My sister worked at Subway and had to sign a noncompete that she wouldn’t work at another sandwich shop for three years. Are they really afraid she’s going to steal their secrets of placing meat on bread?
The more cynical will certainly assume malice, that the company did this to keep you from leaving. It particularly at the time it was not hard at all to find new fast food workers, and I am a firm believer in Hanlon’s Razor and never assume malice when incompetence will do. I genuinely think the explanation could just be Subway’s lawyers were like “everyone else is doing noncompetes”.
I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours.
I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients get billed extra that month, I wouldn’t call this incompetence, but greed
For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme.
Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”
Now they also won't have the legal ability to simply open a new sandwich shop right next to Subway.
I.e. you're imagining that non-competes are there to protect proprietary know-how.
That's mostly true for some companies, but for others (e.g. Subway) it's a wedge guarding them against the collective action of their employees.
Anybody reading this from Westchester County, NY will join me in chuckling about how appropriate the term "wedge" is in a discussion about making sandwiches on long loaves of bread.
Non-competes make it harder to find a new job. Employers want it to be hard to find a new job, since that means it’s hard to leave your current job even if the pay/hours/whatever is poor.
Legally speaking, that is often the case. Many states require a noncompete to have a “legitimate business reason”, and proprietary knowledge is the most common legitimate reason used.
I suspect judges in most states would invalidate a noncompete for a sandwich shop worker.
The legal purpose of these clauses is to keep high paid workers from stealing customer lists or business secrets. The legal system does tend to frown on them being used for rank and file.
Many employers just use them as an empty threat to manipulate people, because they know few people are going to hire a lawyer over it.
I mean, even from a practical perspective, noncompetes are pretty weak unless the employee is the kind of person who would make the news when they join a new company. You can always leave a company and tell them nothing about where you’re going. A subway franchise ain’t gonna hire some PI to figure out where a former front-line employee got a new job.
Just having the piece of paper to wave around is valuable even if it's totally unenforceable.
Which is why, at a minimum, any lawyer who participates in drafting something like that should be removed from the profession. And most likely there should be criminal penalties for the corporate management involved.
I worked in Massachusetts (which allows non-competes) early on in my career, and at one point took my contract to a lawyer. He was like "This was written by a California law firm. It has clauses that are specific to California law." (One of them was that it specifically did not have a non-compete, carved out in the contract.)
Unless you have the monetary means to bring the issue to court (and see it through to the end), any clause like this will effectively be a law.
> Many employers just use them as an empty threat to manipulate people, because they know few people are going to hire a lawyer over it.
These noncompetes do work well as an empty threat.
Although I suspect the majority of sandwich shop workers or managers aren’t paying any attention to the language in their onboarding paperwork, and are just going through the motions.
I would like to see limits on this, but I’m not sure there’s a way to penalize lawyers for this, because they often are not the ones deciding who to hand these contracts to. Usually businesses have a lawyer draft up a general agreement, and then lazy business management just hands the same one to everyone from the VP to the janitor. That’s not really the lawyer’s doing.
Not sure so much on the cargo culting aspect, but in essence, I am convinced that this phenomenon is effectively true.
If corporations were run entirely by lawyers, the likelihood that any corporation would take risks that would lead to innovation would be approaching zero. Of course, corporations without laws would run amok, but that's beside the point. I've worked at companies that were absolutely afraid to do anything that the legal department found troublesome, holding them back from risks that might have been worthwhile and wouldn't have been apocalyptic had anything gone wrong. It's a shame to see that happen, and I suppose that's why the current paradigm needs to keep generating startups in order to drive innovation. Though we really haven't been seeing much innovation as of late.
There may be some cargo culting of noncompetes, but it seems more likely that noncompetes are inherently in the best interest of the business from the point of view of the lawyers, and businesses see noncompetes as a sort of moat against competition. Both are fairly reasonable perspectives, though neither is necessarily true in reality, which is why businesses don't necessarily have to listen to their legal team on every decision.
For a total BS claim, it usually doesn’t take more than calling their bluff. Or just ignoring it.
Employers usually just bet on people just following the language and not challenging it because they think it’s valid and they think they’ll have to go to court.
In reality, a business doesn’t want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on something their own lawyer says they’re going to lose.
Nobody is taking $12/hr unskilled employees to court over noncompetes. Lighting cash on fire is a more efficient and fun way to accomplish the same.
And food service is horrifically abusive.
And yes, the noncompetes ARE enforced, because it's not about you - it's about keeping all the employees/slaves in line, and knowing there is no other place they can turn to working.
This whole thread is so laughable. As a former Subway employee, I worked there cause there was nowhere else. Pay was a laugh. And if you think there's legal services for the poverty masses, then you must be smoking something REALLY good.
EDIT: oh look, the -1 brigade of people who had silver spoons since birth. Just how many of you climbed from homelessness and menial jobs??
This is much more often going to be true because the dispute was never made in the first place, because of the risk it would entail to a low wage worker. They cannot afford—for reasons of time, money, health, education—to even threaten to take an employer to court.
Your argument sounds logical, but is unfortunately unaware of how real world pressures distort systems for recourse.
No, but they might use The Work Number or a similar service.
However, the reality here is not likely that a sandwich shop employee would have to “threaten to take an employer to court”.
The most likely scenario is that the hiring manager doesn’t even realize that boilerplate is in their employment agreement. The second most likely is that the employer grumbles about the employee leaving and that’s as far as it goes.
People like Hanlon's razor because it still lets them insult people they don't like. "incompetent" and "stupid" work about as well as "malicious" and "evil". I don't think anyone will ever give a name to a statement so...unsatisfying.
Am I really supposed to believe that corporate lawyers don't have personal agency? You can defend it however you want, but ultimately I believe that people are responsible for their actions.