6 ms·

I think it’s more telling to look at the opposite question, “what leverage would employees have to turn such a term down, assuming such practices were considere

by fardo 3y ago

I think it’s more telling to look at the opposite question, “what leverage would employees have to turn such a term down, assuming such practices were considered ‘industry standard’ and all employers of note made sure to include it?” The answer in an environment with a ban on non-competes is “they’d either have legal recourse if someone tried to write them a contract with that term, or the term would be treated as non-enforceable and therefore harmless”. In the current environment, broadly speaking, most employees wouldn’t have leverage to turn such a term down, and generally don’t.

somenameforme 3y ago
It's not most employees, its the employees that an employer would even bother with a non-compete for. And many (most?) of this group would have the leverage to turn down an undesirable offer.
- reaperman 3y ago
  Arby’s, Auntie Anne’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, Carl’s Jr., Cinnabon, Jimmy John’s, McDonald’s, and Subway have all made low-wage workers sign non competes.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - reaperman 3y ago
      Not necessarily true in many small towns across rural USA. If the major holding companies, e.g. Yum! Brands, McDonald's, etc. have all of their brands doing non-competes there might be only 2 independent fast-food joints within a 45-minute drive and few other jobs available.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - randomdata 3y ago
        If that scenario ever played out, the workers would not be able to sign the agreement, so the employer would just have to concede. It would be far more costly to close down business (unless it was going to close anyway, in which case your comment is moot) than to take a stand and hire nobody. Bedsides, if we want to pretend that in your made up scenario that the workers did somehow end up signing the agreements, the employers would quickly run out of people to hire. A small town – one too far away from anything else for others to come in to work – and where everyone has legally taken themselves out of the job market is not a good place to be in as an employer. While employers can benefit from non-competes under certain conditions, they are not universally beneficial. You offer a fun thought experiment, but in reality a non-compete would not be offered here in the first place.
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        You're somehow speaking as if this isn't already happening, at least per the other comment. Also, if you think McDonald's is going to change a corporate policy rather than operate a few stores below capacity or even close them down, you have a really skewed view of the relative power of low pay non-union workers...
        randomdata 3y ago
        McDonald’s doesn’t own those small-town locations. They are franchised, typically by locals. The employer of those low-wage workers is a completely different “corporate” – one that is in tune to the local realities. The fake agenda pushing is funny and all, but why don’t we just stick to reality? There are real reasons why non-competes are a problem. What is gained from the "But won't someone please think of the (adult) children?" narrative?
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    This is plainly false and I have no idea what makes you think it's the case. The only reference I could even find was Biden saying something like this. That's somewhat fortuitous because it resulted in one of the 'fact checkers' actually bothering to fact check this here. [1] The most places like McDonalds used to do was to force franchise owners to sign a sort of non-compete to prevent poaching each other's employees. That practice was ended half a decade ago and now even franchise owners don't have to sign non-competes, let alone low-wage employees. [1] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/biden-wrong-mcdonalds-workers-cant-jump-competing-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

by fardo 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

It's not most employees, its the employees that an employer would even bother with a non-compete for. And many (most?) of this group would have the leverage to turn down an undesirable offer.

reaperman 3y ago
Arby’s, Auntie Anne’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, Carl’s Jr., Cinnabon, Jimmy John’s, McDonald’s, and Subway have all made low-wage workers sign non competes.
- randomdata 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Not necessarily true in many small towns across rural USA. If the major holding companies, e.g. Yum! Brands, McDonald's, etc. have all of their brands doing non-competes there might be only 2 independent fast-food joints within a 45-minute drive and few other jobs available.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - randomdata 3y ago
      If that scenario ever played out, the workers would not be able to sign the agreement, so the employer would just have to concede. It would be far more costly to close down business (unless it was going to close anyway, in which case your comment is moot) than to take a stand and hire nobody. Bedsides, if we want to pretend that in your made up scenario that the workers did somehow end up signing the agreements, the employers would quickly run out of people to hire. A small town – one too far away from anything else for others to come in to work – and where everyone has legally taken themselves out of the job market is not a good place to be in as an employer. While employers can benefit from non-competes under certain conditions, they are not universally beneficial. You offer a fun thought experiment, but in reality a non-compete would not be offered here in the first place.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        You're somehow speaking as if this isn't already happening, at least per the other comment. Also, if you think McDonald's is going to change a corporate policy rather than operate a few stores below capacity or even close them down, you have a really skewed view of the relative power of low pay non-union workers...
        randomdata 3y ago
        McDonald’s doesn’t own those small-town locations. They are franchised, typically by locals. The employer of those low-wage workers is a completely different “corporate” – one that is in tune to the local realities. The fake agenda pushing is funny and all, but why don’t we just stick to reality? There are real reasons why non-competes are a problem. What is gained from the "But won't someone please think of the (adult) children?" narrative?
- somenameforme 3y ago
  This is plainly false and I have no idea what makes you think it's the case. The only reference I could even find was Biden saying something like this. That's somewhat fortuitous because it resulted in one of the 'fact checkers' actually bothering to fact check this here. [1] The most places like McDonalds used to do was to force franchise owners to sign a sort of non-compete to prevent poaching each other's employees. That practice was ended half a decade ago and now even franchise owners don't have to sign non-competes, let alone low-wage employees. [1] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/biden-wrong-mcdonalds-workers-cant-jump-competing-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]