Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (May 20, 2016)
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS | May 20, 2016 | PAGE 5 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS Workers increasingly shackled by non-compete agreements Women show off their work gear at the tradeswomen fash- ion show. Women in Trades Fair Union women played a major role at Oregon Trades- women Inc.’s 24th annual Women in Trades Fair held May 14 at the IBEW Local 48 hall in Northeast A young girl prepares to climb a utility pole with Portland. The inter- instruction from Shaena Pelan of Seattle-based active fair provides IBEW Local 77. Eleven women lineworkers from five union locals attended the fair — making it an opportunity for the largest gathering of “linewomen” ever as- women and girls to sembled, according to Cristi Sawtell, a member see what kinds of of Portland-based IBEW Local 125. jobs are available to them in the building, construction, mechanical, utility and other trades. Over 40 hands-on work- shops offered welding, heavy equipment operat- ing, climbing utility poles and iron beams, plus much more. Several employers Heidi Kameroff, (leaning forward), a also set up booths with in- Jamie McGuire, a 3rd-term apprentice 4th-term apprentice and member of formation about job oppor- and member of Sheet Metal Workers Lo- Roofers Local 49, demonstrates cal 16, helps a young girl build an alu- “torch down” technique to an inter- tunities. ested audience. minum flower pot. The White House has begun rais- ing the alarm about a growing employer abuse: “non-compete agreements” which workers are pressured to sign, promising not to do the same kind of work in the same area for another com- pany within a certain period of time after leaving a job. Research suggests that 30 million U.S. workers are currently covered by non-compete agreements, even though many of those agree- ments are unenforceable in court. And according to a White House analysis released May 5, non-compete agreements have the potential to hold back wages: When workers are pre- vented from accepting competi- tors’ offers, they have less lever- age in wage negotiations and fewer opportunities to develop their careers. One researcher found that workers who switch jobs—if they’re covered by a non-compete—are more likely to leave their industry, resulting in “reduced compensation, atro- phy of their skills, and estrange- ment from their professional networks.” Historically, non-competes were only used with key employ- ees like top managers. They were used to prevent workers with ‘trade secrets’ from transferring technical knowledge and intel- lectual property to rival firms. But it’s moved beyond that. In- creasingly, low-wage workers are being told to sign non-com- petes, often after they’ve already agreed to accept the job and made plans accordingly. Non- competes cover an estimated 18 percent of the workforce overall, 15 percent of workers without a college degree, and 14 percent of workers earning less than $40,000. The most notorious case so far is probably the national sandwich chain Jimmy John’s, which requires its employees to sign an expansive non-compete agreement that would ban them for two years from working at any other store that makes at least 10 percent of its sales from sandwiches. Not just workers, but also con- sumers and the economy more generally are harmed by non- competes, says the White House document, which draws on a March 2016 report from the U.S. Treasury Department. Non-com- petes negatively impact other companies by constricting the la- bor pool from which to hire, and they prevent workers from launching new companies. Several bills in Congress would bar non-competes for workers earning less than $15 an hour or $31,200 a year, but the bills don’t appear to be headed for passage currently. So in the meantime, the White House document points to sev- eral state laws as examples other states should follow. ■ In California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, non-com- petes are flat-out illegal and unenforceable in court. ■ In Oregon, they’re heavily re- stricted. Under a law passed in 2007, they’re legally unen- forceable for workers earning less than the median family in- come for a family of four (cur- rently $73,300 a year), and for workers who are terminated for any reason other than just cause. And the non-competes are only enforceable if the em- ployer pays the worker for the period of time they’re re- stricted from working — $36,650 a year, or half what they were earning while they were working, whichever is greater. Employers also have to inform workers in writing at least two weeks before the start of employment if a non- competition agreement is re- quired as a condition for em- ployment. ■ In Idaho, a 2008 law restricts non-competes to “key em- ployees”—those who have gained a high level of inside knowledge and influence. But even where non-competes are legally unenforceable, some employers are requiring workers to sign them, capitalizing on workers’ ignorance of the law. In California, where they’re unen- forceable, 22 percent of workers surveyed reported that they have signed a non-compete. The White House, the Treas- ury, and Labor Department plan to convene a group of experts in labor law, economics, and busi- ness to discuss non-competes and their consequences, and is- sue a call for state-level reforms. HAVE YOU BEEN AFFECTED? Have you ever had to sign a non-com- petent? Share your story in our online comment section at bit.ly/1Wv4EFJ
