1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,840
Speaker 1: It's the moment that many fed up workers wait for,

2
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:06,280
Speaker 1: even dream of quitting their job. That's why it's part

3
00:00:06,280 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: of so many movies like the appropriately entitled two Weeks

4
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:14,440
Speaker 1: Notice with Sandra Bullock. I'm representing the weight organizations that

5
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:20,320
Speaker 1: includes you not anymore, George, Sorry, you got Island Towers.

6
00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:22,640
Speaker 1: I got Coney Island. Why don't we just call it quits? Okay,

7
00:00:22,680 --> 00:00:25,640
Speaker 1: I can't take it anymore? What are you serious? Yes,

8
00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:29,280
Speaker 1: please consider this my two weeks notice. But this American

9
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:31,920
Speaker 1: dream of leaving a bad job or just moving on

10
00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:34,480
Speaker 1: to a job in the same industry with better pay

11
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:37,879
Speaker 1: or a better position is being crushed in some states

12
00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 1: for workers at all levels. Idaho is known for its potatoes,

13
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:43,360
Speaker 1: but it may become known as one of the hardest

14
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:46,640
Speaker 1: places in the country to achieve that American dream. It

15
00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:49,760
Speaker 1: has the toughest law in the country stopping employees from

16
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:52,720
Speaker 1: leaving their company to work for a competitor, and it

17
00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:56,760
Speaker 1: all revolves around what's known as a non compete clause.

18
00:00:57,200 --> 00:01:00,320
Speaker 1: Here to discuss the saga of the non compete laws

19
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:03,640
Speaker 1: across the country are Michael Selm, a professor at George

20
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:07,960
Speaker 1: Washington University Law School, and Matt Marks, a professor at

21
00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:13,080
Speaker 1: the Boston University Questroom School of Business. Michael, let's start

22
00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:16,520
Speaker 1: by talking about the non compete clause, which was once

23
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 1: only for senior executives, and now it's filtered down to

24
00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: contracts for blue collar workers. Tell us what it is

25
00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 1: and what it does. Yes, that's right. Uh. There has

26
00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:31,480
Speaker 1: been a proliferation of non compete agreements and all kinds

27
00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: of jobs. Perhaps most famously a few years ago became

28
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:39,040
Speaker 1: notorious that Jimmy John's required a two year non compete

29
00:01:39,040 --> 00:01:42,319
Speaker 1: clause for their sandwich makers. UM and that was has

30
00:01:42,319 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 1: subsequently been challenged and UH and that brought a lot

31
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 1: of attention to the growth of non competes. Non compete

32
00:01:50,040 --> 00:01:55,760
Speaker 1: clauses typically require UH an employee to refrain from working

33
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:59,080
Speaker 1: for a competitor, although that can be defined in any

34
00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:02,360
Speaker 1: number of ways, UM, for some period of time after

35
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:06,680
Speaker 1: they stopped their employment. UH. Usually the agreements are anywhere

36
00:02:06,680 --> 00:02:08,840
Speaker 1: from a year to two years. Sometimes they're longer, and

37
00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:13,519
Speaker 1: occasionally they are shorter. UH and these agreements can pose

38
00:02:13,600 --> 00:02:17,280
Speaker 1: significant restrictions on employees mobility UH and they have also

39
00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:21,880
Speaker 1: led to considerable litigation over the last few years. Matt

40
00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:26,240
Speaker 1: why did Idaho past this strict law and how strict

41
00:02:26,320 --> 00:02:32,000
Speaker 1: is it? Well? I think that existing corporations, whether they

42
00:02:32,040 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 1: be large or small, are interested in retaining their employees. Um.

43
00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:38,080
Speaker 1: They like to avoid the situation that you saw in

44
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:42,000
Speaker 1: the movie where employee suddenly decides to leave, because then

45
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:43,960
Speaker 1: they have to rehire the person and they have to

46
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:48,919
Speaker 1: have to replace the person and so UM. In many states,

47
00:02:49,480 --> 00:02:54,840
Speaker 1: existing companies, especially large companies, lobby hard to keep existing

48
00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:58,680
Speaker 1: laws on the books, such as happened in Massachusetts, and

49
00:02:58,720 --> 00:03:01,000
Speaker 1: also to strengthen existing law. And I think that's what

50
00:03:01,080 --> 00:03:03,720
Speaker 1: you saw in Idaho, and you've seen that also in

51
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:08,560
Speaker 1: other states. Uh. Through the years, there have been several changes, um,

52
00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:11,760
Speaker 1: where companies have said, no, we want stronger enforcement. We

53
00:03:11,800 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 1: want to be able to keep people from not just

54
00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:17,360
Speaker 1: from leaving, but especially want to keep them from going

55
00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:23,080
Speaker 1: and working in the same industry. Uh. Michael, With the

56
00:03:23,080 --> 00:03:27,720
Speaker 1: Idaho law, you tell me about what makes it stricter

57
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:33,000
Speaker 1: than other laws. How it puts the burden on the worker. Yes, Um.

58
00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:40,400
Speaker 1: In when that the clauses are challenged, usually by an employee.

59
00:03:41,240 --> 00:03:44,960
Speaker 1: In most jurisdictions, the employer has the burden to establish

60
00:03:45,080 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: that the agreement is reasonable, sort of broadly defined, and

61
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:51,600
Speaker 1: that's reasonable in the length of time, its scope, in

62
00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:56,200
Speaker 1: terms of where would apply, and also courts ensure that

63
00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:58,920
Speaker 1: it was designed to serve a legitimate business purpose. It's

64
00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:03,680
Speaker 1: tradition not a legitimate purpose to have a restrictive covenants

65
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:06,960
Speaker 1: simply to keep an employee. The best way of keeping

66
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 1: good employees, obviously is to pay them work or to

67
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:13,760
Speaker 1: treat them. What the Iowa law doesn't I will leave.

68
00:04:14,160 --> 00:04:17,440
Speaker 1: Alabama has recently done the same or similar is it

69
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:22,800
Speaker 1: reverses the presumption. So in Idaho UH certain employees they're

70
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:25,680
Speaker 1: defined as key employees, so wouldn't apply to all the employees,

71
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:29,320
Speaker 1: would be required to prove that they're leading would not

72
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,640
Speaker 1: hurt the employer. Um. That's an incredibly high burden for

73
00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:36,200
Speaker 1: an employee to meet, and quite different from most every

74
00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:40,880
Speaker 1: other jurisdiction in the country. Matt. Do all workers know

75
00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:44,120
Speaker 1: that they're signing this clause? Is it explained? Do they

76
00:04:44,120 --> 00:04:47,680
Speaker 1: have time to look at it? That's actually one of

77
00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:51,680
Speaker 1: the little known facets of these contracts. So I did

78
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:55,760
Speaker 1: a survey a few years ago where i'd UH survey

79
00:04:55,839 --> 00:05:00,200
Speaker 1: thousands of workers in technology fields, engineering fields, and one

80
00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:02,440
Speaker 1: of the questions I asked them was when were you

81
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:04,920
Speaker 1: asked to sign this noncompete? What did you know you'd

82
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:08,719
Speaker 1: have to sign? And barely of them knew about it

83
00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:11,799
Speaker 1: at the time they were signing their job offer. For

84
00:05:11,920 --> 00:05:16,279
Speaker 1: the vast majority, it was after that, often their first

85
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:18,600
Speaker 1: day of work, or even after they had started the job.

86
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:21,280
Speaker 1: As one person said, I showed up the first day

87
00:05:21,279 --> 00:05:26,280
Speaker 1: and they said sign all this stuff direct deposit healthcare

88
00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:29,560
Speaker 1: noncompete and they would look at it and say, what's this.

89
00:05:30,279 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 1: The company would say, oh, well, that's just just sign

90
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:35,880
Speaker 1: it and uh. And they really didn't have a chance,

91
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:39,839
Speaker 1: and it was presented as a non negotiable uh, part

92
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:42,719
Speaker 1: of working at the company, And so it's it's it's

93
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 1: not really a negotiation, it's more of an ambush in

94
00:05:45,320 --> 00:05:49,640
Speaker 1: most cases. I'm talking about noncompete clauses being on the

95
00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:52,880
Speaker 1: rise and the effect on the workforce. With Michael Selmy,

96
00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:57,240
Speaker 1: a professor at George Washington University Law School, and that Marks,

97
00:05:57,279 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 1: a professor at Boston University, questions of business Matt, I

98
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:06,200
Speaker 1: can understand how these non competes are good for a company,

99
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:10,239
Speaker 1: but what about the worker? What's the impetus then for

100
00:06:10,360 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 1: giving them raises, and what about the expertise the employee

101
00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:19,159
Speaker 1: has gained, is that now belong to the company. In fact,

102
00:06:19,200 --> 00:06:21,360
Speaker 1: it does. In fact the way to think about non

103
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 1: competes as they're kind of like a time machine because

104
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:28,320
Speaker 1: when when you sign a noncompete, you promised not to

105
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:31,400
Speaker 1: work in the same industry or for a competitor after leaving,

106
00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:35,080
Speaker 1: and it doesn't. And it's not just protecting anything you

107
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,640
Speaker 1: learned at that company, it's protecting all the relevant skills

108
00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: that you had, whether from that company, from previous jobs,

109
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:45,159
Speaker 1: even things you learned in college. It really shuts you

110
00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:49,400
Speaker 1: off from using that expertise. And it affects especially people

111
00:06:49,440 --> 00:06:52,359
Speaker 1: who have very specialized skills, because it's very hard for

112
00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:56,719
Speaker 1: them to find another job unless it's at arrival. And

113
00:06:56,960 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 1: to the first part of your question, it can affect

114
00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:01,760
Speaker 1: earnings as well, because when there's less of a market,

115
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:05,280
Speaker 1: you're not free to explore other interest in your in

116
00:07:05,320 --> 00:07:08,919
Speaker 1: your in your skills, and so you're basically tied to

117
00:07:08,960 --> 00:07:11,120
Speaker 1: the company. And when there's less of a risk of

118
00:07:11,160 --> 00:07:14,640
Speaker 1: you leaving, there's the company doesn't need to pay as much,

119
00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:17,720
Speaker 1: is not worried about you uh leaving for for somewhere

120
00:07:17,720 --> 00:07:22,360
Speaker 1: else and Michael, are lawsuits on these non competes on

121
00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:27,000
Speaker 1: the rise then? Or are they too expensive laws? Why?

122
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:30,480
Speaker 1: Get The answer to those questions are yes to both. Actually,

123
00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:34,320
Speaker 1: lawsuits are on the rise. There's been a substantial increase

124
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:38,840
Speaker 1: in litigation over noncompete clauses, and my impression in terms

125
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:41,160
Speaker 1: of reading the cases is that there is a trend

126
00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:44,840
Speaker 1: towards striking them down in the courts. Courts have become

127
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:47,840
Speaker 1: quite skeptical of the breadth of a lot of the

128
00:07:48,040 --> 00:07:51,400
Speaker 1: non compete clauses. But your second question whether they're too

129
00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:54,560
Speaker 1: expensive is also true, so that it's actually only a

130
00:07:54,640 --> 00:07:58,640
Speaker 1: limited group of employees who are able to challenge the

131
00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: agreement's usually high level executives. UH and oftentimes the litigation

132
00:08:03,880 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: is funded by the potential new employer as well, so

133
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:11,360
Speaker 1: most employees are unable to challenge them. And I always

134
00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:13,840
Speaker 1: recall when I teach employment law at the law school,

135
00:08:13,880 --> 00:08:15,680
Speaker 1: there's always somebody who comes up to me and says

136
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:17,800
Speaker 1: that they went to law school because they had a

137
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:21,800
Speaker 1: restrictive covenant that prevented them from moving to a different job. Um,

138
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:23,840
Speaker 1: And I never know whether that turns out to be

139
00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:26,480
Speaker 1: a good thing for them or not, but most employees

140
00:08:27,080 --> 00:08:30,720
Speaker 1: are unable to challenge them, and they don't realize that

141
00:08:30,720 --> 00:08:35,559
Speaker 1: they could challenge them now, Matt, Matt, there are some states.

142
00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:40,479
Speaker 1: California is one where it just you cannot have any noncompetes.

143
00:08:40,600 --> 00:08:45,480
Speaker 1: Are there other other states like California? UM, North Dakota

144
00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:48,600
Speaker 1: is very much like California, And there are many states

145
00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:52,320
Speaker 1: with restrictions on non competes. Many of those have evolved.

146
00:08:52,400 --> 00:08:56,200
Speaker 1: For example, UM in two thousand eight Oregon said, Oregon

147
00:08:56,280 --> 00:08:59,400
Speaker 1: tackled this notice question, but they said, if you're going

148
00:08:59,440 --> 00:09:02,280
Speaker 1: to have a really sign a noncompete, you have to

149
00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:04,880
Speaker 1: tell them when you offer them the job. There's son

150
00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:08,120
Speaker 1: of this ambush after the fact in New Hampshire did

151
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:12,680
Speaker 1: the same thing in So there are restrictions in different states,

152
00:09:12,920 --> 00:09:16,640
Speaker 1: but I think California is the sharpest example of the

153
00:09:16,679 --> 00:09:20,920
Speaker 1: state that just says you can't use these contracts in

154
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:25,640
Speaker 1: challenging the law itself, Michael, would there be a challenge

155
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:29,560
Speaker 1: to the law in in in a federal court and

156
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:33,480
Speaker 1: then an appellate court to these very strict noncompetes that

157
00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:37,480
Speaker 1: prevent you from you know, working for years or longer

158
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:42,040
Speaker 1: in in your field. Yes, So, the challenges UM. They

159
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: typically rise in state courts under the varied state laws

160
00:09:46,679 --> 00:09:51,040
Speaker 1: UH and UH they seek to strike down the agreements

161
00:09:51,040 --> 00:09:54,679
Speaker 1: as applied to a particular individually to typically don't UM

162
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:58,120
Speaker 1: apply to all the individuals in a company when they

163
00:09:58,120 --> 00:10:01,199
Speaker 1: are challenged UM. And one of the things that that

164
00:10:01,520 --> 00:10:04,040
Speaker 1: works on the employer's favors in the litigation is that

165
00:10:04,080 --> 00:10:07,920
Speaker 1: the litigation can take UH some time. Oftentimes the litigation

166
00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: might even take a year at the same time that

167
00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:12,520
Speaker 1: the restrict of covenant might be in place. And so

168
00:10:12,600 --> 00:10:15,800
Speaker 1: even if the agreement has struck down the simple time,

169
00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:18,720
Speaker 1: the length of time that the litigation takes conserve the

170
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:23,400
Speaker 1: same purpose for an employer. Finally, Matt, what is there

171
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:26,480
Speaker 1: to do if you're if you're an employee and someone

172
00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:29,160
Speaker 1: puts this in front of you, is there is there

173
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:33,120
Speaker 1: any negotiating around this? If they want you enough? Well,

174
00:10:33,160 --> 00:10:36,920
Speaker 1: I think the thing to do is to ask before

175
00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:39,880
Speaker 1: you sign your offer letter, because once you sign the

176
00:10:40,000 --> 00:10:43,320
Speaker 1: job offer, you have lost your your leverage. You to

177
00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:45,839
Speaker 1: find out in advance is this company going to ask

178
00:10:45,880 --> 00:10:49,800
Speaker 1: me to commit not to work for arrival afterwards? And

179
00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:51,960
Speaker 1: because that's when you can negotiate, you can say well,

180
00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:55,960
Speaker 1: this other company isn't asking for a noncompete, or I

181
00:10:56,040 --> 00:10:59,439
Speaker 1: have another job offer in California and I'll just go there.

182
00:11:00,120 --> 00:11:02,680
Speaker 1: If you insist on me signing a non compete, you've

183
00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:06,080
Speaker 1: got to negotiate before you sign. Thank you both for

184
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:09,160
Speaker 1: being on Bloomberg Law and it's it's such an incredibly

185
00:11:09,200 --> 00:11:13,199
Speaker 1: interesting topic. That's Matt Marks and Michael sell Me. Thank

186
00:11:13,240 --> 00:11:13,640
Speaker 1: you both,