Running the work rule over scourge of the non-compete clause
To what extent should your employer be able to dictate where you can
work
after you quit? In recent years, policymakers in a range of countries have come up with the same answer: not as much as they do now.
Their interest in this question has been prompted by academic research into what I call, 'the economics of small print'.
The prevalence of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, for example, is now 'surprisingly high', according to a recent overview by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These clauses typically ban an employee from going to work for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving their job. And they appear to have spread quietly from well-paid jobs, such as senior executives, to badly paid ones, such as fast-food workers and hairdressers.
Will rent reform make building apartments viable?
Listen |
40:12
Interestingly, such patterns seem to hold in very different types of labour markets, from flexible ones such as the United Kingdom and Australia to more regulated ones like Austria and Italy.
READ MORE
Policymakers are paying attention. There have been moves in Australia, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and some US states to prevent or restrict the use of non-competes, often because they suppress mobility and wage growth for workers.
But one place is zigging while everyone else zags.
In Florida, the state legislature has passed a Bill that, if approved by the governor, would permit non-compete agreements that last a full four years. It would also make it easier for employers to get them enforced.
Even in the United States, the move would make Florida a real outlier. 'Before this law, if any employer in any state in the US would have asked me, 'hey, is a four-year non-compete enforceable?' I would have simply said, 'no,'' Mark Konkel, a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren who specialises in employment law, told me.
What does Florida hope to achieve? The Bill's title offers a clue: it is called the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality and Economic Growth (Choice) Act. Much of the legal analysis has described it as an 'employer-friendly' move to make Florida even more 'wide open for business'.
The case for non-competes is that they protect workforce investments, client relationships and trade secrets
But to see stringent non-competes as straightforwardly pro-employer would be a mistake. It would be better to say that they are pro-incumbent employers. And what that means for economic growth is not straightforward.
The case for non-competes is that they protect workforce investments, client relationships and trade secrets. But they have long been unenforceable in California, which didn't stop Silicon Valley from becoming the innovation capital of the world. And, if you have a new company and you want to expand and hire good people, the clauses can allow incumbent competitors to hoard talent.
The OECD report's authors concluded that 'the balance of evidence suggests that non-compete clauses suppress job mobility, firm entry, innovation, wages and productivity, which more than offset any gains from enhanced incentives for firm-specific investment'.
Indeed, there are signs that the forces of 'creative destruction' have been waning in recent decades: business entry and exit rates have declined in the US and elsewhere, as have job-to-job moves. It is possible that non-competes have contributed to this trend by preventing competition and fluidity.
Economic Innovation Group chief executive John Lettieri – the group is a think tank that opposes non-competes – said he thought Florida was committing economic self-harm, even though the law would only apply to people who earned more than twice the annual mean wage. 'Imagine taking some of the best human capital you have in your state and putting it on the sidelines for four years,' he said. 'The biggest economic harm in the long run is restricting the highest-paid talent.'
Florida's move on non-competes could be seen in the same way as its proposal to ease restrictions on child labour
Konkel, the employment lawyer, said it remained to be seen how much employers would use the new law.
'If you are about to join an employer and you know that in accepting that employment, you're going to be compelled to sign a four-year non-compete, it is very hard to imagine very marketable people will just sign such an agreement without negotiation,' he said. While some firms like hedge funds might be able to pay enough to compensate, many other employers would probably wait and see, or 'continue to take a more tailored approach', he predicted.
Florida's move on non-competes could be seen in the same way as its proposal to ease restrictions on child labour: interventions that might benefit incumbent employers in the short run, but with costs to human capital and growth in the long run.
At least the economists who like to study the economics of small print have a new place to get their microscopes out. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
United Airlines expands capacity on routes from Dublin to US
United Airlines will now operate its daily non-stop Dublin to Chicago routes on a year-round basis and has also expanded its second daily New York/Newark route into the winter months. On Friday, the American airline said it will now offer more flights and seats from Dublin Airport than any other US airline. 'This significant expansion further underlines the importance of Dublin within United's global network,' Karolien De Hertogh, United's UK and Ireland sales director, said. 'Our customers in Ireland will benefit from even greater travel choice in the winter season, with the possibility to seamlessly connect via our hubs in New York/Newark, Chicago O'Hare and Washington DC to over 140 destinations in the Americas.' READ MORE It follows the airline's decision to double the number of flights it operates between Dublin and Washington DC this summer from once to twice daily. [ United Airlines to resume Dublin-Washington DC route Opens in new window ] United also recently increased capacity on its Dublin-Chicago route after introducing a new Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft. 'More capacity on United Airlines' services from Dublin to New York's Newark and Chicago O'Hare airports is great news for our passengers,' said Gary McLean, Dublin Airport managing director. 'The move to almost year-round operations for the second daily Newark service and year-round for the daily Chicago flight is a clear signal of the strong demand from our American customers.' United said its expansion will increase its overall seat offering from Dublin to the US by 50 per cent for next year, compared with 2024. The carrier also recent announced new routes from New York/Newark hub to Greenland, Bilbao, Palermo and Madeira Island, all of which are currently not served by other US airlines.
Irish Times
18 hours ago
- Irish Times
How the culture war is remaking advertising
During this year's Super Bowl, American viewers were given a blast from the past when food chain Carl's Jr once again rolled out an ad featuring scantily clad women, having ditched its long-time 'burgers and bikinis' approach in 2017. Bud Light, which attracted boycotts after working with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023, put out a campaign featuring guys drinking beer and barbecuing big steaks for a lawn party in a stereotypical US suburban cul-de-sac. For many marketers, these sort of ads were the latest signs that big US and international brands, after years of talk about purpose and inclusion in their corporate messaging, are now playing to the Maga crowd. Some have gone even farther; restaurant chain Steak 'n Shake, for example, sponsored a recent bitcoin conference, and tweeted posts appealing to Tesla Cybertruck drivers. Its pinned post on X features US health secretary Robert F Kennedy jnr . READ MORE Yet at the same time, senior advertising bosses say campaigns featuring themes of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are now being blocked by some brand owners, who are nervous of a backlash from anti-woke campaigners and Republican politicians. 'We've had a lot of ideas that were pro-LGBTQ, or pro for the black community, pulled back on because of what's happening with the Trump administration,' says one senior advertising boss who, like many of the executives that the Financial Times spoke to, did not want to be named for fear of sparking a further negative response. The election of Donald Trump has brought added fears of legal action against DEI initiatives in the US and scrutiny by regulators and Christian faith shareholders over perceived bias in advertising. Top marketers in the US say the increased nervousness about being attacked for being 'woke' by conservatives on platforms such as Elon Musk 's X is changing how they approach spending often constrained budgets to reach consumers. Consumer behaviour is becoming more polarised. A new report from FCB, the advertising agency, and Angus Reid, the Canadian pollster, found that political leaning had a clear impact on consumer choices. FCB's Global chief executive Tyler Turnbull says that brands are now political, and it was 'really no longer viable for marketers to ignore the political perspective of their target audiences'. It is not only an American phenomenon. Flora Joll, strategy director at creative agency JOAN London, says she has seen 'campaigns get diluted across the board' in part owing to 'increasing nervousness about attracting the wrong kind of public attention'. She adds: 'The woke wars in the UK are far behind where the US have been for a while, but it is starting to bite here and a [possible] recession would only have an exacerbating effect.' It adds up to an unusually complicated time for marketers as they congregated in the south of France for the annual Cannes Lions advertising festival this week. In a poll of global chief marketing officers by the World Federation of Advertisers published this week, more than four-fifths of respondents said the operating environment was now riskier for brands. A similar number said they were taking more time to 'agree what they stand for and how they articulate positions and values externally in their marketing communications'. PR agency executives say their big workload now is advising brands on how to react to Trump's unpredictable salvos on anything from DEI to tariffs. 'Most of the time they just want to say nothing,' says a senior PR executive. The nervousness means advertising is shying away from the role it has played for decades in expanding mainstream culture to include historically less-represented people, including those marginalised by their race, sexuality or disabilities. Often this was ahead of its time; in 1994, the year a gay couple appeared in a US TV commercial for the first time, more than a dozen US states still had laws that prohibited gay men from having consensual sex. The risk for an industry that still celebrates diversity in its own ranks is that the sort of free thinking that can underpin creativity will be unduly muted at a time when the traditional industry roles are under assault from the emergence of AI. 'There's been a shift towards the more reassuring, more run of the mill. That's what's going to happen until things settle. It's very, very uncertain,' says one agency boss. 'You're seeing a lot less purpose-led ideas around DEI – not because they don't exist but because clients are getting nervous. You don't want to be targeted.' To a certain extent, advertising has become the battleground for broader culture war conflicts in the corporate world. Shareholder activists, for example, are now using their clout to influence companies to reverse their positions on matters of diversity and inclusion, following the lead of the White House. The Alliance Defending Freedom – an organisation set up to protect Christian values – has backed shareholders who have filed more than 60 resolutions for the 2025 proxy season. It claims to have helped push a number of the world's largest advertisers into enshrining 'viewpoint neutrality' when it comes to their creative work. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and its shareholder partners most recently claimed victory after IBM moved to 'viewpoint neutrality' in its advertising policies last month, adding to a list that they say includes PepsiCo and Johnson & Johnson . These companies did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement to the FT, the Alliance Defending Freedom said that IBM was the latest company to take steps to 'prevent future viewpoint-based discrimination', adding: 'No corporation should be involved in or allow for censorship at any level. We hope every company ... recommits to doing its part to protect freedom of speech and thought in our nation and throughout the world.' An antitrust lawsuit filed last year by X against Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a brand safety initiative backed by advertisers and ad agencies, as well as some companies, accused them of co-ordinating an 'illegal boycott' of the site. The initiative, which was part of the World Federation of Advertisers, has since shut down. The coalition of advertisers, including Nestlé and Shell , last month asked a federal judge in Texas to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that their decisions to suspend advertising on X were made independently and reflected concerns over the platform's content moderation practices. 'There is a genuine fear of reprisal, based on not just opinion, but actually some real fear of legal ramifications at some point down the line which people have to take seriously,' says a UK marketing head. 'Because they have a duty of care to ensure that they're not creating an illegal jeopardy by doing some of these things.' Musk – although now out of the White House – is still seen to have considerable sway over the direction taken by regulators in the US. The US Congress has held hearings looking at potential collusion among advertising firms, while the Federal Trade Commission is also looking at whether advertising and advocacy groups have colluded in working with brands to boycott platforms such as X. Turnbull says that brands now needed to consider the choice of marketing platform as a political act. 'Where you're advertising is as much of a statement now about what your brand is and what you stand for as it's ever been before. What message are you sending? Should you be on Joe Rogan or Michelle Obama's podcast?' The trend is also affecting M&A in the industry. In December, Jim Jordan, a Republican who chairs the House judiciary committee, wrote to Omnicom boss John Wren to say that they were looking at the takeover of rival Interpublic in relation to their work with Global Alliance for Responsible Media, adding that the proposed merger raises potential anticompetitive concerns. Even if there is yet to be any tangible impact from these threats, the combination of lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny has had a chilling effect on brands and DEI, ad bosses say. Richard Exon, co-founder of independent creative advertising agency Joint, says that commitment to DEI 'has recently become a politicised position' in the US. Larger businesses were facing the challenge of achieving broad appeal in a highly polarised media landscape, he adds. 'It's not surprising if these larger businesses proceed more cautiously on social justice issues.' Some marketers say they are being more closely monitored by their boards about delivery, with the focus now on effectiveness of campaigns that can yield tangible sales. Brands are often working with tightened budgets, says one UK advertising boss, meaning that 'anything unrelated to pure growth, including purpose, could be seen as a distraction and therefore harder to gain traction within a business'. But the move in the cultural landscape has also shifted marketing budgets, with organisers of Pride marches and other LGBT+ events saying that there has been a retreat from corporate sponsors this year in the US and the UK. In New York, a number of sponsors such as Mastercard did not renew their top-tier corporate sponsorships of Pride. Mastercard said that, this year, it was 'proudly participating in the NYC Pride March and related events with a strong employee-led presence and a community engagement programme'. [ A quarter of major US corporate backers pull out of Dublin Pride over Trump fears Opens in new window ] Polly Shute, founder of Out & Wild, the UK's largest LGBT+ festival and former board member of Pride in London, says that corporate sponsors have been less keen to back events. Plymouth and Liverpool have both pulled their Pride march events – the latter blaming 'significant financial and organisational challenges' at a time of rising costs. Shute says that, in 2017, Pride 'was turning brands away as they did not meet criteria' but 'it's very different now'. She notes that some brands and companies had stopped changing their logos to Pride colours on social media such as LinkedIn. In the UK, these include firms that have extensive operations in the US such as WPP, Linklaters and Freshfields. Linklaters said its 'commitment remains unchanged. We are proud to be celebrating Pride at Linklaters ... with events and activities taking place across our global offices'. Freshfields has used other Pride branding this year, including a Pride banner across its LinkedIn page. Shute says that demand for influencers to be used in external marketing, and for speakers for internal corporate events, has also been more muted this year. 'It used to be that the social media was really positive but now the reaction has scared off sponsorship as they don't want to be associated with the negativity.' However, dog treats company BarkBox showed there are dangers in shifting positions. Matt Meeker, the group's chief executive, was forced to apologise after a leaked Slack message suggested the company would pause paid advertising for its Pride kit, with the 'current climate' making such promotions 'feel like a political statement'. Target, the US retailer, has also been boycotted by some customers since February owing to its decision to scale back DEI initiatives. 'Target is another example recently where a changed policy has resulted in people voting with their wallets and from a purchase perspective,' says FCB's Turnbull. The People's Union USA, a grassroots consumer-led group, has organised 'economic blackouts' against other companies such as Amazon, Walmart and General Mills. [ Meta introduces advertising to WhatsApp in push for new revenues Opens in new window ] 'This blackout isn't symbolic. It's strategic. We are the economy. We are the machine they profit off of. And it's time to show them what happens when the machine stops,' it says. These shifting cultural sands – and the now ever present risk of alienating customers on any side of a political or societal divide – means that it is in brands' interest to play it safe, according to marketers. 'People are just leaning back, particularly our big clients,' says one ad boss. 'There's just less of a focus on purposeful, super-targeted work right now.' Some point to a focus on humour or universal themes as risk-free ways to get to the biggest audiences. The shift is particularly sensitive at the Cannes Lions festival, which for several years was seen by some as having moved potentially too far towards social issues in the sorts of advertising work it celebrated and rewarded. In Cannes, much of the talk was about how AI would replace a lot of the work carried out by creative teams, resulting in unoriginal and bland advertising campaigns, exacerbating the shift to safety-first approaches. But some are hopeful that the industry can withstand external pressures, finding new and clever ways to reach audiences irrespective of political allegiances. And they point out that Cannes Lions still has an award for work that addresses inequality and prejudice by representing and empowering marginalised communities. 'Purpose always has a place,' says Karen Martin, boss of BBH and president of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. 'Cannes may have become too purposeful for a while, but getting different creative voices in the room, and making sure you are addressing all audiences, will always be the centre of what we do.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
18 hours ago
- Irish Times
Applegreen to invest $750m in Massachusetts motorway service stations under 35-year deal
Applegreen , the Irish fuel forecourt retail group, has been awarded a 35-year contract to operate 18 motorway service areas in Massachusetts. Under the deal it will invest more than $750 million (€654 million) in the network. The group, backed by US private equity giant Blackstone , will spend the money replacing buildings at nine plazas and carrying out major renovations of the others, US news media reported. This would make it the biggest spending project Applegreen has entered into in the US. The company will have the contract to operate the restaurants, cafes and shops at the plazas and to sell fuel and operate electric-vehicle (EV) charging sites at each location. READ MORE It will pay up to $994 million in rent to the State of Massachusetts during the 35-year deal, reports said. Of the 18 service stations, 11 are on the longest motorway in the state, known as the Massachusetts Turnpike, which spans 222km and was opened in 1957. Applegreen beat two other final-round bidders for the contract. Fuel supplier Global Partners had been seen as the favourite to be selected by the Massachusetts Department of Transport (MassDOT). 'We're thrilled to have the opportunity to work with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and MassDOT to improve the travel experiences of drivers across Massachusetts for years to come,' a spokesman for Applegreen said. Applegreen entered US market in 2014 when it bought two sites in Long Island. In 2020, the group was part of a consortium that signed a 33-year lease to refurbish and operate 27 motorway plazas on New York Thruway, a system of toll roads within the State of New York. It does not have the fuel sale element of that deal. Applegreen runs more than 100 US motorway service areas, where it operates restaurant and cafe brands such as Burger King, Shake Shack, Chick-fil-A, Popeyes, Starbucks, Dunkin', Panera Bread and Panda Express. The company was founded by Robert Etchingham in 1992 with one station in Ballyfermot, west Dublin. It now has almost 200 locations in the Irish market. The company typically invests more than €30 million a year in the Irish market on store openings, upgrades and improvement. Applegreen was taken private from the stock market in March 2021 by Blackstone in a €718 million deal that saw Mr Etchingham and long-standing executive Joe Barrett retain a combined 42.5 per cent stake in the group. The company's then independent directors decided unanimously to recommend the takeover bid for the group, arguing it faced borrowing constraints as a listed company as it faced large investments in electric car-charging facilities and US highway service areas. Applegreen agreed this year to sell its UK filling station business to UK rival EG On The Move for an undisclosed sum. That business had 98 sites. The company said it would use the proceeds from the transaction to invest in its business in Ireland, the UK and US. The deal did not affect Applegreen's Welcome Break motorway service business in the UK, which also has a network of 31 hotels.
