> In reality, for decades saying "take this job and shove it" to McDonald's or Burger King has become increasingly hard thanks to the stagnant wages, a lack of benefits, non-compete clauses, and long stretches of economic recession that make it very difficult for workers to build up the kind of savings or emergency fund needed to quit without going through serious financial distress.
fast food jobs are encumbered with non competes? ahem I have doubts there because no one I know in those jobs has mentioned it. It may well happen elsewhere.
they also talk to the "executive director of the Worker's Institute at Cornell University", who I'm sure is so much more in touch with the plight of the fast food / dollar store worker, than, you know, those people that quit; which the story was supposedly about, right?
lots of people are finding that the job market has been stripped of the things that used to make it better than the "irregular / self employed" scratch living that used to feature more largely in rural areas. "gig work" helps too.
I'm not sure about classic non-competes, but "no poach" agreements between franchisers and franchisees are common (even ubiquitous), preventing workers moving at better pay to other branches of the businesses they know best.
> I have doubts there because no one I know in those jobs has mentioned it.
It's heavily state-dependent (considering some states ban non-competes, and other restrict them from being used on low-wage workers). So this may be selection bias.
Jimmy Johns did have a non-compete until fairly recently, and they only stopped because the NY AG made them[0]
Looking at a Five Guys employment application: "I understand that I may be required to sign a confidentiality and/or non-compete agreement, should I become an employee of {store}"[1]
Those are just two I'm familiar with. When employers have the upper-hand over employees, they'll try all sorts of shenanigans to maintain that as long as possible. Surely that can't be a surprise in America.
You need to read the Taft-Hartley Act to understand why no one, and I mean, no one, should answer that question. The Taft-Hartley Act deranged both capital wielder and labor alike from exploiting network effects, but only the prohibition on labor doing so seems to have been able to get much oomph on the enforcement side of things.
Whoever is had best remain anonymous if they want to stay out of the crosshairs of the legal system. It'd be an "I'm Spartacus" situation.
> A better social safety net during the pandemic and a tight labor market in the fast food, leisure, and hospitality industries is allowing this to happen.
That's really the main reason. We have a unique period of time where evictions are banned, free money (stimulus checks) are provided, and so on. People have the luxury of taking time off or improving their skills or seeking a different job because they are being heavily subsidized temporarily.
15 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 39.2 ms ] threadfast food jobs are encumbered with non competes? ahem I have doubts there because no one I know in those jobs has mentioned it. It may well happen elsewhere.
they also talk to the "executive director of the Worker's Institute at Cornell University", who I'm sure is so much more in touch with the plight of the fast food / dollar store worker, than, you know, those people that quit; which the story was supposedly about, right?
https://wolfstreet.com/2021/07/15/entrepreneurial-energy-fun...
lots of people are finding that the job market has been stripped of the things that used to make it better than the "irregular / self employed" scratch living that used to feature more largely in rural areas. "gig work" helps too.
https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/doj-first-criminal-char...
> I have doubts there because no one I know in those jobs has mentioned it.
It's heavily state-dependent (considering some states ban non-competes, and other restrict them from being used on low-wage workers). So this may be selection bias.
Looking at a Five Guys employment application: "I understand that I may be required to sign a confidentiality and/or non-compete agreement, should I become an employee of {store}"[1]
Those are just two I'm familiar with. When employers have the upper-hand over employees, they'll try all sorts of shenanigans to maintain that as long as possible. Surely that can't be a surprise in America.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
[1] https://jobapplications.net/wp-content/uploads/five-guys-bur...
Whoever is had best remain anonymous if they want to stay out of the crosshairs of the legal system. It'd be an "I'm Spartacus" situation.
That's really the main reason. We have a unique period of time where evictions are banned, free money (stimulus checks) are provided, and so on. People have the luxury of taking time off or improving their skills or seeking a different job because they are being heavily subsidized temporarily.
The damage is already irrepairable and the new public debt taken on during this relatively short time cannot be returned. It's irresponsible enough.
Adding more to it with the intent to do it "indefinitively" would only hasten the collapse of the economy and employment.