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