Non Compete Clauses For Lower Level Jobs Should Be Illegal.

[TheMastersNemesis]

Amazon is famous for binding low lever workers to non compete clauses whereby the person cannot work in a similar job or industry for a specified time. Such clauses deny a person a right to work in areas where they have experience. Even some fast food business bind employees from working at similar businesses for up to 2 years.

Non compete clauses are even common in many job categories that are not really crucial to the company. These condition are tantamount to slavery and DENY a person's right work or earn a living. That means such an employee may have to retrain into an area they have not experience or work in an industry they have no work history. What that means is that the person essentially becomes technically unemployable or has an insurmountable barrier to further employment. In the worst case they may be unemployable without extensive retraining at a time that they have no income.

Guidelines must be set on non compete clauses because they are being abused.

[Warpy]

1. This is both clearly insane and likely unenforceable

When it comes to low level employees, there isn't enough money there to make a lawsuit at all profitable and a lawsuit is what would have to be done to force the employee to change fields.

Yes, the clauses are being abused. Workers are being abused and the only thing the GOP can come up with is taking away all employee rights in the hope that workers will stop complaining about having their rights taken away.

I knew someone years ago who was threatened with such a lawsuit in a creative field. He told the guy to go ahead and sue, he had exactly fourteen dollars in his checking account. That was 40 years ago and the lawsuit has still not happened.

The only answer to a non compete clause is a loud "fuck you" and doing whatever you need to do in order to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.

[TheMastersNemesis]

5. Non Compete Clauses Interfere With A Person's Right To Work.

I worked at DOL for 24 years and ran into a number of workers bound by non compete clauses. In most cases these clauses were improper. Workers could be forced to of a field of work they have worked for years. The intimidation factor was bad enough. And frequently their severance pay or other benefits were tied to such clauses. And the employer had the ability to claw back any benefits bestowed. In some cases the benefits were substantial.

There may be cases where non compete could be appropriate. But based on my experience there were very few unless a person was a key office in a corporation or business.

But when tell a worker they can no longer work in your industry or at a certain job when they are no more than a minimum wage worker there is a problem with that. And there is a trend to bind workers who could never hurt your business. That is nonsense.

We have laws controlling something like who is or is not a contract worker. So legislation controlling the non compete clause would be little different.

[Wella]

14. Then a "right to work" state should be against them, right?

Well, we could try it in Wisconsin and see what happens.

(Disclaimer: Wella is a proud union member)

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Yep ...

I have seen only one non-compete clause that was enforceable ... it involved a unique product, in a really niche industry, where former partners - one that developed the product, the other marketed it and managed the operations - split. And then, it was only enforceable because the marketing partner could not demonstrate that he could produce the product without violating the patent and other Trade Secrets.

Lower level employees tend to not have that problem.

Though, Non-Competes are more just attempts to scare employees/former employees from walking out the door with their rolodex/contact list.

[Warpy]

10. Warehouse pickers and restaurant flunkies don't have access to the Rolodex

and unless it's a fancy restaurant with chef and sous chef, they have no idea exactly what they're cooking and serving to the people out front, it's all shipped in frozen from the franchiser.

[arcane1]

2. Very well said!

[madville]

3. I've never seen one enforced

I work in a technical field and even after everyone signs one, people still shuffle around and go to work with competitors or customers/clients all the time and nobody ever bats an eye or makes a stink about it. All that usually happens when somebody gives notice is they get offered a raise to stay if they like them

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ,

,

[GoneFishin]

6. K & R

[WDIM]

8. well if all the workers would just refuse to sign them

Workers have rights. Everybody is so afraid and so willing to give up their rights just to get a job. Dont sign it and if we all dont sign it then we will have a movement.

[MANative]

9. With 30 years in the HR field, I can tell you that these aren't worth the paper they're written on.

They are rarely enforced, and then, only against top-level executives who try to share proprietary information with a new employer. What's really wrong with them is that they are used to intimidate and coerce workers who don't know how worthless they are. That's unconscionable.

[Gothmog]

11. These clauses make no sense for lower wage workers

You are seeing more and more companies insist on these clauses even though they are likely not enforceable unless the employee received special training or has trade secrets

[taught_me_patience]

12. Non competes for employees completely unenforcible in California

one of only two states where they are illegal.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. They are an unenforcable nuisance

They can almost never be enforced, but the company can cause you grief and money defending yourself.