The FTC estimates about 30 million people, or one in five American workers, from minimum wage earners to CEOs, are bound by noncompetes. It says the policy change could lead to increased wages totaling nearly $300 billion per year by encouraging people to swap jobs freely.

  • lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    This might get voted down, but y’all should hear the counterpoint. My friend requires new hires to sign a NC that expires after 2 years. It basically says the employee may not work for another company using the same equipment unless they pay him the $3000 it costs him to get them certified. Before he did that, some employees would jump to a competitor shortly after completing the training. Now he’s wondering if he can make the $3000 an employee loan that will be forgiven after 2 years of employment.

    And no, he doesn’t do the NC if the new employee was already certified. He just wants to protect his investment in their training.

    This change in the law will have consequences in businesses where employees require special certifications or training for a high demand specialty. Will an auto repair shop be willing to train an employee to service EVs if they can’t guarantee the employee will remain with the shop?

    • acchariya@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      If your friend paid a competitive wage with the other company using the same equipment, while also providing an equal or better working environment, he would be able to retain the employees, and find an equilibrium for those moving to and from his competitor.

      The only reason he would need a contractual limitation is if he was offering worse wages or a worse working environment.

      • TrumpetX@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Counter point, the other company pays better because they save on training costs.

        3000 isn’t much when it comes to onboarding costs, so I don’t think that’s why, but imagine if it cost 10k,20k, etc.

        For clarity, I’m very much in favor of this ruling. But I also sympathize with the above reply.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      While I sympathize with the potential to get intentionally ripped off for the training class, there’s got to be a better way. I don’t see how you define it well enough to not open it wide for employer scams. Your friend may be honest but what about the fast food place that mandates $3,000 “training” on flipping a burger? You have someone who can’t afford to pay it off so is trapped, but by training that is either unnecessary or currently “free”.

      Given the employer has the power and the financial/legal advantage, you have to give this to the employee