It's one thing for a high paid exec to be prohibited from working at a competitor. But Jimmy Johns actually imposes non compete clauses on its low-wage workers. Now, lawmakers are calling for an investigation into the sandwich chain's policy of making workers sign contracts that bar them from working for its competition. Calling the practice a form of intimidation, House members Rep. Joseph Crowley and Rep. Linda Sánchez have drafted a letter calling on the Labor Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate "disturbing reports" of the chain's contracts which are "inconsistent with trade and labor laws."
The letter already has over 30 signatures from other Washington lawmakers. The Huffington post reported last week that the sandwich chain requires hourly workers to sign non compete agreements that would prohibit them from working at any other restaurant that sells sandwiches or has a location within three miles of a Jimmy John's for a period of two years.These sorts of agreements are commonplace for highly-paid top executives or employees who have access to trade secrets. But requiring sandwich makers and delivery drivers to sign such contracts "looks more like bullying under color of law."
This contract intimidates workers who are already making minimum wage or close to it. The contract prevents workers for possibly earning higher wages at another job. This also goes against the idea of open competition markets. I don't believe that the contract will help give workers incentives to work harder nor will it benefit the company in the long run of things.
It was almost disturbing reading this article. Trying to exert that much control over employees in low wage positions is wrong in my opinion. Workers who have low paying jobs should be allowed to take advantages of any opportunity they have for growth, such as working at a nicer restaurant where their income would increase. At the same time, if the employees consent to the contract knowing the consequences, Jimmy Johns technically has the right to operate how they please.
ReplyDeleteRestricting the opportunity for minimum wage workers to find higher paying jobs in the same industry is absolutely ridiculous. I agree that this looks more as a intimidating, sort of bullying tactic rather than the law. As the poster mentioned, these non-compete clauses are seen when higher up employees hold some type of secret(s) that affects the business therefore the question being raised is why is this happening to these lower level workers? It will be interesting to see how this turns out over the upcoming months.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem silly for them to go to the trouble of having these non competes. To me, it seems like these rules could hurt the economy and to Jimmy Johns, gaining an edge over competitors is more important than employing minimum wage workers so they can pay their bills. I feel like if a Jimmy Johns worker left his/her job to look for another and wasn't able to find a job or keep a new job, they are in trouble because of the non compete. I think minimum wage restaurant jobs are fairly easy to come by so in theory, a worker could just work at Jimmy Johns, Subway, or another restaurant of the sort until he/she can manage a better job. With the non compete, workers now have less options to find a job and the job separation rate could go up, increasing unemployment. I'm sure the lawmakers will sort this problem out soon as it is not only potentially hurtful to the economy but also unfair to the employees.
ReplyDeleteI find it ridiculous that Jimmy John's does this to their employee's. While I do understand that the sandwich business is competitive, there no reason to deny low-wage workers the opportunity to go and find a better paying job in the same industry. It will be interesting to see if the government does anything about this because depending on what they do other sandwich businesses might follow Jimmy John's path. Hopefully they change this because this is a ridiculous clause in their contracts and only hurts these low- wage workers.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with all of the comments regarding the Jimmy John's employee contracts as being ridiculous. Especially when considering that most Jimmy John's are run as franchises. This means a person purchases the rights and then runs the business as their own while paying Jimmy John's a percentage of the profits. For Jimmy John's to assert this no compete clause from the top down seems very overarching for a mainly franchise run business.
ReplyDelete