Skip to main content
Tags: agreements | khan | ftc
OPINION

Biden's FTC Targets Indentured Servitude of Non-Competes

indentured servitude to employer

(Lucian Milasan/Dreamstime.com)

Michael Reagan By with Michael R. Shannon Friday, 31 May 2024 04:24 PM EDT Current | Bio | Archive

When you visit the Britannica website and search for "indentured servant" the definition is: "indentured labor, a form of contract labor in which laborers enter into an official agreement with their employer certifying that they will work for the employer either for a fixed length of time or until a debt has been paid."

The modern form of indentured servitude is when you go to work for an employer and he or she forces you to sign a "non–compete" clause in your employment agreement.

This means if you take the job for which you are trained and qualified to fill, you are forced to continue to work for only that employer if you want to stay in the industry.

The employer might be abusive, he might not hold up his end of the agreement or you may get a better job offer with a higher salary from a competitor.

Doesn’t matter, you are stuck working for the first employer.

If you take another offer or look for another job in the same field, say you’re a doctor, pharmacist, transportation executive, or realtor, the original employer can sue you for breach of contract.

As Matt Stoller in his valuable BIG newsletter puts it, non-compete agreements are completely weighted in favor of the employer at the expense of the employee, "The overall goal is to cut wages by reducing the ability of people to bargain with rival employers."

Non-competes are just another way to keeps wages low in jobs that are too high profile to hire an illegal immigrant. 

These anti-employee clauses are so unfair that many states have banned their enforcement altogether. These include both red and blue jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

And lest you think the idea of coercive employment is a niche injustice affecting only white-collar employees, think again.

Stoller found, "Since 2000, the use of non-competes at all levels of society has exploded. Eight years ago, one in five employees in the United States was bound by one of these contracts, or 35-40 million people.

"It’s no longer just high-level employees who have them, but sandwich shop workers and janitors. For instance, 30% of hairstylists works under a non-compete, as do 45% of family physicians.

"Non-competes facilitate consolidation, especially in health care, where doctors are trapped into practices bought by private equity groups."

It's a recipe for "Bosses Gone Wild," or "Bad Boss Diaries."

The modern era of indenture is drawing to a close.

"[The] Federal Trade Commission, led by Chair Lina Khan, voted 3-2 to eliminate contracts that stop people from switching jobs, contracts known as ‘non-compete agreements'."

Naturally there were howls of outrage when employers learned the 13th Amendment would now apply to their workforce.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce threatened to sue, but was beaten to the courthouse by a Dallas law firm.

And just to demonstrate once again the legal profession has no sense of shame, law firms are prohibited from imposing non-compete agreements on the firm’s legal staff, but they eagerly go to court to make sure you continue to labor under one.

Like most unfair uses of raw power, the defense of non-compete clauses are false.

Businesses claim employees will leave the company and take trade secrets and clients with them. Stealing trade secrets is already covered by another law and treating employees well and paying them well creates incentives to stay, not leave.

These businesses with non-compete clauses are either under the thumb of an oppressive human resources department or the head honchos who simply like lording it over their serfs.

The lack of non-compete clauses certainly hasn’t hurt Silicon Valley.

As Stoller observes, "Eliminating non-competes doesn’t harm business, it helps it; Silicon Valley exists precisely because non-competes are unenforceable in the state."

It also makes for better workplace morale and levels the playing field for the employees that make the company function.

The FTC’s action on non-compete clauses shows that even the Biden administration can get something right.

We’d say it’s about time.

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of President Reagan, is a Newsmax TV analyst. A syndicated columnist and author, he chairs The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Michael is an in-demand speaker with Premiere speaker's bureau. Read Michael Reagan's Reports — More Here.

Michael R. Shannon is a commentator, researcher for the League of American Voters, and an award-winning political and advertising consultant with nationwide and international experience. He is author of "Conservative Christian's Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now With Added Humor!)" Read Michael Shannon's Reports — More Here.

© Mike Reagan

Sign up for Newsmax’s Daily Newsletter

Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.

(Optional for Local News)
Privacy: We never share your email address.

Reagan
Like most unfair uses of raw power, the defense of non-compete clauses are false. Businesses claim employees will leave the company and take trade secrets and clients with them. Stealing trade secrets is already covered by another law.
agreements, khan, ftc
765
2024-24-31
Friday, 31 May 2024 04:24 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
 

Interest-Based Advertising | Do not sell or share my personal information

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© 2025 Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Download the Newsmax App
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© 2025 Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved