Jim Meskauskas’ Post

📢 Just a friendly reminder: Your salary is your company's monthly subscription of you! 💼💰 In line with this notion, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken a significant step forward in the realm of employment regulations. On Tuesday, the FTC announced a ban on worker noncompete clauses in most cases, effectively allowing employees more freedom to transition to rival companies. This groundbreaking move by the FTC is poised to have far-reaching implications. By eliminating noncompete contracts, which have affected approximately 30 million U.S. workers across various industries, the FTC aims to stimulate job creation, elevate wages, and foster increased competition among businesses.👟👟👟 However, it's essential to recognize that this decision will likely face legal challenges from businesses citing the need to safeguard trade secrets and confidential information. Nonetheless, proponents of the FTC's action argue that it will compel companies to compete more vigorously for talent, ultimately benefiting workers and promoting a fairer labor market.💼 🔔Working abroad?! Local laws in your current country of residence may be different! For further insights into this development, check out the article from The New York Times: https://lnkd.in/gQVC_-im #FTC #EmploymentLaw #NoncompeteClauses #BusinessNews #LaborMarket #WorkplaceRights 🌐📈 Connected Financial Planning

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a ban on noncompete clauses, aiming to increase wages and protect workers. A non-compete agreement is a legal contract or clause in a work agreement that specifies that an employee must not engage in competition with their employer after their employment period ends. Here are the key points about non-compete agreements: A non-compete agreement prohibits an employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business after leaving their current employer. It also forbids the employee from disclosing proprietary information or trade secrets to other parties during or after employment. These agreements are commonly used to protect an employer’s market position and sensitive information. The agreement outlines how long the employee must refrain from working with a competitor. It may specify where the employee is restricted from competing (e.g., within a certain city or region) and some agreements limit the type of market or industry in which the employee can work post-employment. The validity and enforcement of non-compete agreements vary by jurisdiction and may require the former employer to continue paying the ex-employee a base salary during the non-compete period.

Oh boy. Things just got very interesting for almost everyone in the workforce except senior execs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just proposed a rule to eliminate noncompete clauses across all sectors, which they argue suppress wages, stifle innovation, and obstruct career opportunities. The FTC's proposed regulation aims to enhance competition by ensuring that workers can move freely between jobs without being bound by noncompete agreements, which often favor employers at the expense of employee mobility and wage growth. The move is seen as a significant shift toward increasing workers' earnings and fostering a more dynamic economy. The FTC estimates that this could potentially increase workers' earnings by nearly $300 billion annually and impact about 30 million Americans. They assert that noncompetes, while sometimes positioned as protective of businesses, disproportionately harm the labor market, limiting workers from seeking better opportunities and restricting businesses' ability to hire the most competent employees. The proposed rule is part of a broader trend of federal intervention in employment relations, aiming to curtail practices that are viewed as anti-competitive. This aligns with ongoing efforts by other federal agencies to scrutinize and regulate employment practices to ensure fair competition more closely. This initiative has already sparked discussions on the balance between protecting business interests and promoting an open labor market. While some view it as a necessary step to enhance market competitiveness and worker freedom, others express concerns about potential overreach and the implications for business operations, particularly regarding innovation and business secrets protection. This policy shift underscores a significant moment in labor and competition law, reflecting the current administration's reinvigoration of regulatory focus on addressing what it sees as longstanding inequities in the labor market. The full article is here in the Wall Street Journal. Jeff Pulver #HR #CHRO Evan Kirstel B2B TechFluencer Rich Tehrani Bob Christopher James Richey Jason I. Soto https://lnkd.in/gnwHSrCd

Big business has called for awards to be stripped back and their number cut, a dilution of the legal test used to ensure workers are not worse off under pay deals, and the winding back of new multi-employer bargaining law so employers can choose not to be bound by them. The Business Council of Australia’s Seize the Moment report claims the current system of 122 awards is “virtually impossible” for employers and workers to understand, resulting in errors in how they are applied and how workers are paid. While the number of awards has been cut and their content modernised by the Fair Work Commission over the years, the BCA says their content needs to be further “substantially simplified” and consolidated into fewer awards. Major companies, including BCA members, consistently blame the award system for a stream of massive underpayments to their employees and the BCA wants the next award review to kick off with an examination of the “most complex awards which have led to payment issues”. The BCA is also revising politically unpopular attempts to weaken the Fair Work Act’s better off overall test (BOOT), despite such changes being strongly opposed by the Albanese government and unions, and employers failing to secure changes under the Morrison government. The Australian https://lnkd.in/gP6T3f_S

Big News for Employees: FTC Bans Non-Compete Agreements! Great news for workers! The FTC's recent ruling prohibits companies from enforcing non-competition agreements. There are some situations where they will still stand, i.e., senior management employees who are in decision-making chair, but other employees should be notified that their agreements will not be utilized in the future. This means you have more freedom to pursue new opportunities, whether it's for: Growth: Find a position that challenges and helps you develop your skills. Work-life balance: Land a job closer to home or with a schedule that better suits your needs. New beginnings: Explore exciting opportunities in different fields or start your own venture! This is a chance to take control of your career. Businesses: This is a wake-up call! To retain top talent, focus on creating a positive work environment that fosters loyalty and engagement. Investing in your employees' growth and well-being has never been more important. They need to want to be your employees! Employees: Research companies that prioritize employee satisfaction. Look for opportunities that align with your career goals and personal needs. This is a win-win for everyone! Let's leverage this change to create a more dynamic and rewarding work landscape. #FTCRuling #NonCompeteBan #CareerFreedom P.S. Share this with your network to spread the word!

It’s an important distinction! Although most states are employment at will, that doesn’t mean you can term someone for illegal reasons. Sometimes, companies don’t know which reasons can get them in hot water. Competent and resourceful HR professionals can help companies understand the hidden minefields that create wrongful termination. We can also help to leadership understand the differences in right to work and employment at will.

Apparently, I'm making today Policy Watch Tuesday. Here's another important one to watch at the Federal level. Reason reports CA's Assembly Bill 5 is the model for this Federal legislation. When it passed in 2019 and took effect in 2020, independent contract labor shrunk by 10.5% and the overall labor force shrunk by 4.4% in CA. The last paragraph follows (and is a good summary). "So what's the advantage of reclassifying independent workers as employees? The same as the disadvantage: It makes it harder for workers to be their own boss, to choose their own schedules, to represent themselves, to set their priorities as they see fit. If you believe in the evolution of the workplace and worker self-determination, this is bad. But if you believe in a one-size-fits-all work model where individuals are employed by traditional businesses and represented by traditional unions, this is great." https://lnkd.in/eYhcCJSJ

Exciting News! The Federal Trade Commission has just taken a groundbreaking step towards empowering American employees. In a historic move, the FTC voted 3-2 to #ban #noncompeteagreements, which have long restricted workers from pursuing better opportunities. This decision will impact approximately 30 million workers across the nation, fostering greater job mobility and economic dynamism. Noncompete clauses, often linked to high-level executives, have unfairly ensnared lower-paid workers. This new rule, effective in four months, aims to boost wage growth by allowing employees to freely seek higher-paying roles, spurring innovation and competition in our economy. FTC Chair Lina Khan emphasized the detrimental impact of noncompetes on workers, calling them a barrier to fair wages and workplace mobility. The Biden administration's commitment to workers' rights is clear with recent actions like this and the new overtime rule from the U.S. Department of Labor, ensuring more lower-paid workers receive fair compensation for their hard work. This decision has sparked debate, with business groups expressing concerns about potential impacts on business strategies. Nonetheless, advocates argue that banning noncompetes will unlock new opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation, echoing California's success in fostering a vibrant tech economy without such restrictions.

It drives me BONKERS when people confuse "right to work" and "employment at will." They are very, very different concepts. "Right to work" refers to state laws that prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers requiring employees to pay union dues as a condition of their employment, whether or not they are members of the union. In a state with a right to work law, employees of unionized workplace can both opt out of union membership and union dues without penalty to their employment. There are currently 26 states with right to work laws. "Employment at will" is the right of an employer to fire an employee at any time for any legal reason, good, bad, or indifferent. 49 out of the 50 states are at-will states. (Bonus points if you correctly comment with the one state in which employment isn't "at-will.) Thus, "right to work" and "employment at will" are very different concepts under the law. Please don't confuse them anymore. It makes us employment lawyers ornery (unless that's your goal, in which case, mission accomplished).