8 ms·

Freedom to Compete Act [pdf]

126 points by protomyth 8y ago

protomyth 8y ago
The press release: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/1/rubio-introduces-bill-to-protect-low-wage-workers-from-non-compete-agreements https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/1/rubio-i... a labor lawyer's take: http://employeeatty.blogspot.com/2019/03/marco-rubio-introduces-anti-noncompete.html http://employeeatty.blogspot.com/2019/03/marco-rubio-introdu...
anth_anm 8y ago
This looks great. If only we hadn't foolishly allowed them to exempt us under teh fair labour standards act.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  That's definitely the 'gotcha'. Gotta start somewhere though.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Yeah, this one is aimed at companies trying to make janitors and food service workers sign a NDA. A good step to be sure protecting some folks that don't get a lot of attention.
    - i_cant_speel 8y ago
      Non-compete. Not NDA.
      - protomyth 8y ago
        yeah, my damn error, I thought NDA was included, but not so. Non-compete for non-exempt is a good start.
- kj4ips 8y ago
  It's strange, this only calls out one specific class of exemptions [13(a)(1)], the one that deals with outside sales and executives, and not section 13(a)(17) which exempts "Computer Professionals"
korethr 8y ago
Simple, straightforward, to the point, and understandable by a layman. I wish more bills could be like this. It's not perfect. As other commenters mention, this only protects hourly employees, not salaried employees like myself (and I assume a majority of most other commenters here). But it is also a good start. It is a much more egregious pile of BS that someone vacuuming floors or flipping burgers for minimum wage is required to sign a non-compete than I am. I would love it if I was protected from non-compete agreements too, but I'll happily take Non-Compete Agreements for Sandwich Artists are Illegal BS as a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of Non-Compete Agreements are Illegal BS.
- i_cant_speel 8y ago
  I skimmed the document and missed that part. That's disappointing. Why bother making the distinction? What's different about salaried employees that they should be subject to non-competes but hourly workers shouldn't? I understand that lower paying jobs need protection, but I have never heard of a minimum wage worker at a fast food restaurant having to sign a non-compete. This law seems to only have an impact on skilled hourly workers who likely aren't in a different situation than salaried workers.
  - Hello71 8y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+food+non+competes https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+food+non+competes
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    There are companies that value their trade secrets. If you employ an engineer for ten years and they know the ins and outs of your process and then go to work for a competitor, soon the competitor has a better product because they have all their own secrets plus yours. In theory you could try to use an NDA, but the problem with an NDA is that if the employee goes to work for the competitor and then suddenly they have all your secrets, there is no easy way for you to actually prove that they weren't independently rediscovered by some other person at the other company, and nobody there has any incentive to tell you different. You may not even know that they now have any specific one. The restriction is obviously unreasonable to the employee, because it prevents them from switching jobs to another that uses the skills they're trained in, but now it's politics. Who has more political power when a bill prohibiting non-competes comes before Congress? Excluding professionals makes it so those companies no longer really care and makes it a lot easier to actually pass the bill.
b_b 8y ago
Bit off-topic, but love that the URL is just the straight up path to the file on the Windows machine.
- martindale 8y ago
  This was the first thing I noticed. Government demonstrating its competence!
PaulHoule 8y ago
Woo Hoo!
twoquestions 8y ago
Rubio, a Republican, wants to decrease the power of employers by curtailing non-compete agreements? I'll give this some serious consideration if it gets out of committee, and until that time I'm thinking this is bill is more about signaling than anything else. Still, increasing regulation on employer relations like this is a good start.
- 0815test 8y ago
  > Rubio, a Republican, wants to decrease the power of employers by curtailing non-compete agreements? Look, let's dispel with this fiction that Rubio doesn't know what he's doing...
- tathougies 8y ago
  I mean republicans are generally in favor of a free market and non competes literally reduce competition
  - raquo 8y ago
    Why, the existence of noncompetes is exactly free market in action. "Competition" != free market.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      No its not. The freedom to contract is nowhere to be found in the traditional libertarian view of rights to life liberty and property. In fact, libertarians (including those center libertarians in the republican party) consistently reject the ability for people to sign away their rights via contract. You cannot claim in good faith that republicans support the 'freedom' to contract your rights away. Can you contract the rest of you labor away for a fixed sum (ie slavery)? Of course not. You have the grand ole party to thank for that too. The ethic is consistent
      - raquo 8y ago
        Do you need help with the definition of "free market"? > In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority. Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods, such as tariffs, used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market Adding regulations to a market makes it less of a free market, even if those regulations are good for the people.
darawk 8y ago
This is great. Makes me think more highly of Marco Rubio, especially given how simple it is. I hope it passes, and hope it's extended to all types of employee.
bovermyer 8y ago
Not perfect, and doesn't go far enough, but it's absolutely a big step in the right direction. Has my support.
hadrien01 8y ago
I get this error message every time I try to visit the US Senate website: > Sorry, a potential security risk was detected in your submitted request. The Webmaster has been alerted.
kj4ips 8y ago
While reading this, I found that "Computer Professionals" are often exempt from Minimum Wage and Minimum Hours/Overtime Pay, because of 29 usc 213(a)(17). (104th congress, HR 3448) https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3448/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3448... Fortunately, this bill (in it's current state) does not reference that exemption, and only exempts executives, school employees including teachers, and outside salesmen.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  | professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), Are computer professionals not.. professionals?
int_19h 8y ago
Looking at the Congress page for it, it has been introduced two and a half months ago, and hasn't seen any further action since then. Is it scheduled for a committee hearing? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/124/all-info https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/124...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cryptonector 8y ago
> ‘‘(3) LIMITONAPPLICABILITY.—This sub-section shall not apply with respect to any employee described in section 13(a)(1). That's: | (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, except that an employee of a retail or service establishment shall not be excluded from the definition of employee employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity because of the number of hours in his workweek which he devotes to activities not directly or closely related to the performance of executive or administrative activities, if less than 40 per centum of his hours worked in the workweek are devoted to such activities); or I think that means that this doesn't apply to... a great number of people who really wish it did.
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  >or professional capacity what does that mean legally? it seems very vague.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    "Professional" as a term of art refers to architects, doctors, and lawyers. "Professional capacity" includes engineers, programmers, really, anyone you might colloquially refer to as a "professional".
tathougies 8y ago
Thank you senator rubio
julienfr112 8y ago
The PDF is beautiful. Is it made with Latex ?

126 points by protomyth 8y ago

The press release: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/1/rubio-introduces-bill-to-protect-low-wage-workers-from-non-compete-agreements https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/1/rubio-i... a labor lawyer's take: http://employeeatty.blogspot.com/2019/03/marco-rubio-introduces-anti-noncompete.html http://employeeatty.blogspot.com/2019/03/marco-rubio-introdu...

anth_anm 8y ago

This looks great. If only we hadn't foolishly allowed them to exempt us under teh fair labour standards act.

bilbo0s 8y ago
That's definitely the 'gotcha'. Gotta start somewhere though.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Yeah, this one is aimed at companies trying to make janitors and food service workers sign a NDA. A good step to be sure protecting some folks that don't get a lot of attention.
  - i_cant_speel 8y ago
    Non-compete. Not NDA.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      yeah, my damn error, I thought NDA was included, but not so. Non-compete for non-exempt is a good start.
kj4ips 8y ago
It's strange, this only calls out one specific class of exemptions [13(a)(1)], the one that deals with outside sales and executives, and not section 13(a)(17) which exempts "Computer Professionals"

korethr 8y ago

Simple, straightforward, to the point, and understandable by a layman. I wish more bills could be like this. It's not perfect. As other commenters mention, this only protects hourly employees, not salaried employees like myself (and I assume a majority of most other commenters here). But it is also a good start. It is a much more egregious pile of BS that someone vacuuming floors or flipping burgers for minimum wage is required to sign a non-compete than I am. I would love it if I was protected from non-compete agreements too, but I'll happily take Non-Compete Agreements for Sandwich Artists are Illegal BS as a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of Non-Compete Agreements are Illegal BS.

i_cant_speel 8y ago
I skimmed the document and missed that part. That's disappointing. Why bother making the distinction? What's different about salaried employees that they should be subject to non-competes but hourly workers shouldn't? I understand that lower paying jobs need protection, but I have never heard of a minimum wage worker at a fast food restaurant having to sign a non-compete. This law seems to only have an impact on skilled hourly workers who likely aren't in a different situation than salaried workers.
- Hello71 8y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+food+non+competes https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+food+non+competes
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  There are companies that value their trade secrets. If you employ an engineer for ten years and they know the ins and outs of your process and then go to work for a competitor, soon the competitor has a better product because they have all their own secrets plus yours. In theory you could try to use an NDA, but the problem with an NDA is that if the employee goes to work for the competitor and then suddenly they have all your secrets, there is no easy way for you to actually prove that they weren't independently rediscovered by some other person at the other company, and nobody there has any incentive to tell you different. You may not even know that they now have any specific one. The restriction is obviously unreasonable to the employee, because it prevents them from switching jobs to another that uses the skills they're trained in, but now it's politics. Who has more political power when a bill prohibiting non-competes comes before Congress? Excluding professionals makes it so those companies no longer really care and makes it a lot easier to actually pass the bill.

b_b 8y ago

Bit off-topic, but love that the URL is just the straight up path to the file on the Windows machine.

martindale 8y ago
This was the first thing I noticed. Government demonstrating its competence!

PaulHoule 8y ago

Woo Hoo!

twoquestions 8y ago

Rubio, a Republican, wants to decrease the power of employers by curtailing non-compete agreements? I'll give this some serious consideration if it gets out of committee, and until that time I'm thinking this is bill is more about signaling than anything else. Still, increasing regulation on employer relations like this is a good start.

0815test 8y ago
> Rubio, a Republican, wants to decrease the power of employers by curtailing non-compete agreements? Look, let's dispel with this fiction that Rubio doesn't know what he's doing...
tathougies 8y ago
I mean republicans are generally in favor of a free market and non competes literally reduce competition
- raquo 8y ago
  Why, the existence of noncompetes is exactly free market in action. "Competition" != free market.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    No its not. The freedom to contract is nowhere to be found in the traditional libertarian view of rights to life liberty and property. In fact, libertarians (including those center libertarians in the republican party) consistently reject the ability for people to sign away their rights via contract. You cannot claim in good faith that republicans support the 'freedom' to contract your rights away. Can you contract the rest of you labor away for a fixed sum (ie slavery)? Of course not. You have the grand ole party to thank for that too. The ethic is consistent
    - raquo 8y ago
      Do you need help with the definition of "free market"? > In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority. Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods, such as tariffs, used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market Adding regulations to a market makes it less of a free market, even if those regulations are good for the people.

darawk 8y ago

This is great. Makes me think more highly of Marco Rubio, especially given how simple it is. I hope it passes, and hope it's extended to all types of employee.

bovermyer 8y ago

Not perfect, and doesn't go far enough, but it's absolutely a big step in the right direction. Has my support.

hadrien01 8y ago

I get this error message every time I try to visit the US Senate website: > Sorry, a potential security risk was detected in your submitted request. The Webmaster has been alerted.

kj4ips 8y ago

While reading this, I found that "Computer Professionals" are often exempt from Minimum Wage and Minimum Hours/Overtime Pay, because of 29 usc 213(a)(17). (104th congress, HR 3448) https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3448/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3448... Fortunately, this bill (in it's current state) does not reference that exemption, and only exempts executives, school employees including teachers, and outside salesmen.

cryptonector 8y ago
| professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), Are computer professionals not.. professionals?

int_19h 8y ago

Looking at the Congress page for it, it has been introduced two and a half months ago, and hasn't seen any further action since then. Is it scheduled for a committee hearing? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/124/all-info https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/124...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cryptonector 8y ago

> ‘‘(3) LIMITONAPPLICABILITY.—This sub-section shall not apply with respect to any employee described in section 13(a)(1). That's: | (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, except that an employee of a retail or service establishment shall not be excluded from the definition of employee employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity because of the number of hours in his workweek which he devotes to activities not directly or closely related to the performance of executive or administrative activities, if less than 40 per centum of his hours worked in the workweek are devoted to such activities); or I think that means that this doesn't apply to... a great number of people who really wish it did.

odessacubbage 8y ago
>or professional capacity what does that mean legally? it seems very vague.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  "Professional" as a term of art refers to architects, doctors, and lawyers. "Professional capacity" includes engineers, programmers, really, anyone you might colloquially refer to as a "professional".

tathougies 8y ago

Thank you senator rubio

julienfr112 8y ago

The PDF is beautiful. Is it made with Latex ?