FTC Bans Non Compete Clauses

[MediaZone4K 1514]

Not sure where else to post this....Apparently the Federal Trade Commission has banned non-compete clauses. The announcement from the FTC website promotes NDAS as a better alternative to keeping trade secrets rather than non-competes.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes

 

The report criticized the clause as an exploitative practice to keep employees locked into low wage jobs rather than employers treating their employees better.

 

During the State of the Union President Biden criticized non-competes for banning a fast food worker from taking a simultaneous job at another fast food restaurant.

 

Any thoughts?

 

My question is.... does this ban now mean that a reporter can work at say ABC 7 and NBC 4 simultaneously, or does it just mean that ABC 7 cannot tell a reporter they are banned from working within X miles of their station for X months (post employment)? I'm thinking the latter.

Edited April 24 by MediaZone4K

[Recovering Producer 100]

7 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

My question is.... does this ban now mean that a reporter can work at say ABC 7 and NBC 4 simultaneously, or does it just mean that ABC 7 cannot tell a reporter they are banned from working within X miles of their station for X months (post employment)? I'm thinking the latter.

Absolutely the latter.

 

Every contract I signed and have seen for full-time employees has an exclusive service in the industry clause, which would almost certainly hold up in court. 

 

Some employers have tried to extend that to no or must get management approval for outside broadcasting second jobs - especially for people who appear on-air. That's more of a tell on the state of pay in small-market TV than anything. 

 

Freelance employment is a different monster. 

[tyrannical bastard 3458]

If you're an hourly employee and have to sign one, that is downright criminal.

 

The only way they should ever hold up is if if the employee is important enough and compensated handsomely because of it.

[Rusty Muck 4165]

Unsurprisingly, Hank Price decided to humiliate himself in this op-ed claiming it will be a "body blow" to the megachains and depress salaries for talent, and openly pled for "an appropriate court" (translation: a right-wing court dominated by Republican appointees) to overturn it.

 

It's easily the most depraved, tone-deaf and out-of-step reaction by a man who runs a website—TVNewsCheck—now wholly subsidized by rich old white males Perry Sook, Hilton Howell, Adam Symson and David Smith.

[MediaZone4K 1514]

It's almost insane that a company can fire you (or you leave them) yet they can dictate your post employment actions in a "free country".

 

Anchors aside, I highly doubt the audience will abandon a station in droves if a reporter switches from say KABC to KNBC. So the rationale for post employment non-competes doesn't hold up to me.

 

Related anecdote --- During college I applied for a $12 h/r job at Uniqlo who said we couldn't hold any simultaneous retail jobs.  If someone is working in retail, most likely they only qualify to work within the industry. So how can you tell them they can't seek supplemental employment in their field?

 

Not surprisingly this same company that recruited directly from college campuses also told students with 8:00 a.m. classes that had to be able to close at 1:00 a.m. a few nights a week --- so I'm pretty sure they don't care.

Edited April 24 by MediaZone4K

[C Block 1488]

 

14 hours ago, Rusty Muck said:

Unsurprisingly, Hank Price decided to humiliate himself in this op-ed claiming it will be a "body blow" to the megachains and depress salaries for talent, and openly pled for "an appropriate court" (translation: a right-wing court dominated by Republican appointees) to overturn it.

 

It's easily the most depraved, tone-deaf and out-of-step reaction by a man who runs a website—TVNewsCheck—now wholly subsidized by rich old white males Perry Sook, Hilton Howell, Adam Symson and David Smith.

 

He's writing this as if the industry isn't already a revolving door of talent. Has he watched the news at all in the last decade? Even in big markets, it's pretty astounding how much attrition there is on and off screen. I don't think I could name more than a handful of reporters on competing stations. When I turn on Denver TV, there's barely anybody recognizable to me on there.

 

This is nothing but great news for the media industry workforce, and employees can now more freely vote with their feet and escape bad employers who don't pay enough. Not that we have much choice anyway with at most a dozen station groups now.

 

Of course, noncompetes have been watered down quite a bit already. Most stories I hear these days of people breaking their contract involve the station group threatening to sue them, then the employee gets a lawyer to point out all the ridiculous claims. Then, the station group is too cheap to go through with the lawsuit anyway and they back down immediately. There are so many other new laws at play too. Noncompete clauses are already unenforceable in California, but a new law that went into effect in January makes all contracts with noncompetes void *altogether.*

[MediaZone4K 1514]

5 hours ago, C Block said:

 

 

He's writing this as if the industry isn't already a revolving door of talent. Has he watched the news at all in the last decade? Even in big markets, it's pretty astounding how much attrition there is on and off screen. I don't think I could name more than a handful of reporters on competing stations. When I turn on Denver TV, there's barely anybody recognizable to me on there.

 

 

Just look  at market 1! Half the reporting staff at WCBS, WNYW, and WPIX and to a lesser degree WNBC are unrecognizable---and this is the highest paid market. The only station that has heavily retained reporting talent is WABC. 

[MediaZone4K 1514]

One of the biggest rationales for non competes in journalism is safe guarding intellectual property. From my time in a newsroom I can tell you that photographers and digital writers (who aren't under contract) are privy to just as much intellectual property and "company secrets" as reporters/anchors and producers (who were under contract). So, IMO that doesn't hold up. 

 

This might be a radial leap but contracts should be abolished for all LOW WAGE employees. It's one thing to lock in Hoda Kotb or Robin Roberts for two years when you pay them millions. But small to medium market MMJs/Reporters making around $20 an hour should have the freedom to leave if necessary, especially because companies do not care about living expenses etc..

 

Aside from wanting your face exclusively on their channel, contracts are typically a mechanism for stations to curb high turnover. They lock talent in rather than improving the working conditions (and pay) that cause the turnover to begin with. 

Edited April 27 by MediaZone4K