Work Reform

9969 readers

1 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

230

Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes (www.npr.org)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Federal judges have blocked so much progress that Biden, his administration, and appointees have attempted to make. It's absurd

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jo3shmoo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If it worked that way in the US then that would be sensibly pro-worker while allowing the existing employer to defend their intellectual property and investments in employees.

The reality is I have a 2 year noncompete that simply prevents me from working for competitors within 50 miles of any of my job sites unless I want to open myself up to a lawsuit. If I left today, I'd have to travel way further to get to an acceptable location, but would certainly not be receiving any compensation for that hassle from my previous employer. The elimination of noncompetes would be a huge boon to me and my colleagues, but this sort of court shenanigans is why I said I'd wait to be excited until it actually took effect.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Honestly I think instead of banning non-competes they should just make it a hard requirement that a non-compete must be X percentage(no smaller then 30 or 40%) of your salary per year for the non-compete. Which in my opinion is fair because the entire point of a non-compete because you know information that a competitor could use that would give them a financial advantage so it makes sense that they would have to pay for your silence that you're not going to give that information away. If a company is saying they're not willing to pay that money that means the information you know isn't enough for them to care about so a non-compete shouldn't be in place in the first place

Like I've seen it non-compete clauses for web designers, which I find absolutely fucking ridiculous because there is little nothing that a web developer should be able to learn about a company that would financially harm it by going elsewhere, it's clear in those cases that those complete clauses are exclusively there as a trap to try to make it so their devs don't leave. The arguments those companies use is that there's financial incentive for that compromise. So a "well yeah you can do non-competes but they must be paid" will more or less blow their entire argument out of the water.

Personally I think if something similar like that gets implemented, you'll see a lot of the jobs that currently have a non-compete as part of their onboarding process will magically lose that as a requirement