Running the work rule over scourge of the non-compete clause
work
after you quit? In recent years, policymakers in a range of countries have come up with the same answer: not as much as they do now.
Their interest in this question has been prompted by academic research into what I call, 'the economics of small print'.
The prevalence of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, for example, is now 'surprisingly high', according to a recent overview by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These clauses typically ban an employee from going to work for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving their job. And they appear to have spread quietly from well-paid jobs, such as senior executives, to badly paid ones, such as fast-food workers and hairdressers.
Will rent reform make building apartments viable?
Listen |
40:12
Interestingly, such patterns seem to hold in very different types of labour markets, from flexible ones such as the United Kingdom and Australia to more regulated ones like Austria and Italy.
READ MORE
Policymakers are paying attention. There have been moves in Australia, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and some US states to prevent or restrict the use of non-competes, often because they suppress mobility and wage growth for workers.
But one place is zigging while everyone else zags.
In Florida, the state legislature has passed a Bill that, if approved by the governor, would permit non-compete agreements that last a full four years. It would also make it easier for employers to get them enforced.
Even in the United States, the move would make Florida a real outlier. 'Before this law, if any employer in any state in the US would have asked me, 'hey, is a four-year non-compete enforceable?' I would have simply said, 'no,'' Mark Konkel, a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren who specialises in employment law, told me.
What does Florida hope to achieve? The Bill's title offers a clue: it is called the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality and Economic Growth (Choice) Act. Much of the legal analysis has described it as an 'employer-friendly' move to make Florida even more 'wide open for business'.
The case for non-competes is that they protect workforce investments, client relationships and trade secrets
But to see stringent non-competes as straightforwardly pro-employer would be a mistake. It would be better to say that they are pro-incumbent employers. And what that means for economic growth is not straightforward.
The case for non-competes is that they protect workforce investments, client relationships and trade secrets. But they have long been unenforceable in California, which didn't stop Silicon Valley from becoming the innovation capital of the world. And, if you have a new company and you want to expand and hire good people, the clauses can allow incumbent competitors to hoard talent.
The OECD report's authors concluded that 'the balance of evidence suggests that non-compete clauses suppress job mobility, firm entry, innovation, wages and productivity, which more than offset any gains from enhanced incentives for firm-specific investment'.
Indeed, there are signs that the forces of 'creative destruction' have been waning in recent decades: business entry and exit rates have declined in the US and elsewhere, as have job-to-job moves. It is possible that non-competes have contributed to this trend by preventing competition and fluidity.
Economic Innovation Group chief executive John Lettieri – the group is a think tank that opposes non-competes – said he thought Florida was committing economic self-harm, even though the law would only apply to people who earned more than twice the annual mean wage. 'Imagine taking some of the best human capital you have in your state and putting it on the sidelines for four years,' he said. 'The biggest economic harm in the long run is restricting the highest-paid talent.'
Florida's move on non-competes could be seen in the same way as its proposal to ease restrictions on child labour
Konkel, the employment lawyer, said it remained to be seen how much employers would use the new law.
'If you are about to join an employer and you know that in accepting that employment, you're going to be compelled to sign a four-year non-compete, it is very hard to imagine very marketable people will just sign such an agreement without negotiation,' he said. While some firms like hedge funds might be able to pay enough to compensate, many other employers would probably wait and see, or 'continue to take a more tailored approach', he predicted.
Florida's move on non-competes could be seen in the same way as its proposal to ease restrictions on child labour: interventions that might benefit incumbent employers in the short run, but with costs to human capital and growth in the long run.
At least the economists who like to study the economics of small print have a new place to get their microscopes out. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
National guard deployed on streets of Washington after Trump takes control of city's police
The Washington , DC national guard began deploying on the city's streets overnight, a day after Donald Trump ordered their arrival and took control of the city's police force, calling Washington a 'lawless' city, despite official crime statistics saying otherwise. Defence officials said a small number of the roughly 800 national guard members planned for the mission had been mobilised, with more expected to arrive in the coming days. About 850 officers and agents took part in a 'massive law enforcement surge' across Washington on Monday night and made nearly two dozen arrests, the White House has said. The violent crime rate in the city is at a 30-year low. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday: 'As part of the president's massive law enforcement surge, last night approximately 850 officers and agents were surged across the city. They made a total of 23 arrests, including multiple other contacts.' READ MORE The arrests consisted of homicide, firearms offences, possession with intent to distribute narcotics, fare evasion, lewd acts and stalking, Leavitt added. 'A total of six illegal handguns were seized off of District of Columbia's streets as part of last night's effort.' [ Trump sends troops into Washington DC: distraction tactic or part of wider policy? Opens in new window ] Leavitt added: 'This is only the beginning. Over the course of the next month, the Trump administration will relentlessly pursue and arrest every violent criminal in the district who breaks the law, undermines public safety and endangers law-abiding Americans.' Earlier, Muriel Bowser, the mayor of Washington, DC, said she expected members of the national guard to be deployed on federal property in the US capital, including parks, monuments, federal buildings. Leavitt also told reporters that homeless people have the option be taken to a homeless shelter and offered addiction and/or mental health services. 'If they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time. These are pre-existing laws that are already on the books. They have not been enforced,' she said. US president Donald Trump announces that he is assuming control of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department and deploying the national guard in the city at the White House on Monday. Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times Trump's intervention has been widely condemned as an authoritarian power grab that undermines the autonomy of Washington's DC local government and seeks to distract attention from political problems such as the Jeffrey Epstein files. Bowser had earlier pledged to work 'side by side' with the federal government as national guard troops arrived at their headquarters in Washington. Speaking after a meeting with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, at the justice department, Bowser told reporters: 'I won't go into the details of our operational plan at this point but you will see the Metropolitan police department (MPD) working side by side with our federal partners in order to enforce the effort that we need around the city.' Bowser has cultivated a delicate working relationship with Trump since his return to power in January, avoiding direct confrontations when possible. On Tuesday, she struck a conciliatory note and said she would try to make the most of the extra resources to fight crime. 'What I'm focused on is the federal surge and how to make the most of the additional officer support that we have,' she said. 'We have the best in the business at MPD and chief Pamela Smith to lead that effort and to make sure that the men and women who are coming from federal law enforcement are being well used and that, if there is national guard here, that they're being well used and all in an effort to drive down crime. 'So, how we got here or what we think about the circumstances right now, we have more police and we want to make sure we're using them.' However, other Democratic mayors across the US have adopted a different tone, warning Trump against expanding his law-and-order power grab in other big cities. [ Trump has long bedazzled his life – now he's refashioning the Oval and our democracy Opens in new window ] Trump told reporters on Monday: 'We have other cities also that are bad,' citing the Democratic strongholds of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. 'And then, of course, you have Baltimore and Oakland. You don't even mention them any more, they're so far gone.' Stephen Miller, an influential White House deputy chief of staff, stepped up the rhetoric on Tuesday, tweeting without evidence: 'Crime stats in big blue cities are fake. The real rates of crime, chaos & dysfunction are orders of magnitude higher. Everyone who lives in these areas knows this. They program their entire lives around it. Democrats are trying to unravel civilization. Pres Trump will save it.' Crime stats in big blue cities are fake. The real rates of crime, chaos & dysfunction are orders of magnitude higher. Everyone who lives in these areas knows this. They program their entire lives around it. Democrats are trying to unravel civilization. Pres Trump will save it. — Stephen Miller (@StephenM) All five cities named by Trump are run by black mayors. Most were outspoken in denouncing the president's move. Brandon Johnson, Chicago's mayor, said in a statement: 'Sending in the national guard would only serve to destabilise our city and undermine our public safety efforts.' Brandon Scott, the mayor of Baltimore, said: 'When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the rightwing propaganda and look at the facts. Baltimore is the safest it's been in over 50 years.' Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where troops were sent earlier this month in a crackdown on protests, posted: 'Another experiment by the administration, another power grab from local government. This is performative. This is a stunt. It always has been and always will be.' Trump took command of the Washington, DC police department and deployed the national guard under laws and constitutional powers that give the federal government more sway over the capital than other cities. But Democrats raised concerns that Washington could be a blueprint for similar strong-arm tactics elsewhere. Christina Henderson, a Washington, DC council member, told CNN on Tuesday: 'I was listening to the president's press conference yesterday, and I think it should be concerning to all Americans that he talked about other cities. 'The District of Columbia, for decades, without statehood, has always been used as a Petri dish, where Congress or the federal government is trying out ideas here. So, I would hope that folks don't lose sight of what's happening in the district. And even if they don't live here, they fight hard with us.' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, warned that Trump 'will gaslight his way into militarising any city he wants in United States'. JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, said the president 'has absolutely no right and no legal ability to send troops into the city of Chicago, and so I reject that notion'. He added: 'You've seen that he doesn't follow the law. I have talked about the fact that the Nazis in Germany in the 30s tore down a constitutional republic in just 53 days. It does not take much, frankly, and we have a president who seems hell-bent on doing just that.' – Guardian
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
The Most Powerful Court in the World by Stuart Banner: More than US legal analysis, it's an excellent history
The Most Powerful Court in the World - A History of the Supreme Court of the United States Author : Stuart Banner ISBN-13 : 9780197780350 Publisher : OUP USA Guideline Price : £30.99 While the title of this book indicates a legal history of the United States supreme court , the book is far more than a jurisprudential analysis of the highest court in the United States. Banner, a law professor at the University of California, sets out to avoid the traditional legal history of the court and instead writes a trilateral history, a consideration of the court's decisions, the lives of its justices and an analysis of the relevant contemporaneous political and societal influences. Banner argues that it is not possible to consider the court in isolation and during periods of its history, the court was the driving force which directed the course of the United States. An example of this impactful influence can be seen in the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison which has become legendary in the canon of constitutional jurisprudence in which the court recognised the judiciary's power of judicial review. READ MORE Dred Scott Banner notes that the decision of Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) is often cited as one of the most shameful opinions in the history of the court. In Dred Scott, the court ruled that people of African descent, whether enslaved or free, were not and could never be citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Dred Scott would go on to play a significant role in hastening the onset of the American Civil War in 1861. During the Chief Justiceship of Earl Warren (1953-1969), the court ushered in the most liberal period of its history. During this period, the court determined seminal cases such as Brown v Board of Education (1954) which banned the segregation of public schools, Miranda v Arizona (1966) which ruled that the police must warn a person of their constitutional rights, before conducting an interrogation and New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964) which ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the constitution limited the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The author notes that the US supreme court is not apolitical. The court is exposed to politics in a number of different ways, including through the appointment of its justices. When a vacancy arises, the president nominates a candidate for appointment and the Senate confirms their appointment. Traditionally, Republican presidents have appointed conservative justices while Democratic presidents have appointed more liberally minded members of the bench. Roe v Wade Arguably the most controversial decision of the court in the past century concerned abortion rights. In Roe v Wade (1973) the court found that the US constitution protected the right to have an abortion before the point of foetal viability. Given the polarisation of views on social issues, there was an immediate call for the overturn of Roe. The US constitution, similar to other modern constitutions, can evolve over time and the court can revisit its earlier decisions if the make-up of its bench shifts and social norms evolve. Following a number of Republican appointed justices, the court now leans towards a conservative interpretation of the constitution. In 2022, the court was prepared to reconsider Roe in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In Dobbs, the court ruled that the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby overruling the controversial decision in Roe. The decision in Dodds has caused a legal and social cataclysm in the United States. Arguably the most controversial decision of the court in the past century concerned abortion rights. Photograph: Getty Images Several States moved quickly to ban abortion, and the Roe/ Dodds line of case law is likely to reverberate in the United States for many years to come. The author brings the history of the court up to the present and considers a number of appeals to the court, brought by President Donald Trump, on various issues including the 2020 United States presidential election. Banner notes that Trump has a very poor success rate before the court. While this is certainly an enlightening history of the court, there are aspects of the court's history which are considered in a summary manner only. For example, the book concentrates on the liberal period of the Warren Court but pays little attention to the Watergate scandal and its political and legal fallout. That said, Banner, has authored an excellent, comprehensive and engaging one-volume history of, as the title enunciates, possibly the most powerful court in the world. Dr James Meighan is a practising lawyer and holds a PhD in constitutional history from the University of Limerick.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
US inflation held steady at 2.7% in July despite Trump's tariffs
US inflation held steady at 2.7 per cent in July, confounding economists' expectations of an acceleration driven by the tariffs Donald Trump has slapped on US trading partners. Tuesday's annual consumer price index figure was in line with June's reading and below expectations of 2.8 per cent among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The figure was dragged lower by weaker fuel prices, with the index for gasoline down 9.5 per cent over the past 12 months. Core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, rose to 3.1 per cent, surpassing expectations of a smaller rise to 3 per cent from June's 2.9 per cent. READ MORE The US dollar and Treasury yields slipped as investors bet on a faster pace of rate cuts by the Federal Reserve following the data release. Futures markets were pricing in a roughly 95 per cent chance of a quarter-point cut at next month's Fed meeting, compared with about 85 per cent before the inflation data. The two-year Treasury yield, which reflects interest rate expectations, fell 0.08 percentage points to 3.72 per cent. Trump has sought to use tariffs to reshape the US's trading relationship with the world, prompting warnings of a jump in domestic prices. Inflation ticked up in June in what economists cautioned were the first signs of the trade war seeping through to consumers. The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics comes after Trump sacked the head of the agency earlier this month, following a July jobs report that showed a sharp slowdown in hiring over the summer. On Monday, the president announced he had chosen EJ Antoni, a loyalist from the rightwing Heritage Foundation, to lead the BLS. The US Senate will need to confirm him. The latest inflation reading also comes in the midst of a campaign by the president to pressure Fed chair Jay Powell into reducing interest rates, currently at 4.25 per cent to 4.5 per cent, by as much as 3 percentage points. Most members of the Fed's rate-setting committee have indicated a preference to hold off on any reduction in borrowing costs until the inflationary impact of tariffs becomes clear, but some have argued the impact of the levies on prices will be limited. - Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
