5 ms·

These non-competes are 100% illegal and unenforceable. The NLRB would back the employees in a heartbeat and companies are just using it as a scare tactic cause

These non-competes are 100% illegal and unenforceable. The NLRB would back the employees in a heartbeat and companies are just using it as a scare tactic cause they know they can't defend it.

spoonjim 5y ago
The McDonalds employees are not likely to know this. The contract itself is abusive, and its unenforceability is not a defense.
- brewdad 5y ago
  Is McDonalds really suing min wage workers who leave for Wendy's to get a better schedule or 25 cents more per hour? I get that they could but I can't see how that's ever a reasonable business decision.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    Making examples of a few is a more efficient option than suing everyone. But this is insanity, and should be legislated against.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    They most likely aren’t. But putting that in the contract can make workers think they can’t take that Wendy’s job. I cannot think of two entities with a bigger power gulf than McDonalds and a McDonalds worker, so the expectations must be calibrated accordingly.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Now I wonder what sort of judgement they could even get? Worker has to come back? Worker has to pay some fraction of the perceived losses of that restaurant? Worker has to pay some fraction of their wages? And then would this even pass through the system?
    - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
      I think the most likely judgement would be that the worker has to quit their job at the competing business.
      - smorgusofborg 5y ago
        If the employee were compelled to quit, unemployment couldn't go after the worker for the lost job, so they would want to go after McDonald's for 2.5 years of unemployment instead of .5 years for every worker they break.
lovich 5y ago
The cost of enforcing your rights is usually beyond the means of someone working a minimum wage job.
Reubachi 5y ago
It's not illegal by any means, it's ability to be enforced is questionable though given precedent. Look at any tech firm with CEOs whom used to be with their firm's competitor; That's a large chunk of chief legal officer work, getting new hires out of the non-competes by proving the contract was not enforcable in the eyes of an average reasonable person in that locale. But...FF employees won't have a dedicated lawyer, unless there's some frivolous class action that doesn't truly represent the employees. I think, we'd all be surprised to find that many "illicit" things aren't illegal at all, but rather would get struck down in a civil court if sufficiently challenged, and that much of our economy is driven by that.
- olliej 5y ago
  They're not legal in CA
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ep103 5y ago
They are absolutely enforceable. A court might not enforce them, because, depending on your state, they may be of questionable validity. But people who don't know that will believe they are enforced. People who aren't willing to risk going to court will have to act as if they are enforced. People who can't afford to go to court will have to act like they are enforced. *Additionally, I have seen these contracts enforced outside the court system as well.* I had a friend who was fired from a job he went to, because his former employer called his future employer, and threatened a lawsuit / threatened to drop mutual business because the future employer helped the employee break the non-compete agreement. The past employer may not have had any case (except for the lost business), but the future employer didn't want to deal with legal trouble, and it was easier to just find a reason to fire the employee. How sure are you that you won't be fired at your new job, because a conversation like that took place behind closed doors? How sure are you that McDonalds would be willing to foot a legal bill to defend their new minimum wage employee, if Burger King threatened legal action? Non-compete abuse needs legal reform.
- mushbino 5y ago
  Can you find a case of where they've successfully sued someone for this?
  - testesttest 5y ago
    The point is they don't have to be successful to have teeth. A fast food worker probably can't afford a single day in court.
    - Rd6n6 5y ago
      They can’t afford the lawyer consultation fees prior to court
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Absolutely. The Wikipedia article is full of them. What's critically important to know is the rules where you live because they're different depending on jurisdiction. If you are in California, non-competes are invalid. (Silicon Valley was built upon the Traitorous Eight.) If you are in Massachusetts, non-competes are valid (and you better hope you don't need a new job in biotech any time soon). Talk to your lawyer for advice.
smnrchrds 5y ago
On too many occasions, when filling out those forms online that have become ubiquitous when applying for jobs, I have had to answer a question asking whether I am under any sort of non-compete agreement. I imagine if I choose yes, my resume will be sent directly to the trash folder on the applicant tracking system. The nuances about which clauses of the non-compete may not be enforceable won't matter. If I lie, I imagine it will only take one phone call from the previous employer for the new one to fire me. If you tell the truth, I don't get the job in the first place. If I want to invalidate it through courts, well I don't have more than 10 million dollars in the bank, and we all know even single digit millionaires have no effective access to the legal system. I am not a minimum wage worker or in the US, but I am sure people applying for minimum wage jobs in the US see similar questions and have to fill out similar forms.
- fragmede 5y ago
  You might try looking for poor people (which is anyone who's not a millionaire, by parent comment's definition) who have managed to get effective access to the legal system. I'm sure there are millionaires that don't, but that's not a money issue and there's something else going on.

These non-competes are 100% illegal and unenforceable. The NLRB would back the employees in a heartbeat and companies are just using it as a scare tactic cause they know they can't defend it.

spoonjim 5y ago

The McDonalds employees are not likely to know this. The contract itself is abusive, and its unenforceability is not a defense.

brewdad 5y ago
Is McDonalds really suing min wage workers who leave for Wendy's to get a better schedule or 25 cents more per hour? I get that they could but I can't see how that's ever a reasonable business decision.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  Making examples of a few is a more efficient option than suing everyone. But this is insanity, and should be legislated against.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  They most likely aren’t. But putting that in the contract can make workers think they can’t take that Wendy’s job. I cannot think of two entities with a bigger power gulf than McDonalds and a McDonalds worker, so the expectations must be calibrated accordingly.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Now I wonder what sort of judgement they could even get? Worker has to come back? Worker has to pay some fraction of the perceived losses of that restaurant? Worker has to pay some fraction of their wages? And then would this even pass through the system?
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    I think the most likely judgement would be that the worker has to quit their job at the competing business.
    - smorgusofborg 5y ago
      If the employee were compelled to quit, unemployment couldn't go after the worker for the lost job, so they would want to go after McDonald's for 2.5 years of unemployment instead of .5 years for every worker they break.

lovich 5y ago

The cost of enforcing your rights is usually beyond the means of someone working a minimum wage job.

Reubachi 5y ago

It's not illegal by any means, it's ability to be enforced is questionable though given precedent. Look at any tech firm with CEOs whom used to be with their firm's competitor; That's a large chunk of chief legal officer work, getting new hires out of the non-competes by proving the contract was not enforcable in the eyes of an average reasonable person in that locale. But...FF employees won't have a dedicated lawyer, unless there's some frivolous class action that doesn't truly represent the employees. I think, we'd all be surprised to find that many "illicit" things aren't illegal at all, but rather would get struck down in a civil court if sufficiently challenged, and that much of our economy is driven by that.

olliej 5y ago
They're not legal in CA

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ep103 5y ago

They are absolutely enforceable. A court might not enforce them, because, depending on your state, they may be of questionable validity. But people who don't know that will believe they are enforced. People who aren't willing to risk going to court will have to act as if they are enforced. People who can't afford to go to court will have to act like they are enforced. *Additionally, I have seen these contracts enforced outside the court system as well.* I had a friend who was fired from a job he went to, because his former employer called his future employer, and threatened a lawsuit / threatened to drop mutual business because the future employer helped the employee break the non-compete agreement. The past employer may not have had any case (except for the lost business), but the future employer didn't want to deal with legal trouble, and it was easier to just find a reason to fire the employee. How sure are you that you won't be fired at your new job, because a conversation like that took place behind closed doors? How sure are you that McDonalds would be willing to foot a legal bill to defend their new minimum wage employee, if Burger King threatened legal action? Non-compete abuse needs legal reform.

mushbino 5y ago
Can you find a case of where they've successfully sued someone for this?
- testesttest 5y ago
  The point is they don't have to be successful to have teeth. A fast food worker probably can't afford a single day in court.
  - Rd6n6 5y ago
    They can’t afford the lawyer consultation fees prior to court
- fragmede 5y ago
  Absolutely. The Wikipedia article is full of them. What's critically important to know is the rules where you live because they're different depending on jurisdiction. If you are in California, non-competes are invalid. (Silicon Valley was built upon the Traitorous Eight.) If you are in Massachusetts, non-competes are valid (and you better hope you don't need a new job in biotech any time soon). Talk to your lawyer for advice.

smnrchrds 5y ago

On too many occasions, when filling out those forms online that have become ubiquitous when applying for jobs, I have had to answer a question asking whether I am under any sort of non-compete agreement. I imagine if I choose yes, my resume will be sent directly to the trash folder on the applicant tracking system. The nuances about which clauses of the non-compete may not be enforceable won't matter. If I lie, I imagine it will only take one phone call from the previous employer for the new one to fire me. If you tell the truth, I don't get the job in the first place. If I want to invalidate it through courts, well I don't have more than 10 million dollars in the bank, and we all know even single digit millionaires have no effective access to the legal system. I am not a minimum wage worker or in the US, but I am sure people applying for minimum wage jobs in the US see similar questions and have to fill out similar forms.

fragmede 5y ago
You might try looking for poor people (which is anyone who's not a millionaire, by parent comment's definition) who have managed to get effective access to the legal system. I'm sure there are millionaires that don't, but that's not a money issue and there's something else going on.