Non-compete contracts: something only true Republicans can love

1. 80

   Credence2posted 3 months ago

   Just one example of exploitation of labor by corporate capitalists that I have warned about before. Living in Hawaii for a time, much of that was common and it is what I consider a dirty trick. It is high time that this  practice gets confronted. Conservatives love to screw the little guy, they speak of free markets and open trade that benefits the capitalists. They speak of the right to work status generally against unions and organized labor, again benefitting greedy capitalists. But where is the right not to be screwed by the capitalists who wants to reduce employees rights and employment options to a stage not far above slavery?
   
   https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal- … 7f7bf4d211
   
   In case you don't like Huffpost, here is the account from CBS News.
   
   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ftc-noncom … ement-ban/
   
   I've said my piece,
   Your thoughts..?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "But where is the right not to be screwed by the capitalists who wants to reduce employees rights and employment options to a stage not far above slavery?"
      
      Stripped of your gross exaggeration it is where it always was and should be; in the feet of the employee.  You don't like a job, walk away!  Quit whining and crying that you can't do it; just put one foot in front of another until you are somewhere else.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, they are free to move now, without reprisal...
         
         The application of successful Right cross on the rightwing is a always something to celebrate.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            And the demands that the Left always control everything (like private contracts between consenting adults) is always something to fight.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

               Not every agreement between labor and management is legal even if consensual, you should know that by reviewing laws in that regard.
               
               I guess management can create whatever contract they want, but non-competes have been rendered not enforceable anywhere, that is good enough for me.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely!  Criminals and crooks abound...and they are not always (or even mostly) on the side of management.
                  
                  The only problem I have with the FTC ruling is that we once more have unelected committees making and enforcing laws.  Not the way it is supposed to be.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                     "The only problem I have with the FTC ruling is that we once more have unelected committees making and enforcing laws.  Not the way it is supposed to be."
                     
                     Perhaps...

                     replyreport
      2. 77

         Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         Wilderness: "Just walk away." You make it sound so easy. If it was, they would.

         replyreport
   2. 89

      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I find myself pondering why there seems to be such a strong bias reflected in your title concerning this specific issue.  Here is a bit of food for thought.
      
      04/23/24  - Will Congress pass a bill to ban noncompete agreements?
      
      "Congress has not given the FTC explicit authority to ban noncompetes, though there have been several bipartisan bills introduced to reform noncompete agreements.
      "Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Kevin Kramer (R-N.D.) have introduced the Workforce Mobility Act, which limits the use of noncompete agreements. Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) have also introduced the Freedom to Compete Act.20 hours ago"
      
      “If we want to continue to grow our economy, we must protect and empower American workers,” Kaine said after the vote.
      
      “I’m glad the Federal Trade Commission is taking this step to ban non-compete agreements, which stifle wage growth, hinder job mobility, and make it harder for businesses to hire talent. This will expand job opportunities for more Americans, increase wages, promote innovation, and support our country’s economic growth,” Kaine said."
      https://thehill.com/business/4616169-ft … 0Murphy%20(D%2D,the%20Freedom%20to%20Compete%20Act.
      Note the R by the names of some that are backing the bill.
      
      July 15, 2021  Sponsor:    Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] (Introduced 07/15/2021)
      S.2375 - Freedom To Compete Act --  To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prevent employers from using non-compete agreements in employment contracts for certain non-exempt employees.
      
      Feb 9, 2023  Sponsor: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] (Introduced 02/09/2023)
      S.379 - Freedom To Compete Act of 20232023 -  To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prevent employers from using non-compete agreements in employment contracts for certain non-exempt employees.
      https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-hass … greements/
      
      Rubio has worked to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prevent employers from using non-compete agreements in employment contracts for certain non-exempt employees.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

         I find these agreement to be a loathsome practice, that should be associated only with research and development, not making sub sandwiches.
         
         As long as I get rid of it, I am open to any and all solutions.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Cred, I did not share my view on the bill that Congress has offered, which much agrees with your view to ban noncompetes. I also support the bipartisan bill.  Not sure you needed to use this title -- "Non-compete contracts: something only true Republicans can love"
            
            You know this truely shows a bias. I am a Republican, and as I said, I support the bill. Does pointing the finger so clearly not deepen a divide?
            
            Does what I offered not go to show you that Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion together on the bill that would address  Non-compete contracts?

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

               Yes, your information gave me pause to stand back, but  dont forget in the FTC vote 3 Democrats were for it  and 2 republicans were against due to technicalities. Republicans generally are instinctly against working class people and that reflex is why the two Republicans on the board voted against it.
               
               I still believe the Republicans and their embrace of corporate capitalism will prove to be the only source of resistance to the change if any.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I can agree certainly, capitalism holds significant appeal for some Republicans. In my view, due to its alignment with principles such as individual freedom, economic efficiency, and the promotion of innovation.
                  
                  For instance, I argue that capitalism encourages entrepreneurship by providing incentives for individuals to take risks and start businesses, which in turn drives economic growth and creates jobs.
                  
                  Republicans tend to appreciate the importance of competition in capitalism, believing it leads to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, and greater consumer choice for all.  These are just a couple of reasons why capitalism resonates strongly with the Republican ideology.
                  
                  Have you ever considered the importance of successful businesses? They're the backbone of our economy. Without them, where would we be? Would we have the multitude of job opportunities crucial for national growth, contributing to a high standard of living akin to that enjoyed by many in the US? I fail to comprehend anyone opposing capitalism. I simply can't envision our nation without it. From my perspective, capitalism has shaped us into one of the most innovative, prosperous nations on Earth.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                     Fine, but outside all of the "great things"we don't want an alignment with the exploitation of labor, no one should be protecting Capitalism in support of that.
                     
                     I am not against capitalism per se, but I am against excesses and abuse as a part of it.
                     And the use of non-compete contract in regards to employees who flip burgers is an example of that abuse.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                        While capitalism has its share of abuses, our country has undoubtedly gained from it. Moreover, we've navigated challenges like forming unions and implementing numerous federal laws and regulations that businesses must adhere to. However, it's important to acknowledge that each of these issues also carries its own set of problems.
                        
                        We can work  for perfect, while enjoying some of the perks of capitalism.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                           But if you notice, no one was threatening Capitalism, more like directing attention to an unfair practice which is a part of it. Look how Republicans act as if all of Capitalism is threatened by just reining one abhorrent practice. They all line up quickly to defend the indefensible and serve the capitalist masters and the rights of working people be damned.
                           
                           A larger percentage  of MY people are part of that working class. This is just one example of many why Republicans receive little support from our community as they always take the wrong side in regards to issues like this.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                              To specify, that example can be easily seen from the votes of the FTC board.

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                 These are two representatives. Does it not matter what Rubio is doing in Congress along with several other republicans that back the bill I offered?  It would seem you are looking at a very small part of a very big picture. Rubio has been on this problem for some years now. Read the bill he set forward in 2021 and the recent bill that many Republicans are on board with. You will find the links in my first comment that started our conversation.
                                 
                                 It seems like we might not find common ground if we only focus on selective parts of the whole picture. I'm not trying to change your perspective; I just want to enrich it with additional facts. While you lean towards the Democratic side and I'm a Republican, the key difference in our approaches seems to be my willingness to consider all sides of an issue.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                    My point was that Republicans take one side and the Democrats take the other, almost in lockstep. Yes, I understand all sides, but in the big picture  we both know that if there is to be any resistance, "Chamber of Commerce" advocates of the Republicans, for example, it will come from the Republican right.
                                    
                                    With Republicans, if they would support eliminating such practices, I will have to see it to believe it...

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                       I think it wise to wait and see if the bill passes. Your point well taken.

                                       report
                                       1. 80

                                          Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                          And how many Republicans actually got on board to ensure its passage.

                                          report
                                          1. 89

                                             Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                             We won't know that until a vote is taken.  Thus far one can see it is bipartisan.
                                             
                                             "Congress has not given the FTC explicit authority to ban noncompetes, though there have been several bipartisan bills introduced to reform noncompete agreements.
                                             "Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Kevin Kramer (R-N.D.) have introduced the Workforce Mobility Act, which limits the use of noncompete agreements. Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) have also introduced the Freedom to Compete Act.20 hours ago"

                                             report
                           2. 89

                              Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                              IRS made claims that Trump's Taxes helped all, including the middle class, and those that lived at the poverty level.
                              
                              "A careful analysis of the IRS tax data, one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms to the tax code, shows that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available.
                              
                              Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.
                              
                              By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.)
                              
                              That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.
                              
                              What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year.
                              
                              In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected.
                              
                              That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive — the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years.
                              
                              The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law — which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate — spurred economic mobility.
                              
                              Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000.
                              
                              The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity."
                              https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/584 … cans-most/

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                 Sounds so much like Reagan " A rising tide lifts all boats".
                                 
                                 Does it really?
                                 
                                 WE simply get more support from Democrats and their initiatives than that of the Republicans....
                                 
                                 Supporting the fat cats as FTC Republicans did in this case reflects on their true underlying philosophies.
                                 
                                 There is more involved that just tax cuts....

                                 replyreport
                     2. 95

                        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                        I have never heard of a non-compete clause for a burger flipper (or a sub maker).  Heck, I've never heard of a signed contract for a burger flipper!
                        
                        Does that really happen (examples, please) or is just gross exaggeration?

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                           There was a case involving the Jimmy John's franchise that used such agreements in regards to its employees. Was there a need to protect proprietary processes and procedures unique to Jimmy John's in the preparation of sub sandwiches?
                           
                           It was in the initial linked article that I provided.
                           
                           No exaggeration....

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                              Sure enough!  Buried two links deep, but there.
                              
                              I don't like them, but Jimmy Johns seems pale and almost reasonable by comparison.  Can't work within 2 miles, in another sandwich shop, for 1 year.  When you say non-compete I think of can't work forever (or at least a decade of some such) in the same capacity at a direct competitor.  Jimmy John's does say that a "competitor" is someone making 10% of their profit from sandwiches, which seems really low to be a "competitor".

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, I would say that it is LOW for being a competitor. This is all just a ruse to exploit employees. I don't believe that any fast food outlet should be using this form of prior restraint on its employees in this fashion.
                                 
                                 These sorts of agreements belong within the realm of research and development companies far above the pay grade of minimum wage employees.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                    I could see the restraint on those employees coming up with new recipes or new, dedicated, machines (a new kind of french fry cooker, maybe) - this is the R&D you mention, whether fast food or some other field.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 80

                                       Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                                       Now, you are cooking with gas....
                                       
                                       I still believe that for the most the idea is abusive and is employed abusively.
                                       
                                       It was used in Kailua Kona big Island, Hawaii by hotel chains that did not want to employees seeking better wages or working conditions  to move to competing hotels. I know that on first hand experience.
                                       
                                       What is so much of a trade secret among competing hotels that such agreements were necessary?

                                       report