Fast food non compete clauses

[KingsGambit]

Non compete clauses in the fast food industry are coming under the public eye, with even Congress considering involvement. https://www.cbs17.com/news/investiga...obs/1298896501

Essentially, if you leave your job, you cannot get a job at a competing fast food restaurant. Many workers don't realize they've signed this agreement as part of their new hire paperwork. This seems like an unreasonable burden on people at the bottom of the wage ladder to me. Jimmy John's made headlines a few years ago by scrapping theirs after coming under fire from the Illinois Attorney General, and McDonalds recently got rid of theirs after being sued by workers.

[Cerebrum123]

Yeah, that is dumb. Not like they are on top secret research or anything.

[Littlejoe]

Non-exempt employee's (not hired with a contract/hourly) in Texas are not usually binding. I signed on to hire onto a company and when I went to quit, they told me I couldn't go to a competitor. I went straight to a lawyer friends office and showed him the paper, he told me not to worry about it, it was un-enforceable in my case. Sure enough, they never came after me...

[Sparko]

[KingsGambit]

McDonalds in England spent over a decade trying to pursue a libel case against some random environmental activists awhile ago. They won the case but the public relations hit they took made it not worth it at all.

I think the real concern is people fearing they will not be able to take a job when they need a job, any job. We need to make it easier for people to work, not harder.

[thewriteranon]

Yeah, noncompetes can be actually pretty difficult to enforce. Noncompetes are supposed to protect companies that have really hard-to-replace employees. For example, a tech company that hires someone who is an expert in a notoriously difficult to learn and manage programming language and is able to create really cool stuff for the company. If that employee quits, it is difficult for the company to replace him or her. But fast food has notoriously high turnover and just about anyone can be easily replaced, so noncompetes are borderline useless in that situation anyway. The only scenario I find relatively understandable is preventing a current employee from working for a direct competitor. I know Starbucks does not allow its employees to work for any other coffee shop while employed, though they can work still work for some other non-direct competitor like, say, Chick-Fil-A.

Not that that stops Starbucks baristas from lowkey taking jobs at independent coffee shops. Working at independent coffee shops usually involves much higher tips and for people who are really into coffee and artistry they can learn a whole lot more about coffee and making latte art and other things. However, Starbucks is much less likely to show up short on the paycheck or suddenly go under and they provide benefits. It is what it is.

[rogue06]

Yeah, noncompetes can be actually pretty difficult to enforce. Noncompetes are supposed to protect companies that have really hard-to-replace employees.

Or are afraid that the former employee might take a bunch of customers/clients with them when they go to work for a competitor.

[thewriteranon]

Or are afraid that the former employee might take a bunch of customers/clients with them when they go to work for a competitor.

Ack, Ames Moot Court flashbacks.

[Sparko]

Yeah, noncompetes can be actually pretty difficult to enforce. Noncompetes are supposed to protect companies that have really hard-to-replace employees. For example, a tech company that hires someone who is an expert in a notoriously difficult to learn and manage programming language and is able to create really cool stuff for the company. If that employee quits, it is difficult for the company to replace him or her. But fast food has notoriously high turnover and just about anyone can be easily replaced, so noncompetes are borderline useless in that situation anyway. The only scenario I find relatively understandable is preventing a current employee from working for a direct competitor. I know Starbucks does not allow its employees to work for any other coffee shop while employed, though they can work still work for some other non-direct competitor like, say, Chick-Fil-A.

Not that that stops Starbucks baristas from lowkey taking jobs at independent coffee shops. Working at independent coffee shops usually involves much higher tips and for people who are really into coffee and artistry they can learn a whole lot more about coffee and making latte art and other things. However, Starbucks is much less likely to show up short on the paycheck or suddenly go under and they provide benefits. It is what it is.

The other reason for non-competes is to stop a trained employee from taking the training they got at one company and using it at a competitor's. But the skills learned at a fast-food place are nothing specialized, they are pretty generic. I mean flipping a burger or working a counter is the same no matter what restaurant you go to. The reason these are minimum wage jobs is because they are basically unskilled jobs.

[Mountain Man]

Non-compete clause for flipping burgers? I don't even...

Unless this is unexpected fallout from people demanding top dollar wages to ask, "You want fries with that?"

[Sparko]

Non-compete clause for flipping burgers? I don't even...

Unless this is unexpected fallout from people demanding top dollar wages to ask, "You want fries with that?"

Reading more on it, it is worse than keeping them from working at another fast-food restaurant. It actually keeps them from working for another franchisee of the same chain! So you can't go from one Burger King to another!

[Cow Poke]

Non compete clauses in the fast food industry are coming under the public eye, with even Congress considering involvement. https://www.cbs17.com/news/investiga...obs/1298896501

Essentially, if you leave your job, you cannot get a job at a competing fast food restaurant. Many workers don't realize they've signed this agreement as part of their new hire paperwork. This seems like an unreasonable burden on people at the bottom of the wage ladder to me. Jimmy John's made headlines a few years ago by scrapping theirs after coming under fire from the Illinois Attorney General, and McDonalds recently got rid of theirs after being sued by workers.

It Texas, it's pretty much so that, unless there's really strong language in the contract, AND there are solid proprietary reasons (trade secrets) involved, you cannot deprive a man (generically speaking) of his right to pursue happiness by earning an income.

[Cow Poke]

Non-compete clause for flipping burgers? I don't even...

Unless this is unexpected fallout from people demanding top dollar wages to ask, "You want fries with that?"

Well, think of the intense training it would take to graduate from "you want fries with that" to Chick-Fil-A's "my pleasure!"

[KingsGambit]

Non-compete clause for flipping burgers? I don't even...

Unless this is unexpected fallout from people demanding top dollar wages to ask, "You want fries with that?"

These have been around for awhile.

[Cow Poke]

These have been around for awhile.

Clarification - are you talking about non-competes for the food industry specifically, or in general.


I'm certainly familiar with the latter, never heard of the former.