Non competes
Via Alternet, Thom Hartmann writes:
…This type of labor system has been the dream of conservative/corporatists, particularly since the “Reagan Revolution” kicked off a major federal war on the right of workers to organize for their own protection from corporate abuse.Unions represented almost a third of American workers when Reagan came into office (and, since union jobs set local labor standards, for every union job there was typically an identically-compensated non-union job, meaning about two-thirds of America had the benefits and pay associated with union jobs pre-Reagan).Thanks to Reagan’s war on labor, today unions represent about 6 percent of the non-government workforce.
But that wasn’t enough for the acolytes of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. They didn’t just want workers to lose their right to collectively bargain; they wanted employers to functionally own their employees.Prior to the current Reaganomics era, non-compete agreements were pretty much limited to senior executives and scientists/engineers.If you were a CEO or an engineer for a giant company, knowing all their processes, secrets and future plans, that knowledge had significant and consequential value—company value worth protecting with a contract that said you couldn’t just take that stuff to a competitor without either a massive payment to the left-behind company or a flat-out lawsuit.
But should a guy who digs holes with a shovel or works on a drilling rig be forced to sign a non-compete? What about a person who flips burgers or waits tables in a restaurant? Or the few factory workers we have left, since neoliberal trade policies have moved the jobs of tens of thousands of companies overseas?Turns out corporations are using non-competes to prevent even these types of employees from moving to newer or better jobs.America today has the lowest minimum wage in nearly 50 years, adjusted for inflation. As a result, people are often looking for better jobs. But according to the New York Times, about 1 in 5 American workers is now locked in with a non-compete clause (bolding mine) in an employment contract.Before Reaganomics, employers didn’t keep their employees by threatening them with lawsuits; instead, they offered them benefits like insurance, paid vacations and decent wages.
Wage suppression is real. It’s hurting everyone who rents their lives out to survive. The increasing emphasis on employers rights is coming to a state legislature near you. See Idaho as leading the way.
I EMAILED THE MATERIAL BELOW TO 1100 CALIFORNIA UNIONISTS, ACTIVISTS, LEGISLATORS AND JOURNALISTS. IT WOULD BE SO EASY. WONDER IF ANYONE WILL EVER GET MOVING. ???
I believe that so many registered voters in California would sign a ballot initiative to make union busting a felony — that they might have to line up around the block. Basic requirement: need as many registered voters to sign up as 5% of last governor’s race voters (365,000). Basic source: 45% nationally earn $15/hr or less –- and –- bottom 45% incomes nationally down to 10% of overall income share from 15% two generations earlier (California wages higher, but prices too).
The latter means 33% less of twice as much, true — but — people judge their well being as compared to others — besides — the very bottom 10-15% are down in absolute terms (today’s $7.25/hr federal minimum wage compared to 1968’s $11.45/hr).
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=196802&year2=201705
Shill effect: As a Manhattan and Bronx street peddler in the early 1970s I could wait for ten minutes for somebody to make a buy – but as soon as someone did, four other people might suddenly shell out too.
I’m not suggesting fooling voters (potential signers) with fake lines around the block. I am suggesting doing lines around the block as our primary demonstration –- the kind of image loved by TV cameras on the six-o’clock news. We could even start “demonstration”-demonstration lines before the precise legal language of the initiative is prepared (not trying to fool anybody there) just to get the initiative idea rolling (around the block :-]).
* * * * * *
Suppose that a few states happened to impose (they didn’t) criminal law penalties for union busting, back in 1935, when Congress passed the NLRA(a) and set up the NLRB(b). Why would anyone suppose that federal regulatory machinery would preempt state criminal court prosecutions?
Farm workers were deliberately left out the NLRA(a) in 1935 (traded for passage votes). California (only) has a virtual mirror image of the NLRA/NLRB for farm workers — the CALRA. If ever a (future Democratic) Congress moved to include farm workers under the NLRA(a) — the CALRA would presumably bow out to federal preemption.
OTH, if Congress should wake up and make union busting a federal felony — triable and punishable in criminal court — there is no such presumption that state union busting prosecutions would bowl over — no more than state bank robbery prohibitions or state minimum wage regulations give way to federal preemption.
Lest there be any doubt: With First Amendment protected freedom of association at stake (except for government workers say the courts), federal regulations or even (if) deliberately restrictive laws cannot force organizing rights down an impassable road.
* * * * * * * * * * *
In BALLOT INITIATIVE states it typically takes the number of registered voter signatures equal to 5% of the vote in the last governor’s election to put your initiative on the ballot. (OR, CA, MO, MI, OH, OK, CO, NE ND, SD, MT)
Some states like California put a winning initiative on the law books immediately. Most, allow the legislature one shot at approval. If it doesn’t approve the measure goes back to voters for final decision.
In California you write in plain language what you want your initiative to say and a state legal office will put it into proper words for a state law.
In California circulators (signature collectors) may be paid employees. This has led in recent years to initiatives becoming the play thing of billionaires — the opposite of the original intention.
If initiatives can quickly and easily take our world back, then, Fight for 15 and labor unions and others now have a new, all critical mission: register and sign up as many voters as possible.
Raising the issue of making union busting a felony to a high level of national consciousness should prompt legislatures in progressive states to finally wake up and face what they need to do — what we all need them to do. (WA, IL, MN, NY, MA, VT, CT, RI, PA, MD, VA, etc.)
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/statewide-initiative-guide.pdf
It’s really quite simple. California has set the lower bound for restrictions on non competes. All other states need to match or exceed those rules.
Exceeding has some risk of going too far, but nothing the would be slavers claim will happen happened in California, so matching has no realistic risk.
If there were not non-competes then firms would have to reward loyalty (instead of punishing non loyalty). Make them prove they have suffered a significant loss of competitive position or else null and void.
The reason companies want non-competes is to prevent employees from taking trade secrets and/or other employees to competitors. Non competes are notoriously difficult to enforce and generally require malfeasance, or bad facts, of the sort mentioned.
So the noncompetes perform as intended, rather than arbitrarily hamstringing employees. Besides the employee signed the noncompete of his own free will, so it must have been worth it.
Yes, Sammy, that counter worker, stocker, driver and all other such employees are taking trade secretes.
If companies are worried about losing trade secrets and employees to competitors why not let them treat people well enough so that they aren’t interested in leaving? Why is what is too valuable to lose not worth paying to keep? More heads they win right?
reason
July 19, 2017 11:51 am
instead of punishing non loyalty
Though true non-loyalty in the no-compete period isn’t possible, unless the compensation formally includes the no-compete period as a form of continuing employment.
Sammy: “So the noncompetes perform as intended”
Indeed. We have to conclude that employers know that they are often unenforceable so they must intend them to engender fear in employees who do not have the resources to hire counsel to defend themselves if they decide to move from Wal*Mart to Target. This merely reinforces the fact that it is about intimidation, not trade secrets.
Daniel/Scott F,
Typical Walmart/Target drivers, counter, stocker would never be required to sign a non compete. The idea that Walmart would sue a driver because he went to drive for Target is ludicrous.
Legal Requirements for Non-Competition Agreements
In order to be considered valid, a non-competition agreement must:
Be supported by consideration at the time it is signed;
Protect a legitimate business interest of the employer; and
Be reasonable in scope, geography, and time.
http://employment.findlaw.com/hiring-process/non-competition-agreements-overview.html
Just a quick question Sammy – do you ever take the virtual reality glasses off?