Home > Personal Finance > Can a Former Employer Keep You From Getting a Job?

Comments 0 Comments

OK, free market defenders, time to stand up and be counted. Do you believe in competition, or not? Aptly named “non-compete clauses” are creeping into standard employment agreements across a host of low-wage industries, according to a story in The New York Times. One such clause prevented a 19-year-old college kid from getting a job as a camp counselor because she’d worked for another nearby camp the year before. Hair stylists are being shut out of jobs at competing salons. Yoga instructors. Interns. My God, interns!

I’ve written extensively on the problem of leverage in the workplace, particularly at the tail end of a recession. Companies do well as the economy improves, enjoying the fruits of greater competition for jobs and higher productivity from slimmed-down workforces. Firms lay off workers quicker than they hire them.

Meanwhile, workers remain scarred by the trauma of layoffs and tend to put up with more, even as things start to improve. Among the stuff they are apparently putting up with are non-compete agreements that prevent workers from….well, working…even after they leave their current employers. Ever after they have long since stopped getting paychecks from employers. Even after they receive no benefits from employers. Even if they gained no benefit whatsoever from the non-negotiated agreement in the first place. (How do I know it’s non-negotiated?  Who in their right mind would agree to such a thing?)

Non-competes have been relatively common in high-tech industries for a while. Highly-paid Silicon Valley programmers would sign them to make employers feel better about the risk that a coder might leave, steal some intellectual property and set up a competing business. That’s rational enough. And in an environment of abundant labor, an engineer could actually expect to be paid more in exchange for signing such an agreement, or take less money working at a firm that might not require it. Even in that context, non-competes are as bad as they sound — is it good for America to declare some part of the economy an anti-competition zone? — but reasonable people can disagree on that.

Where It Stops Making Sense

Non-competes for camp counselors? Folks who spray pesticides at parks? Who would possibly argue for such an abomination? Oh this guy, according to the Times:

“(Non-competes are) used in almost every sector of the economy to the seemingly mutual satisfaction of employers and individuals,” said Christopher P. Geehern of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, a trade group fighting to defeat a legislative proposal in Massachusetts to rein in non-competes. Yes, I’m sure those out-of-work camp counselors are very satisfied.

And this guy.

“Non-competes reduce the potential for poaching,” said John Hazen, whose paper company makes lottery tickets, another bright spot on the U.S. economy, “We consider them an important way to protect our business.”

Protection or a Trap?

Glenn Fleishman, an Economist contributor, railed about the story recently via Twitter.

“(Non-competes) are offensive to liberty,” he wrote. “I’m surprised (there isn’t) more conservative outrage.”

If your basic sense of fairness isn’t deeply disturbed by this trend, you aren’t paying attention. Every other worker-unfriendly policy of our time is defended by one notion: labor portability. If you don’t like it, you can work somewhere else. In more subtle columns, I’ll tell you many things about labor portability are a farce. Healthcare is one: you can’t just switch jobs if you are afraid of losing your doctor. The sluggish housing market is another. Got a good job offer 500 miles away? Who cares if your mortgage is under water and you can’t sell your house. All these things serve to artificially deflate wages and deflate our national mood, as workers progressively feel more trapped in less-than-ideal situations.

But that’s the subtle argument.  Here’s the blunt one: Labor portability doesn’t exist because THEY SAID SO!

With the stroke of a pen, companies are, incredibly, making it impossible for employees to make a living if they quit. I’m being redundant because it matters so much. Even long after former workers have severed their relationships with corporations. Even after they are no longer getting paychecks or have any other relationships, these ex-employees can’t work in their chosen field any longer.

Still can’t find it in your heart to see the absurdity of the situation? Try this on: It also applies if workers are fired.  These agreements literally give bosses the power to make workers destitute on a whim. Talk about leverage.

Oh, and one more thing. Who is paying for all this? You are. What happens to workers who are fired are cannot find employment in their line of work? They collect unemployment insurance, of course. In a very real way, you are subsidizing employers’ ability to place workers in something quite like indentured servitude.

It’s time to get angry. Companies and their clever lawyers have already eliminated your right to sue them and have your day in court. Now they are trying to eliminate your ability to work freely. Where will it end?

Employers of America, there is another way to make it hard for workers to leave. PAY THEM MORE!  Or, train nice bosses that garner affection and loyalty. Or offers lots of vacation time.  Or….

This story is an op/ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More Money-Saving Reads:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team