4 ms·

I have known people who have declined work over non-compete clauses since it adds an element of risk to accepting the position. I am talking about those with lo

by II2II 5y ago

I have known people who have declined work over non-compete clauses since it adds an element of risk to accepting the position. I am talking about those with low income who cannot afford to hire a lawyer to tell their ex-employer's lawyer to take a hike since such clauses are non-enforceable. With respect to the right to disconnect, simply having a written policy will help in many instances. I have worked for organizations where upper management generally frowned upon employees being contacted outside of work hours for anything more than checking a person's availability to work or telling a person not to report to work. Yet lower levels of management never seem to receive that message (possibly because they are expected to be on call).

zdragnar 5y ago
What low income jobs have non-compete clauses? Not that I don't believe you, just trying to wrap my head around it. A non-compete is (ostensibly) intended to protect employers' trade-secret-esque internal knowledge and practices, which low income jobs don't really get much exposure to. Granted, many non-competes are legal boilerplate that businesses probably shouldn't need, but I can't imagine a business actually doing a cost/benefit analysis on paying legal to go after someone who makes peanuts.
- mbarbar 5y ago
  Here is an example from a sandwich shop: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement-idUSKBN13W2JA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement-idU...
  - barsonme 5y ago
    FWIW that was only intended for store managers, who are (or at least were) flown to Champagne, IL for multiple weeks of training. Having worked at JJ’s, I don’t think they were taught anything remotely with a non-compete. I think they just didn’t want somebody becoming a manager and then using that to get a better job across the street. Training employees is expensive. But that was their rationale, anyway.
    - mbarbar 5y ago
      Always good to hear all perspectives on a story. >FWIW that was only intended for store managers Do you mean intended for store manager and applied to store managers only, or intended for store managers and applied to everyone (because template/boilerplate [0])? This press release [1] states it covered positions more junior than store manager. As an aside: interested if anyone knows what is meant by copyright in the press release above: >Madigan’s suit alleges the companies required all employees to sign a non-compete agreement, which the company claims is covered by copyright, as a condition of employment. [0] I experienced this. Would recommend to anyone to at least question any condition you don't like, even if you aren't able to negotiate. I was taking a low-level position at a large organisation so I had no real leverage and had a condition crossed off because it was meant for full-time and fixed-term employees but somehow made it into my casual contract, presumably because it was part of some boilerplate. [1] https://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2016_06/20160608.html https://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2016_06/20...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - barsonme 5y ago
        > Do you mean intended for store manager and applied to store managers only, or intended for store managers and applied to everyone (because template/boilerplate [0])? The latter. My guess is that (for non-managers) it was boilerplate and nobody either noticed or cared enough to remove it. It's not surprising—lots of weird, sometimes contradictory stuff ends up in contracts. I could _maybe_ see them trying to enforce it on a store or district manager if the manager decided to split immediately after being flown out to Illinois, or something. But I recall multiple managers leaving to go work at other fast food places—some even on bad terms—and nobody was ever sued. One manager even stole large sums of money and they basically said, "Oh well." JJ's likes to pretend it's a fancy QSR, but it's all bark. You have to learn the menu and pass a test before you can get hired, but in reality you can bomb the test and still get hired. They have a strict dress code, but it's only enforced when corporate comes to do its yearly reviews. I don't see them caring enough to ever go through the effort of suing an employee for a non-compete. But it's been 10 years since I worked there, so perhaps things have changed.
- II2II 5y ago
  My favourite (mostly because I know the details and personally trust the source) was for a cashier position in a small grocery store in a small city. When the applicant tried to negotiate on the terms, they were told that someone could just walk away with their supplier information. While it may have been a legitimate grievance, it was a poor excuse to harm someone's future employment prospects. (Small city == limited choice.)
  - eru 5y ago
    I wonder whether non-competes for unskilled labour is an American thing? I only ever heard about it in an American context. It seems a bit silly to me, as it seems to cost the employee more than the benefit the employer receives from that clause. (Though the real benefit to the employer might be in decreasing the employees outside options, thus allowing better control. I wonder how one might test that theory.)
    - pkaye 5y ago
      Here is Wikipedia article on non compete clauses. Seems like they are quite common everywhere with various restrictions. Amazingly North Dakota and Oklahoma also have a total ban in non-completes along with California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
      - eru 5y ago
        Thanks for the link. Though I can only tell that non-compete exist at all in these countries, not whether they are prevalent for unskilled labour.
    - acchow 5y ago
      > It seems a bit silly to me, as it seems to cost the employee more than the benefit the employer receives from that clause. Are you surprised employers can exploit unskilled laborers? It's not silly. It's asymmetrical power resulting in exploitation of people who don't have many options in jobs they can find.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  I signed one as an intern.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by II2II 5y ago

zdragnar 5y ago

What low income jobs have non-compete clauses? Not that I don't believe you, just trying to wrap my head around it. A non-compete is (ostensibly) intended to protect employers' trade-secret-esque internal knowledge and practices, which low income jobs don't really get much exposure to. Granted, many non-competes are legal boilerplate that businesses probably shouldn't need, but I can't imagine a business actually doing a cost/benefit analysis on paying legal to go after someone who makes peanuts.

mbarbar 5y ago
Here is an example from a sandwich shop: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement-idUSKBN13W2JA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement-idU...
- barsonme 5y ago
  FWIW that was only intended for store managers, who are (or at least were) flown to Champagne, IL for multiple weeks of training. Having worked at JJ’s, I don’t think they were taught anything remotely with a non-compete. I think they just didn’t want somebody becoming a manager and then using that to get a better job across the street. Training employees is expensive. But that was their rationale, anyway.
  - mbarbar 5y ago
    Always good to hear all perspectives on a story. >FWIW that was only intended for store managers Do you mean intended for store manager and applied to store managers only, or intended for store managers and applied to everyone (because template/boilerplate [0])? This press release [1] states it covered positions more junior than store manager. As an aside: interested if anyone knows what is meant by copyright in the press release above: >Madigan’s suit alleges the companies required all employees to sign a non-compete agreement, which the company claims is covered by copyright, as a condition of employment. [0] I experienced this. Would recommend to anyone to at least question any condition you don't like, even if you aren't able to negotiate. I was taking a low-level position at a large organisation so I had no real leverage and had a condition crossed off because it was meant for full-time and fixed-term employees but somehow made it into my casual contract, presumably because it was part of some boilerplate. [1] https://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2016_06/20160608.html https://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2016_06/20...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - barsonme 5y ago
      > Do you mean intended for store manager and applied to store managers only, or intended for store managers and applied to everyone (because template/boilerplate [0])? The latter. My guess is that (for non-managers) it was boilerplate and nobody either noticed or cared enough to remove it. It's not surprising—lots of weird, sometimes contradictory stuff ends up in contracts. I could _maybe_ see them trying to enforce it on a store or district manager if the manager decided to split immediately after being flown out to Illinois, or something. But I recall multiple managers leaving to go work at other fast food places—some even on bad terms—and nobody was ever sued. One manager even stole large sums of money and they basically said, "Oh well." JJ's likes to pretend it's a fancy QSR, but it's all bark. You have to learn the menu and pass a test before you can get hired, but in reality you can bomb the test and still get hired. They have a strict dress code, but it's only enforced when corporate comes to do its yearly reviews. I don't see them caring enough to ever go through the effort of suing an employee for a non-compete. But it's been 10 years since I worked there, so perhaps things have changed.
II2II 5y ago
My favourite (mostly because I know the details and personally trust the source) was for a cashier position in a small grocery store in a small city. When the applicant tried to negotiate on the terms, they were told that someone could just walk away with their supplier information. While it may have been a legitimate grievance, it was a poor excuse to harm someone's future employment prospects. (Small city == limited choice.)
- eru 5y ago
  I wonder whether non-competes for unskilled labour is an American thing? I only ever heard about it in an American context. It seems a bit silly to me, as it seems to cost the employee more than the benefit the employer receives from that clause. (Though the real benefit to the employer might be in decreasing the employees outside options, thus allowing better control. I wonder how one might test that theory.)
  - pkaye 5y ago
    Here is Wikipedia article on non compete clauses. Seems like they are quite common everywhere with various restrictions. Amazingly North Dakota and Oklahoma also have a total ban in non-completes along with California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
    - eru 5y ago
      Thanks for the link. Though I can only tell that non-compete exist at all in these countries, not whether they are prevalent for unskilled labour.
  - acchow 5y ago
    > It seems a bit silly to me, as it seems to cost the employee more than the benefit the employer receives from that clause. Are you surprised employers can exploit unskilled laborers? It's not silly. It's asymmetrical power resulting in exploitation of people who don't have many options in jobs they can find.
amcoastal 5y ago
I signed one as an intern.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]