American Labor - Balkanized

[Star]

.
Capitalism is officially broken: Even doggy day care workers have non-competes now

By Matt O'Brien
December 2

<snip>

...even doggy day care workers have to sign non-compete agreements, it's safe to say that management has decisively won its age-old battle with employees.

<snip>

This is about power, pure and simple. Companies have it, and workers don't. Not when globalization has forced more and more people to compete with low-wage workers overseas. And especially not when there are still two unemployed people, and even more discouraged folks, for every job opening. That's why employers are throwing non-compete clauses, which used to be reserved for top executives who were actually privy to sensitive info, into all their contracts: because they can.

<snip>

Why, after all, do companies do anything? To make money, of course. So firms are using non-competes not just because they can, but because they think these will help their bottom lines too. It's pretty easy to see why. Non-competes create a Balkanized labor force where you're not a sandwich maker, but either a Jimmy John's or Subway sandwich maker. Workers, in other words, are being forced to pledge fealty to companies that can still fire them at will. The payoff, of course, is that workers who, practically-speaking, can't switch jobs are workers who can't ask for raises. Not that companies really need any more leverage than they already have when middle-class incomes have been flat for 15 years now.

Corporate America's victory is the economy's loss. Job-switching, which has already been declining, is how people find out what they really want and can be paid the most to do. And that increases worker pay and productivity, which is good for everyone—well, except maybe for CEOs. That's why these kind of quasi-feudal non-competes should be illegal for everyone other than senior executives who really do know trade secrets without the scare quotes. They serve no purpose other than to keep wages down in an unfair way.

<snip>

IOWs, if employees have to sign a non compete document, they are now a slave to the corporation - they can't change jobs in the field they've chosen, been educated in, and/or have experience in, and because they can't change jobs in their chosen field they no longer have the leverage to ask for a raise, a promotion, time off, a potty break...

As the article says "these kind of quasi-feudal non-competes should be illegal for everyone other than senior executives who really do know trade secrets..."

But it's not likely the lazy, "do nothing" 113th Congress will actually stand up for working people.
.

 

[Moonglow]

Those poor corporations deserve a tax break.....awww..

 

[depotoo]

Those potential employees have a choice:
1 sign the non-compete and take the job, no questions asked
2 have an attorney look it over, see if it is fair for the non-compete period
3 negotiate with the potential employer on their own for an agreement they both can live with
or
4 Tell the potential employer, thanks, but no thinks.

You seem to think someone has them in a choke hold to to accept the offer. That individual has all their own power to decide what is right for them. Noone forces them to accept the terms. If they sign it, no questions asked, well they deserve what ever they may get.

.
Capitalism is officially broken: Even doggy day care workers have non-competes now

By Matt O'Brien
December 2

<snip>

...even doggy day care workers have to sign non-compete agreements, it's safe to say that management has decisively won its age-old battle with employees.

<snip>

This is about power, pure and simple. Companies have it, and workers don't. Not when globalization has forced more and more people to compete with low-wage workers overseas. And especially not when there are still two unemployed people, and even more discouraged folks, for every job opening. That's why employers are throwing non-compete clauses, which used to be reserved for top executives who were actually privy to sensitive info, into all their contracts: because they can.

<snip>

Why, after all, do companies do anything? To make money, of course. So firms are using non-competes not just because they can, but because they think these will help their bottom lines too. It's pretty easy to see why. Non-competes create a Balkanized labor force where you're not a sandwich maker, but either a Jimmy John's or Subway sandwich maker. Workers, in other words, are being forced to pledge fealty to companies that can still fire them at will. The payoff, of course, is that workers who, practically-speaking, can't switch jobs are workers who can't ask for raises. Not that companies really need any more leverage than they already have when middle-class incomes have been flat for 15 years now.

Corporate America's victory is the economy's loss. Job-switching, which has already been declining, is how people find out what they really want and can be paid the most to do. And that increases worker pay and productivity, which is good for everyone—well, except maybe for CEOs. That's why these kind of quasi-feudal non-competes should be illegal for everyone other than senior executives who really do know trade secrets without the scare quotes. They serve no purpose other than to keep wages down in an unfair way.

<snip>

IOWs, if employees have to sign a non compete document, they are now a slave to the corporation - they can't change jobs in the field they've chosen, been educated in, and/or have experience in, and because they can't change jobs in their chosen field they no longer have the leverage to ask for a raise, a promotion, time off, a potty break...

As the article says "these kind of quasi-feudal non-competes should be illegal for everyone other than senior executives who really do know trade secrets..."

But it's not likely the lazy, "do nothing" 113th Congress will actually stand up for working people.
.

 

[Stephanie]

gawd, is that all the poor wittle Socialist/commies do is WHINE?

WAAA WAA it's broken waa waa people don't want to become a slave to UNIONS. waaa

 

[initforme]

Pretty soon everyone wild have a $12 an hour job and will be expected to be thankful for it. What a crock . Keeping labor wages down does two things

1) lowers product quality
2). Encourages high quitting rates

But that's the American way. We are surely great. Yup.

 

[Star]

Those potential employees have a choice:
1 sign the non-compete and take the job, no questions asked
2 have an attorney look it over, see if it is fair for the non-compete period
3 negotiate with the potential employer on their own for an agreement they both can live with
or
4 Tell the potential employer, thanks, but no thinks.

You seem to think someone has them in a choke hold to to accept the offer. That individual has all their own power to decide what is right for them. Noone forces them to accept the terms. If they sign it, no questions asked, well they deserve what ever they may get.

.
Capitalism is officially broken: Even doggy day care workers have non-competes now

By Matt O'Brien
December 2

<snip>

...even doggy day care workers have to sign non-compete agreements, it's safe to say that management has decisively won its age-old battle with employees.

<snip>

This is about power, pure and simple. Companies have it, and workers don't. Not when globalization has forced more and more people to compete with low-wage workers overseas. And especially not when there are still two unemployed people, and even more discouraged folks, for every job opening. That's why employers are throwing non-compete clauses, which used to be reserved for top executives who were actually privy to sensitive info, into all their contracts: because they can.

<snip>

Why, after all, do companies do anything? To make money, of course. So firms are using non-competes not just because they can, but because they think these will help their bottom lines too. It's pretty easy to see why. Non-competes create a Balkanized labor force where you're not a sandwich maker, but either a Jimmy John's or Subway sandwich maker. Workers, in other words, are being forced to pledge fealty to companies that can still fire them at will. The payoff, of course, is that workers who, practically-speaking, can't switch jobs are workers who can't ask for raises. Not that companies really need any more leverage than they already have when middle-class incomes have been flat for 15 years now.

Corporate America's victory is the economy's loss. Job-switching, which has already been declining, is how people find out what they really want and can be paid the most to do. And that increases worker pay and productivity, which is good for everyone—well, except maybe for CEOs. That's why these kind of quasi-feudal non-competes should be illegal for everyone other than senior executives who really do know trade secrets without the scare quotes. They serve no purpose other than to keep wages down in an unfair way.

<snip>

IOWs, if employees have to sign a non compete document, they are now a slave to the corporation - they can't change jobs in the field they've chosen, been educated in, and/or have experience in, and because they can't change jobs in their chosen field they no longer have the leverage to ask for a raise, a promotion, time off, a potty break...

As the article says "these kind of quasi-feudal non-competes should be illegal for everyone other than senior executives who really do know trade secrets..."

But it's not likely the lazy, "do nothing" 113th Congress will actually stand up for working people.
.

You're right about one thing, your employer does have a choke hold on your career/life, and your ability to improve your position when s/he can fire you but you can't go to work in the field in which you have experience and/or education...

When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

Neil Irwin
OCT. 14, 2014

American businesses are paying out a historically low proportion of their income in the form of wages and salaries. But the Jimmy John’s employment agreement is one small piece of evidence that workers, especially those without advanced skills, are also facing various practices and procedures that leave them worse off, even apart from what their official hourly pay might be. Collectively they tilt the playing field toward the owners of businesses and away from the workers who staff them.

You see it in disputes like the one heading to the Supreme Court over whether workers at an Amazon warehouse in Nevada must be paid for the time they wait to be screened at the end of the workday to ensure they have no stolen goods on them.

It’s evident in continuing lawsuits against Federal Express claiming that its “independent contractors” who deliver packages are in fact employees who are entitled to benefits and reimbursements of costs they incur.

And it is shown in the way many retailers assign hourly workers inconvenient schedules that can change at the last minute, giving them little ability to plan their lives (my colleague Jodi Kantor wrote memorably about the human effects of those policies on a Starbucks coffee worker in August, and Starbucks rapidly said it would end many of them).

These stories all expose the subtle ways that employers extract more value from their entry-level workers, at the cost of their quality of life (or, in the case of the noncompete agreements, freedom to leave for a more lucrative offer).

What’s striking about some of these labor practices is the absence of reciprocity. When a top executive agrees to a noncompete clause in a contract, it is typically the product of a negotiation in which there is some symmetry: The executive isn’t allowed to quit for a competitor, but he or she is guaranteed to be paid for the length of the contract even if fired.

Question:
How do you negotiate with an employer
-when jobs are scarce,
-when you aren't allowed to work in your chosen field,
-that holds all the cards?

When my wife signed a 5 year non-compete contract, her salary was guaranteed, her bonus guaranteed to be based on the same criteria as other Executive VPs, + 33,000 stock option in years one, two and three at incentive rates and vested after five, six, and seven years - IOWs the company she negotiated with negotiated on a level field - how does that work for the dog walker, sandwich maker, waiter/waitress, Amazon warehouse picker... etc?
.

 

[depotoo]

Star- you have a choice in life. Don't work there, if you don't want to be bound by a non compete clause. It really is simple. You have the control, unless you give it to them. I was raised to handle my own life-not to let others. Only those that choose to give control to others, such as signing something not in their best interests, or joining a union and allowing the union to decide their worth, rather than deciding for themselves. Then you lose all your own worth to others decisions.

What is ironic is your advocating for the union, yet they will blackball you in a heartbeat if you dare step over their line.