Sign up to create alerts for Instruments,
Economic Events and content by followed authors
Free Sign Up Already have an account? Sign In
Quotes
All Instrument Types
- All Instrument Types
- Indices
- Equities
- ETFs
- Funds
- Commodities
- Currencies
- Crypto
- Bonds
- Certificates
Please try another search
🚨 Our Pro Data Reveals the True Winner of Earnings Season Access Data
Breaking News
U.S. agency considering rule reining in non-compete agreements for workers
© Reuters. FTC Presser on Facebook settlement in Washington
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), one of two agencies that enforce antitrust law, is considering a rule aimed at reining in corporations from pushing employees to sign non-compete agreements that prevent them from working for rival companies, officials said at a workshop on Thursday.
The practice of requiring workers to sign an agreement barring them from quitting for a similar job elsewhere appears to have begun among white collar professions, like doctors and tech workers, and were aimed at protecting trade secrets and encouraging training of workers. They have since spread to low-wage jobs that require minimal training.
A famous non-compete dispute between the Illinois state attorney general and the fast-food franchise Jimmy John's ended in 2016, when the chain agreed not to enforce a prohibition on workers at its sandwich shops taking jobs with competitors. The state had argued the non-compete agreement was illegal.
Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat on the FTC, said she had not prejudged a decision on a rule but seemed skeptical of such agreements.
"We know that non-compete clauses can limit employee mobility and competition even in states where non-compete clauses are legally unenforceable," she said at the FTC workshop.
Any decision on a rule limiting corporate non-compete agreements would be made by the agency's five commissioners, three Republicans and two Democrats.
Noah Phillips, a Republican commissioner, also seemed skeptical of non-compete agreements because of their potential to reduce labor mobility. However, he indicated he was reluctant to have the FTC to tackle the issue due to a lack of specific authority from congress or historical precedent for them to do so.
"Some stakeholders are pushing for the FTC itself to address non-competes through a rule-making," Phillips said. "We heard a little less however about the legal basis for doing so. This is a real issue that gives me, someone who is concerned about non-competes, pause."
A long list of states, including California, limit or ban the agreements. Eighteen state attorneys general, including from California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York, urged the FTC in July to stop the use of non-compete agreements, as well as agreements between companies to not poach each others' workers.
Related Articles
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block
Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?
By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.
%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List
Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.
Report this comment
I feel that this comment is:
Comment flagged
Thank You!
Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Add a Comment
We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:
Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.
Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.