don't work for that employer. It's not the fault of government that you won't stand up for yourself when negotiating employment. These are voluntary agreements, nobody has to sign one.
If you never tell them what new company you're working for, how can they sue you?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"Hey, I'm in that position in a very different way. I've owned and operated my own small business for those same 25 years. I've amassed enough hobbies to fill a full year. I'm not looking for more work to make more money. I'm not even working full-time on the work that I have now. I'm desperately searching for more time to enjoy the hobbies that I have waiting for me -- most of which cost nearly zero dollars at this point -- I already own the toys/cars/instruments/hammocks/gardens/tvisions/computers/games, and it costs almost nothing to play with them all; but it costs a lot of time to play with any of them." by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @10:39AM (#57959058)
See subject & ALMOST exactly the same viewpoint + practices here (own business since 2010 & enjoy programming (mainly protecting the internet & its users per https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... as my hobby as well as learning new things via the internet)
APK
P.S.=> I call it self-actualization & good to see others reasoned it out also (you answer ONLY to yourself (well, that & bills)) freeing yourself (your time & EFFORT is your own + they aren't making anymore "buy more life/time" stores or factories to do so (@ least not yet))... apk
Wadges have been slow to raise since Ronald Reagan and people started buying tinkle down economics.
Hard to think of any job for which this is justified (someone with access to the classic Coke formulas maybe?), but it's super silly for web dev jobs.
I've been asked to sign contracts that assert that the employer would be irreparably damaged if I walked away to a competitor with their super secret proprietary knowledge ... of what? It didn't specify, but what the heck could it be? PHP? JavaScript? C#? You've got to be kidding me.
As others have noted, the real goal is to keep me from walking off with the clients.
Very simple: If you don't want someone to take a job, you have to pay them "reasonable compensation". A judge will tell you what the "reasonable compensation" is. Typical it's the amount of money not earned, or possibly more if some prestigious job is lost. I'm a software developer.
You can force me to work at McDonalds for a year, but you pay the difference between McDonald's annual pay and the annual pay I could have received. Plus some on top for me to keep up-to-date in my real profession. And the way German courts work, you are going to pay for the court and for my lawyer.
The state had a failed multi-million dollar IT contact after some of the key workers left to work at other companies.
Rather than solve that specific issue, they got feedback from Georgia companies (an no consultants or individuals) on how to word the law.
In Georgia, non-compete clauses have to be specific and for a restricted location and period. The GA Supreme court said state-wide and 2 years was reasonable.
Imagine a fast food worker forced to sign a non-compete for 2 yrs and statewide to keep getting their minimum wage?
But agreements like this are only enforced for people making $200K+/yr or for people in a tiny industry were all the specific people with skills are known personally. If you are one of those people, go work in Birmingham, AL or TN or SC for the period before coming home to Georgia.
For highly paid people, moving states is a common solution. I've moved to different states 11 times. Only 3 times, was there any fear that a non-compete would attempt to be enforced.
I like the idea where a company is required to pay the full salary+ benefits for the entire non-compete period. Effectively, my family would live off that while I worked in a different state flying there and home every week, assuming telecommute wasn't an option.
Got a job offer last week in telecom, but it wasn't 100% telecommute, so I declined. I'd hoped they would negotiate about that aspect for at least 4 days telecommute. Nope. I hate traffic (would have been 2 hrs in traffic every day) and don't need to work anymore. There's an extreme shortage of skilled workers. We are out there, but not willing to waste 10-15 hrs a week in traffic for a job that is almost 100% sitting in an office, talking on conference calls, and doing project designs. I just don't need to be in any specific location to be effective. At my last job, I would work while travelling the world and call in from different locations as needed. I think some people were pissed because I'd arranged me life so that anywhere with internet could be my office.
Being highly skilled has some privileges.
This constant hand-wringing by people who do not or will not understand some basic principles of logic is growing quite old. First and foremost, the simplest explanation for an observation is most likely to be the correct explanation. When asking yourself a question about why the price of something is what it is, the first place to look is the supply situation. Historic levels of migration provide an abundant supply of new laborers to suppress significant wage growth. This is why, despite public gesticulation by both parties, no REAL action to suppress immigration is supported by either faction of the corporate party. Access to plentiful cheap labor is critical to maintaining and nourishing the disparity between the haves and have-nots. The wealthy have had a great deal of success framing the issue as a humanitarian one, gaining political support for the status quo from the very people who are the victims of the status quo.
It can take months to get the paperwork done. Good friend tried to get it between jobs and by the time the paperwork came the new job's insurance kicked in. It was lucky they didn't need insurance at that time.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They should require compensation to be enforceabile, and be limited to one or two years. If you're not willing to pay for it, it's not that important.
There is already precedent for compensation requirements for non-competes. Here is a link to some information about a supreme court decision in 2016: https://eela.org/news/the-empl...
I was offered a job, and made to sign a non-compete. They then didn't actually hire me. Since I was never ACTUALLY hired (2+ years later they are claiming they are still waiting on funding), that invalidates it, doesn't it?
-Myke
I had changes made to my non-compete clause when I was hired at my current job.
It said I couldn't work for or own another security company *while* working for my new employer. It just so happens that the company I worked for two companies prior, I still owned. I hadn't worked for the company in years, but I still owned it. We struck the ownership clause and put in a clause limiting my involvement in the old company to an advisory role.
The point of this being, it is a negotiation. Read the clauses and if something needs to be adjusted, perhaps be made more specific, bring it up and maybe propose some new wording. The company has a legitimate interest in you not taking their proprietary technology directly to their closest direct competitor, and you have a legitimate interest in being able to work in your field. Find some wording that protects both. Ideally, you can think about what kind of company you want to be working for in 5-10 years and what kind of worknyou want to be doing. You can keep that in mind while adjusting the contract as needed.
If Congress won't act to narrow their scope, states should take the lead.
This is a huge issue. When you refuse to act, take a stand, whatever, on your own, or collectively through, oh I dunno, that odd foreign concept called unionization... anyway, yeah.. stop leaning on Government to solve all your problems.
Unionize. Stop accepting these NDA's/Non-compete agreements. You all made this bed, you get to lay in it until you decide otherwise. Government shouldn't be expected to rescue you from yourselves.
Yup, you are most assuredly correct, Good Citizen, and this is yet another red herring/disinformation scam in the endless list of such ploys: wage stagnation began long before this, in good times and bad: offshoring grew and grew over the past 50 years, along with the dramatic growth in replacing American workers with foreign visa workers and/or undocumented workers --- add to this the now Uberized economy of endless Uber-type part-time jobs with zero benefits, etc., and there you have it!!!!!
Thanx again . . .
Welcome to the Corporate Kleptocracy. Corporations know these non-compete agreements are bogus and unenforceable (for the most part). It doesn't matter.
Corporations use these to cow and intimidate their workforces. They can 'threaten' to enforce an unenforceable non-compete. They can even take it to court. They can lose. What does it matter to them? All they have to do is intimidate some of the workforce, bankrupt another portion of it. Any losses the corporation sustains (legal and economic and political) are simply a cost of doing business and no biggie.
This is what happens when a society puts corporations on par with Capitalism, with Freedom, with Human Rights. Worship your corporate Gods, and Reap What Ye Sow.
I thought that the US Supreme Court - back in ~1998 ruled these are not valid. They CAN keep you from sharing trade secrets, but they CANNOT prevent you from seeking work in the same job sector.
I vaguely remember this because I was exiting a company at that time. The company lawyer was also the HR manager (or at least the guy who made you sign all of the "we talked about this" papers). The court ruling had been made about that time. Vaguely -- I think it was a guy at Intel who had sued, he went to work for AMD. His education, skills & training were EE and building Processors. Any job in this sector would be obvious, as long as he didn't share any secrets "this is how we designed cache/cpus at Intel."
I remember him saying in part "that section of your contract is void...but you can't share trade secrets & plans" I wasn't exiting so much as the company was being bought - so I was given an extra caveat - "we aren't likely to even take an interest unless you start producing the same product"
Meaning -- they have to notice...and care..and want to spend the money.
Yeah it took some layers of approvals for me.
A while back I started looking at want ads for jobs I'd like to qualify for in a few years. I made tick marks for the keywords that often appeared in ads for jobs I wanted, mainly at companies I wanted to work for. After gaining exactly the skills and credentials that employers were asking for, I was worth the hassle to them.
No competes fail in right to work states - i.e. - they can't enforce them if your livelyhood depends on the skillset involved in said work you do to live.
* In other words, they aren't allowed to make you starve OR lose everything.
QUESTION: Why was this DELETED when it was UPMODDED to +1 INTERESTING before here https://news.slashdot.org/comm... (w/ a +4 by others beneath it in reply)? Rubber Willy WHIPSLASH - you feelin' like the DOUCHE you are AGAIN, today? LMAO... loser. Don't worry, as usual, I trapped it in a screenshot as proof of your DOUCHEBAGGERY whimp!
APK
P.S.=> That's about all you need to know & "IANAL" but I'm pretty SURE that's the case (unless there's some DUMB "exception" I'm not aware of & feel free to correct me on that WITH a legal precedent citation ONLY though)... apk
I'm so sorry you have to do your fucking job. How many forms could you have completed in the amount of time you wasted on your Slashdot post?
You may not be entirely covered.
You can sign a credit card receipt "Kermit Frog" - they never check, but you still have to pay for your food if you order it and eat it. The payment is in exchange for the food, the signature is just *evidence* of a transaction that already exists.
In law, an agreement isn't enforceable based on a signature, but rather based on "consideration" - each side gets something from the other. The non-compete is something you give them, their side is giving you a paycheck. The paper just provides evidence that you got a copy of the policy that you have to follow *in exchange for a paycheck*. If you make any mark on the paper copy of the policy, that's evidence you got it.
If you don't sign *and you don't accept a paycheck from them*, there is no enforceable agreement (contract) and you're covered. If you take the paycheck the company has done their part, a judge may very well expect you to do your part.
Not signing, or writing "I don't agree", may put you in a *slightly* stronger position than if you sign, but don't think it means you can do whatever you want and there's no way anyone can do anything to you.
Let me restate my point in a slightly different way.
Sure writing "I don't agree" will give you an argument you can make. You might think it's a bulletproof argument, but the judge may disagree.
How do I know that the judge may disagree?
It's somewhat likely I'll run for election as a judge.
So I could be the judge in your case. Depending on the circumstances, I might rule against you. Therefore, I know that the judge *might* not be persuaded by your argument.
Here we are slave labours, either you agree or remain unemployed..no innovative product companies just hude body shoppers...not that we can find other companies whichnare basically subsidiaries of non-Indian running by same slave rules. And labour dept is in coma.
Freedom isnt free. Sometimes you got to give up good job if you do not like terms. Patriots accept this and pull themselfs up by there bootstraps to move on.
The clauses are not uncommon in the UK IT sector, but on the occasions I've signed settlement agreement when laid-off, my solicitor are stuck out the clauses as unenforceable, though UK Companies do use them to act as deterrent.