竞业限制对员工的影响-竞业限制知识大全|极兔竞调
竞业限制对员工的影响
谁有竞业限制协议
与研究人员 Evan Starr、JJ Prescott 和 Norman Bishara (SPB) 的原始调查工作以及2021 年明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行 对
美国劳工统计局 (BLS) 数据的分析一致，我们发现整个劳动力队伍中都存在竞业限制协议，包括受教育程度较低和工资较低
的工人。SHED 数据显示，总体而言，目前 11.4% 的成年工人有竞业限制协议。然而，SHED 数据在关键方面扩展了我们的
理解。例如，我们发现西海岸的工人有竞业限制协议的可能性远低于南大西洋的工人，分别为 9.0% 和 13.3%。
与此相关的是，我们还发现，在三个不执行竞业限制协议的州（加利福尼亚州、北达科他州和俄克拉荷马州），工人签订竞业
限制协议的可能性较低，这三个州的总体比率为 7.0%，而在其他 47 个州，总体比率为 12.0%。这些模式与早期的调查证据略
有不同，该调查表明，在执行和不执行竞业限制协议的州，竞业限制协议的比率相似（SPB 2021，第 68 页）。尽管如此，7.0%
还是一个相当大的比例。这种模式表明，虽然一些雇主可能会避免在无法执行竞业限制协议的州使用竞业限制协议，但一些雇主
无论如何都会使用它们——也许是因为他们对各州可执行性差异的了解有限（Prescott 和 Starr 2021）。
我们还发现，中年员工（35 至 44 岁）的竞业限制协议比年轻和年长员工更常见。如图 2 所示，13.2% 的 35 至 44 岁员工报告
有竞业限制协议，而只有 7.3% 的 65 至 74 岁员工有竞业限制协议。相比之下，2021 年明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行分析中使用
的 BLS 数据仅包括当时 32-38 岁的工人，而 SPB 调查显示各年龄段之间的差异比例较小。BLS 和 SHED 数据均表明，总体竞业
限制协议持有率低于 SPB 调查。
SHED 数据使我们能够按性别、种族/民族、教育程度、行业和收入细分竞业限制协议的发生率。我们发现，男性报告竞业限制协
议的可能性略高一些，拥有四年制大学学位的工人也是如此。各行业在使用竞业限制协议方面差异很大：专业服务业（19.2%）和
金融业（18.2%）的工人比建筑业（7.1%）、教育业（7.8%）或公共管理业（4.7%）的工人更有可能有竞业限制协议。与之前的
分析一致，我们还发现家庭收入较高的工人比收入较低的工人更有可能有竞业限制协议。这些发现显示在图 3 中，用户可以从下拉
菜单中选择以探索各种数据。
对工人的影响
SHED 中关于竞业限制的新数据也很有价值，因为调查的其他方面可以帮助研究人员了解竞业限制如何影响工人。除了关于竞业限
制的问题外，SHED 还包含有关个人财务、收入、就业、高等教育、移民和住房的问题。SHED 还有一个小组维度，可以让研究人
员了解竞业限制工人的结果如何随时间变化。
相对于之前询问竞业限制协议的调查，SHED 包含了更多关于低收入人群个人财务状况的详细信息。例如，SHED 询问 a) 人们是否
有为失业而建立的应急储蓄基金，以及 b) 人们是否会用现金或等价物支付 400 美元的意外开支。这些关于人们流动储蓄的问题对于
理解竞业限制合同可能限制工人接受新工作的能力的可能影响至关重要。这与大量研究文献有关，这些文献发现竞业限制协议（尤其
是严格执行的竞业限制协议）对低薪工人的工资（Balasubramanian 等人，2022 年，Lipsitz 和 Starr ，2022 年）产生负面影响，
并增加职业弯路的可能性（Marx ，2011 年；Marx、Singh 和 Fleming ，2015 年）。这对于那些即使无故被解雇也可以强制执行
竞业限制协议的工人来说尤其重要，许多州都是这种情况。
SHED 关于紧急储蓄的问题尤其重要：“您是否预留了紧急或应急资金，以便在生病、失业、经济衰退或其他紧急情况下可以支付 3
个月的开支？”应急资金对于有竞业限制协议的人来说尤其重要，因为竞业限制协议会使他们更难找到新工作。
严格地看竞业限制协议与应急基金之间的关联，我们发现，拥有竞业限制协议的员工拥有应急基金的可能性高出 10.8%。然而，这种
关联因以下事实而变得复杂：如图 3 所示，竞业限制协议在中期职业、受教育程度高的员工中更为常见，这些员工往往有更多储蓄。
因此，我们提供了未经调整的估计值以及根据员工特征差异调整的估计值。
我们发现竞业限制协议与储蓄之间的关联要小得多，而且在统计上不显著。虽然竞业限制协议的员工比一般员工更有可能拥有应急资
金，但他们似乎与具有类似背景和工作的员工拥有应急资金的比例相似。
The impact of non compete restrictions on employees
Who has a non compete agreement
Consistent with the original survey work of researchers Evan Starr, JJ Prescott, and Norman Bishara (SPB), as well as the
analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank in 2021, we found
that non compete agreements exist throughout the entire workforce, including workers with lower levels of education
and wages. SHED data shows that overall, 11.4% of adult workers currently have non compete agreements. However,
SHED data has expanded our understanding in key aspects. For example, we found that the likelihood of workers on
the West Coast having non compete agreements is much lower than that of workers in the South Atlantic, at 9.0% and
13.3%, respectively.
Related to this, we also found that in three states that do not enforce non compete agreements (California, North Dakota,
and Oklahoma), workers are less likely to sign non compete agreements, with an overall rate of 7.0%, while in the other
47 states, the overall rate is 12.0%. These patterns are slightly different from early investigative evidence, which suggests
that the ratio of non compete agreements is similar in states that enforce and do not enforce non compete agreements
(SPB 2021, p. 68). Nevertheless, 7.0% is still a considerable proportion. This pattern suggests that while some employers
may avoid using non compete agreements in states where they cannot be enforced, some employers will use them
anyway - perhaps due to their limited understanding of the differences in enforceability between states (Prescott and Starr 2021).
We also found that non compete agreements are more common among middle-aged employees (aged 35 to 44) than
among younger and older employees. As shown in Figure 2, 13.2% of employees aged 35 to 44 reported having non
compete agreements, while only 7.3% of employees aged 65 to 74 reported having non compete agreements. In contrast,
the BLS data used in the 2021 analysis by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank only included workers aged 32-38 at the
time, while the SPB survey showed a smaller proportion of differences between age groups. Both BLS and SHED data indicate
that the overall non compete agreement ownership rate is lower than the SPB survey. three
SHED data enables us to segment the incidence of non compete agreements by gender, race/ethnicity, education level,
industry, and income. We found that men are slightly more likely to report non compete agreements, as are workers with
four-year university degrees. There are significant differences in the use of non compete agreements across industries: workers
in the professional services industry (19.2%) and finance industry (18.2%) are more likely to have non compete agreements than
workers in the construction industry (7.1%), education industry (7.8%), or public administration industry (4.7%). Consistent with
previous analysis, we also found that workers with higher household incomes are more likely to have non compete agreements
than those with lower incomes. These findings are shown in Figure 3, where users can select from a dropdown menu to explore
various data. four
The impact on workers
The new data on non compete restrictions in SHED is also valuable, as other aspects of the survey can help researchers understand
how non compete restrictions affect workers. In addition to issues related to non compete restrictions, SHED also includes issues
related to personal finances, income, employment, higher education, immigration, and housing. SHED also has a group dimension
that allows researchers to understand how the results of non compete workers change over time.
Compared to previous surveys inquiring about non compete agreements, SHED contains more detailed information about the
personal financial situation of low-income individuals. For example, SHED asks a) whether people have established emergency
savings funds for unemployment, and b) whether people will pay $400 in cash or equivalent for unexpected expenses. These
questions about people's mobile savings are crucial for understanding the potential impact of non compete contracts on
workers' ability to accept new jobs. This is related to a large body of research literature that has found that non compete
agreements, especially those that are strictly enforced, have a negative impact on the wages of low wage workers
(Balasubramanian et al., 2022; Lipsitz and Starr, 2022) and increase the likelihood of career detours (Marx, 2011; Marx,
Singh,&Fleming, 2015). This is particularly important for workers who can enforce non compete agreements even if
they are dismissed without reason, as is the case in many states.
SHED's question about emergency savings is particularly important: "Have you reserved emergency or contingency
funds so that you can cover three months of expenses in case of illness, unemployment, economic recession, or other
emergencies?" Emergency funds are particularly important for people with non compete agreements, as they make
it harder for them to find new jobs.
Strictly examining the relationship between non compete agreements and emergency funds, we found that employees
who have non compete agreements are 10.8% more likely to have emergency funds. However, this association is
complicated by the fact that, as shown in Figure 3, non compete agreements are more common among mid career,
highly educated employees who often have more savings. Therefore, we provide unadjusted estimates as well as
estimates adjusted for differences in employee characteristics.
We found that the correlation between non compete agreements and savings is much smaller and not statistically
significant. Although employees under non compete agreements are more likely to have emergency funds than regular
employees, they appear to have a similar proportion of emergency funds as employees with similar backgrounds and jobs.
------------------------------------------------------------
你可能还会感兴趣的话题：
扫码联系我们