On January 5, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a rule banning non-compete agreements between employers and employees or independent contractors, whether paid or unpaid.
Why it matters: Many employers use these agreements to incentivize employees to stay with the employer even if the pay and work conditions could be better elsewhere.
The big picture: Florida regulates non-competition agreements, specifying what a legal overreach regarding duration and geographic coverage is.
-
An agreement may be unenforceable if โ for example โ it forbids a plumber to compete with her employer for 10 years anywhere in the state. But a prohibition of three months and 15 miles may be enforceable.
-
If the FTC has its way, even the latter would be illegal and unenforceable.
If it passes, the new rule would say that entering into or attempting to enter into a non-compete agreement with a worker would be an โunfair method of competitionโ under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. No prohibitions on confidentiality or non-solicitation of other employees.
By the numbers: FTC estimates that such a ban could
-
increase workersโ income by $300 billion a year because employers would have to pay workers more to keep them;
-
expand opportunities for 30 million people who are subject to such agreements;
-
save patients up to $148 billion in health costs each year;
-
reduce monopolies and duopolies; and
-
close the racial and gender wage gap by up to 9.1 percent.
Our thought bubble: If this rule passes, it will be challenged on the theory that the FTC is overstepping its authority. Based on how the courts have leaned when similar arguments were made against CFPB and EPA, itโs a non-starter.
Go deeper: FTCโs rule and public comment site.