This year, the Federal Trade Commission decided shake up the labor market, proposing to ban non-compete clauses for the tens of millions of workers they affect. The clauses are essentially contracts between employers and employees that prohibit the former from competing with the business after the employment has ended. As many as 30% of all U.S. private sector workers have signed such agreements, which actually find their roots all the way back in 15th century England. Those who defend such clauses say employers need these contracts to protect their investments in training workers, not to mention safeguarding their trade secrets. The contracts, they say, represent not only a fair exchange, but also serve as an important fortification for businesses within the broader economy. The FTC, they say, is overextending. But opponents argue that such contracts prevent workers from starting their own businesses, locking them into undercompensated positions, and depress labor mobility and wage growth, while contributing to race and gender gaps. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Should the FTC Ban Non-compete Clauses?
Arguing Yes: Arguing “YES”: Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute President and former Chief Economist to the U.S. Secretary of Labor.
Arguing No: Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Should the FTC Ban Non-compete Clauses? | Open to Debate podcast - Listen or read transcript on Metacast
