Democrats protect ban on noncompete agreements from carve-outs sought by big businesses
Democrats successfully beat back an attack on the state's ban on noncompete agreements, one of their signature pro-worker victories in the 2023 session, with Republicans dropping demands for carve-outs for highly paid workers hours before a marathon special session began on Monday.
Under noncompete agreements, employees are barred from working for a competing company — or starting one — for a period of time and within a certain geographic area.
Rolling back the ban on noncompete agreements for highly paid workers and those with access to confidential and proprietary information was a top priority for Minnesota's largest companies, whose lobbyists argued the ban jeopardized their right to protect valuable scientific discoveries and trade secrets.
Democrats rejected that argument, saying the push to revive noncompete agreements was more about stifling competition and suppressing wages than protecting trade secrets.
'There's no evidence that noncompetes actually foster an innovator's economy,' said Rep. Emma Greenman, DFL-Minneapolis, an author of the ban. 'It actually does the opposite.'
About one in five American workers — in jobs ranging from medicine to child care — are bound by a noncompete agreement, and they cost workers more than $250 billion per year by decreasing competition, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission moved to ban noncompete agreements nationwide last year, estimating it would increase new business development and raise workers' wages by an additional $524 per year on average. A federal court later blocked the ban, and the Trump administration signaled it's likely to reverse course.
Despite the pressure from large technology companies to repeal the ban, retired 3M chemical engineer and patent agent Jim Klein told lawmakers that Minnesota is on the right track. Klein, who managed 3M's intellectual property portfolio for 23 years, encouraged the House and Senate labor working group to maintain the blanket ban on noncompete agreements. He said the United States has sufficient protections for trade secrets — like the Uniform Trade Secrets Act — beyond restricting employees' careers.
'It does not make proprietary information any more secure,' Klein said.
Rep. Harry Niska, R-Ramsey, the author of the carve out, argued the ban would put the state at a competitive disadvantage, noting Minnesota is one of just four states with such broad non-compete bans. The other states with noncompete bans are North Dakota, Oklahoma and California, where the lack of enforceable non-compete agreements has been credited with fueling the immense, wealth-creating innovation of Silicon Valley.
The issue tied up the labor committee in the House for weeks until they reached a compromise that passed the House, which would have carved out workers making more than $200,000 and whose primary duties included 'the creation, analysis, or modification of trade secret information.' The bill also carved out workers making more than $500,000 a year regardless of their duties.
The Democratic-controlled Senate never passed that provision and the legislative session ended without a deal, which sent the issue to a labor working group, where Rep. Dave Baker, R-Willmar, tried to revive House Republicans' original proposal.
That would have carved out workers making more than $120,000 a year and whose primary duties include 'research and development or the creation, analysis, or modification of confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information.'
Greenman called the proposal a 'trojan horse' with language so broad that it would effectively allow employers to use noncompetes with any employee simply by calling their work 'confidential.'
The labor working group couldn't reach a compromise, but Baker said on the House floor on Monday night that lawmakers must revisit the issue or else large companies like Medtronic will shift operations elsewhere.
'If we don't fix this, these other companies are going to slip away,' Baker said.
Democrats were largely able to protect their progressive agenda from 2023 even while passing a smaller budget ahead of a forecasted deficit, with the notable exception of repealing MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the end of the year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
How tourists are weathering geopolitical uncertainty, currency moves and extreme heat
Geopolitics, currency moves and extreme weather are increasingly playing into tourists' considerations for their next vacation and affecting classic holiday destinations. Staple European spots France, Spain and Croatia, for example, have been facing record-breaking heat in recent weeks, which triggered wildfires in some locations. Conflict in the Middle East has meanwhile meant that tourists in nearby Cyprus were able to see missiles and smoke in the sky from the beach. Sluggish economic growth and inflationary fears, largely linked to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff policies, appear to be making consumers more cautious with their spending. A weaker U.S. dollar has also diminished the currency's purchasing power abroad, with a June report from the European Travel Commission showing that high travel costs, alongside the current global perception of the U.S., have been weighing on voyage plans. "For American travellers, a weaker dollar has fuelled demand for countries where their purchasing power goes further, from parts of Latin America to Southeast Asia. Many are opting for package deals that lock in rates upfront, effectively turning travel planning into a smart financial strategy," Nicholas Smith, holidays digital director at Thomas Cook and the eSky Group online travel agency, told CNBC by email. Travelers also appear to be thinking twice before picking the U.S. as a destination amid political tensions and an increase in reports of tourists being detained or interrogated as they enter or leave the country. Linda Jonczyk, a spokesperson for Europe's largest tour operator TUI, said that there has been "some decline" in bookings for travel to the U.S. Earlier this month, TUI CEO Sebastian Ebel reportedly attributed the pullback to factors including reports of tourists facing border control issues. Elsewhere, Europe remains a key destination, despite challenges. Smith said the British pound to euro conversion rate has remained relatively stable, and the familiarity many tourists have with mainland Europe works in the region's favor. "Greece and Turkey also remain firm favourites, even with seasonal wildfire headlines, thanks to their compelling mix of history, hospitality, and value for money," he said. But, Smith also noted that "Turkey has found itself in a slightly tricky predicament. Inflation has pushed up prices, however as most people book all inclusive, it is somewhat mitigated." Still, there has been a growing trend of consumers swapping heat for cooler destinations as part of so-called "coolcations," Smith said. This includes travelers now turning to countries such as Iceland, Norway and Poland. TUI's Jonczyk meanwhile noted that the company's business is becoming less seasonally focused as it responds to "more of our customers preferring to travel outside the peak summer season as weather patterns especially around the Mediterranean change." According to Thomas Cook's Smith, "holidaymakers in 2025 are factoring in more elements than ever when choosing where to go - from currency movements and visa rules to climate patterns and unique cultural draws." "Travellers are becoming more intentional," he added, noting that tourists are seeking out spots that suit them and their priorities, rather than simply avoiding certain locations. Europe's wildfires are an especially big concern among travelers right now, travel experts said, after heatwaves triggered outbreaks in tourist hotspots including Spain, Portugal and Greece. Flames are still spreading in some locations. Over the weekend, Spanish infrastructure such as roads and train services was impacted, as Madrid deployed military emergency troops to try and constrain the fires, Reuters reported. Fires are also continuing to rage in neighboring Portugal, which last week requested assistance from the European Union and was forced to evacuate residents in some regions. In emailed comments, Portugal's tourism office meanwhile told CNBC that the country "remains a safe, welcoming, and fully operational destination for travelers," and that visitors were being hosted "as planned." Local tourism infrastructure was prepared for challenges like wildfires, they added. Rhys Jones, a travel insurance specialist at GoCompare, told CNBC that the price comparison website has increasingly been receiving inquiries about what how to handle traveling in an area were wildfires raged at one point, or if there's a risk of blazes. "The first thing we recommend doing is checking whether the Foreign Office has deemed your destination safe to travel to," Jones told CNBC by email. "If the Foreign Office says it isn't safe, then it's important you take this advice seriously. If you decide to travel regardless of the warnings and need to claim for something that happens during the trip, your travel insurer could refuse your claim," Jones said. On the flipside, insurers might not pay out if you choose to stay at home despite the Foreign Office saying it is safe to travel and there are no reported issues with flights or accommodation, he added. Jo Rhodes, a travel specialist at U.K. consumer group Which?, echoed this advice. "Holidaymakers should wait until closer to the departure date to see if the holiday can go ahead or what flexible booking options are offered from the tour operator or airline. Travel companies will be prioritising anyone due to depart in the next couple of days," Rhodes told CNBC by email.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment
A federal appeals court on Tuesday halted New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, ruling that it likely infringes on citizens' Second Amendment rights. The 2-1 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the law on hold pending a legal challenge and returns the case to a lower court. The waiting period went into effect in May of last year and included violators being subject to a misdemeanor, but it does have an exception for concealed permit holders. Democrats had enacted the measure in an effort to allow for more time for federal background checks on gun buyers to be completed. "Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment's scope," Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the majority. "We conclude that New Mexico's Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens." Nra And Conservative Legal Group Sue Democrat Governor Over 7-Day Waiting Period To Buy Guns The Mountain States Legal Foundation and National Rifle Association filed the lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence and other citizens. Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in which a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional was established. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a "historical tradition of firearm regulation" that supports the law. Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms, celebrated the ruling. "The court found that there was no analogous law from that era that would support the modern day law that's at issue," McCoy said. "For now, it means New Mexicans can go buy their firearms without an arbitrary delay imposed." Federal Appeals Court Rules California Ammunition Background Checks Unconstitutional John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, also praised the court's decision, saying it "serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country." In a dissent, Judge Scott Matheson argued that New Mexico's waiting period "establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends." Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said she was disappointed with the ruling and claimed it would likely cost lives. "New Mexico's waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights," Lujan Grisham said in a statement, pointing to other exceptions for gun purchases by law enforcement officers and transactions between immediate family members. "Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis," she added. Since she was sworn in as governor in 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed several gun control measures, including a "red flag" law allowing a court to temporarily remove guns from people suspected of being at risk of hurting themselves or others and restrictions on firearms near polling places. In 2023, the governor suspended the right to carry guns in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque in response to shootings across the state that killed children. Lujan Grisham declared a state of emergency in Albuquerque earlier this year, saying that a significant uptick in crime warranted the help of the state's National Guard. She also declared a state of emergency last week over violent crime and drug trafficking across parts of northern New Mexico. Legal experts have said the ruling could have wider consequences because other states, including California, Hawaii and Illinois, have imposed similar restrictions on gun purchases. In New Mexico, the waiting period applies to all licensed dealer firearm sales for handguns and long guns. The only exception applies to concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement and immediate family transfers. Those in support of the waiting period laws argue that research links the law to reduced suicides and crimes of passion limiting impulsive behavior. Officials in New Mexico have not said if they will seek review from the full 10th Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Democrats wage national redistricting war, Republicans may have the upper hand
WASHINGTON — As California legislators begin the process of reconfiguring its congressional districts and creating a more Democratic-friendly map in next year's midterms, the party could be pushing itself into a national redistricting war — and one that would likely hold them at a disadvantage. The California Legislature will work to pass its proposed version of the state's congressional map this week, which would give Democrats an advantage in five additional House seats in the state. After that, the revised map will be on the ballot in November when California voters participate in a special election for municipal races. That means Democrats' attempt to thwart Republican redistricting efforts in other states, namely Texas, where President Donald Trump is pushing for Republicans to draw more GOP-friendly districts, will come down to whether California leaders can convince enough voters to support the gambit. And that may be easier said than done. Even if California is successful and counteracts the five seats Republicans say they'll flip in the Lone Star State, it could ignite efforts in other states to redraw their maps for partisan leverage. Doing so would be an easier fight for Republican-led states than those led by Democrats, largely because of the laws put in place by party leaders to avoid this exact situation. Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans in redrawing maps As state leaders threaten a redraw of their maps, Republicans have an advantage over their Democratic counterparts due to local laws impeding partisan gerrymandering attempts. Most redistricting efforts are completed through state legislatures and more easily accomplished in states with single-party control, meaning one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's mansion. In that category, Republicans have the trifecta advantage: There are 26 states under complete GOP control compared to just 15 under complete Democratic control. Once you factor out the states that don't have split congressional representation — for example, Utah, which only has Republican seats so a map redraw wouldn't do anything to change the calculus — you are down to 15 red states and eight blue states with seats available to flip. Even then, at least four of those Democratic-led states require independent commissions (or some hybrid system with state legislators) to change congressional maps in the middle of the decade. That complicates their efforts while the Republican states would only require their legislatures to do the heavy lifting. 'Even if (Democrats) are hell bent on doing this, I don't think it's going to be a very easy thing for them to do as a matter of their various state laws,' John Malcom, the vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Deseret News in an interview. 'It's not going to be easy for them to do, and they have less room to maneuver because they've already done a remarkably effective job of redistricting (some states) in a way that … dilutes Republican votes.' California gambles with those obstacles in place Unlike a majority of states, California hands the power of map-drawing not to state legislators but instead to an independent redistricting commission that is meant to draw nonpartisan boundaries based purely on population data. The commission was first enacted in 2010 and is made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and four voters who are not affiliated with either of the major parties. California is mandated by its state constitution to utilize the commission only once a decade, and it already did so in 2021. In order to work around this, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced last week he would introduce a constitutional amendment circumventing those laws. The catch: California voters, who largely support the independent commission, have to approve throwing away the panel's nonpartisan maps until after the census is taken again in 2030 and new maps are drawn for the 2032 election cycle. A recent Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab survey found 64% of voters support keeping the independent commission, compared to just 36% who said state lawmakers should draw the maps. But some members of the commission who drew the current boundaries support throwing out the map, with the agreement that the panel will be reinstated later. But even with that endorsement, Republicans plan to fight back with accusations that Democrats are defying the will of the voters. 'I think that it will be seen as a negatively partisan thing if they try to go back on what the voters only recently approved,' Malcolm told the Deseret News. 'But you know, Gavin Newsom is making it very clear that the lane he wants to run for president in is the 'I'm the anti-Trump guy.' And so being nakedly partisan is not something that Gavin Newsom is going to shy away from.' Still, Democrats could have some luck as nearly half of the state's voters belong to the party compared to just 24.7% who are registered Republicans, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Another 21.9% identify as independents. California and Texas could set off firestorm in other states With Texas expected to approve its new map as early as this week and California moving full steam ahead on its proposal this fall, the boundary battle could elevate to an all-out war encompassing several states across the country. More than half a dozen states are publicly considering changes to their congressional maps next November in an attempt to gain leverage — especially as it becomes likely California will simply neutralize Texas and neither party will benefit. Democrats in New York have openly suggested they would look at ways to change congressional maps to squeeze out GOP lawmakers in vulnerable districts while Florida Republicans are considering the opposite in the Sunshine State. But other states are slowly entering the conversation, such as Indiana, where Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage to Democrats. All seven of those House Republicans came out in support of redrawing the map on Monday after President Donald Trump began looking to the state as another opportunity to secure his majority. 'Now, with President Trump and the entire Hoosier Republican Congressional delegation expressing support for Congressional redistricting, the General Assembly should act swiftly to get the job done,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman, the first Indiana Republican to announce his support, said in a statement to the Deseret News. 'Hoosiers deserve Congressional districts that ensure voting records are reflected accurately in their Congressional districts.' Despite uphill battle, Democrats say they can't give up Although Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans, the redistricting battle is emerging as a war they must wage, strategists say — lest they risk an unenthusiastic base that has already expressed frustration the minority doesn't do enough to thwart Trump's agenda. 'The way I look at it, you have to fight fire with fire,' Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist based in Washington, D.C., told the Deseret News. 'You just can't let the Republicans gerrymander their way to a House majority that they're going to have difficulty protecting.' Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a historically slim margin that has often made it difficult for the party to advance legislation even with a Republican trifecta. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have enjoyed total control of Washington — something that is at risk next November. Historical trends show that the party of the sitting president typically loses control of the House during midterm elections. If Democrats manage to flip the House, it would deal a massive blow to Trump and likely thwart his agenda for his final two years. As a result, Trump is pressing state Republican leaders to deliver additional seats through redistricting — which some strategists say is a sign of political desperation and should motivate Democrats not to let up. 'Democrats have an opportunity to take back the House, and it won't stop the abuses in the Trump regime, but it will slow them down,' Bannon said. 'Democrats will have the opportunity to call hearings and investigations into the Trump administration, and I don't think we can afford to let that opportunity go by. So I think Democrats should go full steam ahead.'
