Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees (MOVE) Act


Recently, Senator Chris Murphy (Connecticut) and Senator Al Franken (Minnesota) introduced a new bill, the Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees (MOVE) Act, which would enable low wage workers to seek employment elsewhere, without being restricted by non-compete agreements.  Note, the bill is co-sponsored by fellow Democratic Senators, Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut).   

Some readers might have heard of a report late last year that Jimmy John's required their workers to sign non-competes which would prohibit their employees from working for a sandwich competitor for two years following employment at Jimmy John's.  (Jimmy John's Non-Competes).  Yes, sadly that is a real story...

This proposed MOVE Act would ban the use of non-competes by employers, like Jimmy John's, in relation to employees making less than $15/hour, $31,200/year, or the minimum wage in the employee's municipality, and would require employers to notify prospective employees that they may be asked to sign a non-compete agreement.  If passed, this would be a significant stake in the heart of non-competes.  Granted, it would not impact many workers (particularly those in the tech industry where non-competes are more common).  

With that being said, this would certainly be an interesting development.  Should it come to pass, it could spur additional bills to further limit non-competes in other fields.  But that is getting ahead of the curve here...let's see whether this bill advances.


For additional information:  http://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-franken-introduce-bill-to-ban-non-compete-agreements-for-low-wage-workers

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...