来源：《华盛顿邮报》
原文刊登日期：2023年2月4日
The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban noncompete agreements would be an economic game changer, affecting up to one-fifth of American workers. Noncompetes forbid workers from starting a similar company or working at a rival firm for up to several years. The agency is right to be concerned. It should move forward with a partial ban covering low- and middle-income workers.
联邦贸易委员会禁止竞业协议的提议将改变经济格局，影响多达五分之一的美国工人。竞业协议禁止工人在几年内创办一家类似的公司或在竞争对手的公司工作。FTC对此表示关注是正确的。FTC应该向前推进，对中低收入工人实行部分禁令。
Some critics argue that the FTC’s move shows that the Biden administration is catering to labor unions. But banning noncompetes for most workers has substantial bipartisan support, because it is justified by research and real-world experience. Noncompetes depress wages, hamper people’s ability to change jobs and have a “chilling effect” on entrepreneurship, studies show. A free-market economy works better when workers may take their talents to the places they can do the most good.
一些批评人士认为，联邦贸易委员会的举动表明，拜登政府正在迎合工会。但禁止让大多数工人签署竞业协议得到了两党的大力支持，因为这是有研究和现实经验证明的。研究表明，竞业协议会压低工资，阻碍人们换工作的能力，并对创业产生“寒蝉效应”。当工人可以将他们的才能带到他们最擅长的地方时，自由市场经济会更好地运作。
These sorts of agreements have been around for centuries. They began with a reasonable premise: Companies invest time and money to train workers, and they don’t want those workers to leave right away for a rival firm. But over time, noncompetes have become draconian, sidelining workers for longer periods of time and restricting employees from working in ever-larger geographical areas. Today, nearly 1 in 5 U.S. workers are asked to sign a noncompete during their onboarding for a new job. Even some hourly workers at fast-food chains have had to agree to these parameters. In an eye-popping example, workers who made sandwiches at Jimmy John’s had to sign noncompetes saying they would not take a job at a rival firm for two years.
这些协议已经存在了几个世纪。它们从一个合理的前提开始：公司投入时间和金钱来培训员工，他们不希望这些员工马上离开去竞争对手的公司。但随着时间的推移，竞业禁止已经变得严厉，使工人长期处于边缘地位，并限制员工在更大的地理区域工作。如今，近五分之一的美国工人在入职新工作时被要求签署竞业禁止协议。甚至快餐连锁店的一些小时工也不得不同意这些条件。在一个令人瞠目的例子中，在吉米·约翰餐厅做三明治的工人必须签署竞业禁止协议，表示他们两年内不会去竞争对手的公司工作。
A number of states already have a version of the FTC’s proposed policy. With limited exceptions, three states ban noncompetes: California, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Eleven other states, plus the District of Columbia, ban it for a substantial number of workers. These states typically restrict noncompetes for workers making below a certain hourly wage or annual salary. For example, Washington state bans noncompete agreements for workers earning under about $107,000 a year, covering about three-quarters of the state’s workers.
许多州已经制定了联邦贸易委员会拟议政策的本州版本。有三个州除有限的例外情况外，禁止竞业协议：加利福尼亚州、北达科他州和俄克拉何马州。另外11个州，加上哥伦比亚特区，对相当数量的工人禁止签署竞业协议。这些州通常限制工资低于特定时薪或年薪的工人的竞业协议。例如，华盛顿州禁止年收入在10.7万美元以下的工人签订竞业禁止协议，覆盖了该州约四分之三的工人。
Now, the FTC is in the process of deciding how far its ban should go. A policy akin to Washington state’s makes the most sense.
现在，联邦贸易委员会正在决定其禁令应该走多远。类似华盛顿州的政策是最有意义的。
Noncompetes are particularly imprudent for low-wage and middle-income workers, especially as labor force participation shrinks, making it harder for companies to find qualified workers. Workers need to be able to change jobs — and even industries — as the economy evolves. Moreover, workers earning less than six figures don’t have the clout to negotiate the terms of a noncompete or hire lawyers to read over every paper they sign when taking a job. From an employer perspective, it’s difficult to argue that someone paid below an executive salary is so critical to a company that they should be barred from moving on and working elsewhere.
竞业禁止对于低收入和中等收入的工人来说尤其轻率，尤其是在劳动力参与率下降的情况下，这使得公司更难找到合格的工人。随着经济的发展，工人们需要能够换工作，甚至换行业。此外，收入低于六位数的员工没有能力就竞业禁止条款进行谈判，也没有能力聘请律师阅读他们在接受工作时签署的每份文件。从雇主的角度来看，很难说薪酬低于高管水平的员工对公司如此重要，以至于要应该禁止他们跳槽到其他地方工作。