Future binding non-compete agreements for low wage workers

[KingsGambit]

You're not missing anything IMHO...personally, I like Subway much better, my current favorite though is Firehouse Subs...but they are a little pricier.

Agree, it's not that good. The bread is okay though.

[Cow Poke]

I had signed a non-compete way back in 1990. When I was being courted by another company, I had a lawyer look at it. He told me as an non-exempt employee, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

It's kinda like signing a "release" that says you, as a parent, won't sue the Church if your kid gets into an accident on the bus. It's only a "feel good" contract, and will maybe "bluff" somebody into not suing.

[Littlejoe]

Not sure if it's just in Texas, but I seem to remember from my Employment Law certification a few years ago that most non-competes have been held as unenforceable, since you cannot restrict a man (or woman) from earning a livelihood. Lemme double check that.

ETA - here's one of the articles to which my curriculum refers.

I had signed a non-compete way back in 1990. When I was being courted by another company, I had a lawyer look at it. He told me as an non-exempt employee, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

[Littlejoe]

It's insane. I get why they do it - even low wage employees learn a company's systems. Amazon makes its money more from its system than its products - hence the clause. JJ's does as well (they are rehashing Dominoes' successful effort from the Eighties - minus the litigation-provoking deadline).

BUT a person's right to earn a living far outweighs a company's proprietary right to its system. If you wanna protect it, you might wanna work harder on retention - but the clause is silly and begging for bad PR.

I won't be eating at Jimmy Johns. Pity, I'd wanted to try it since it just moved into our area. Oh well...

You're not missing anything IMHO...personally, I like Subway much better, my current favorite though is Firehouse Subs...but they are a little pricier.

[Teallaura]

It's insane. I get why they do it - even low wage employees learn a company's systems. Amazon makes its money more from its system than its products - hence the clause. JJ's does as well (they are rehashing Dominoes' successful effort from the Eighties - minus the litigation-provoking deadline).

BUT a person's right to earn a living far outweighs a company's proprietary right to its system. If you wanna protect it, you might wanna work harder on retention - but the clause is silly and begging for bad PR.

I won't be eating at Jimmy Johns. Pity, I'd wanted to try it since it just moved into our area. Oh well...

[Cow Poke]

Non-compete agreements are common for CEOs, to prevent competitors from immediately poaching them and sharing all their secrets. However, Jimmy John's also has them for their hourly workers; you cannot work for a competitor for two years after your employment ends. It seems unclear to me why they would be worried about one packing up and working for Subway, but the threat of litigation is enough that I wouldn't want to test it. Amazon had a similar policy for their warehouse workers but ended it after the media called attention to it.

Legislation has been proposed to ban this practice for those making less than $15 an hour, arguing that it prevents labor mobility. Thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000013

Not sure if it's just in Texas, but I seem to remember from my Employment Law certification a few years ago that most non-competes have been held as unenforceable, since you cannot restrict a man (or woman) from earning a livelihood. Lemme double check that.

ETA - here's one of the articles to which my curriculum refers.

[KingsGambit]

Non-compete agreements are common for CEOs, to prevent competitors from immediately poaching them and sharing all their secrets. However, Jimmy John's also has them for their hourly workers; you cannot work for a competitor for two years after your employment ends. It seems unclear to me why they would be worried about one packing up and working for Subway, but the threat of litigation is enough that I wouldn't want to test it. Amazon had a similar policy for their warehouse workers but ended it after the media called attention to it.

Legislation has been proposed to ban this practice for those making less than $15 an hour, arguing that it prevents labor mobility. Thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000013