An employment pact that seems designed for people in high-level positions of confidentiality are being signed by all kinds of workers — so many that the Federal Trade Commission is considering outlawing the practice.
(RawPixel, Public domain)
By Luis Feliz Leon
Labor Notes
Kevin Borowske is still mulling it over after being fired late last month — and evicted as of Feb. 28.
Was he a scientist with the proprietary recipe for a cleaning solution? Was he the holder of a confidential blueprint concealing the secret rooms in the condo?
He’s at a loss as to why the property management company FirstService Residential had him sign a non-compete agreement when he was hired as a caretaker — a job that blends janitorial and light housekeeping services — at a high-rise building in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
A non-compete agreement bars the worker from taking a similar job with another company for a period of time. You might assume that such agreements would mainly be used to keep workers with proprietary information from being poached by a firm’s competitors.
But now all kinds of employers require workers to sign them — so many that the Federal Trade Commission is considering outlawing the practice.
A 2021 study found that 38 percent of U.S. workers have had to sign a non-compete agreement at some point.
Borowske is banned from working for FirstService’s competitors, under threat of lawsuit; the agreement he signed says he would even owe the company any legal fees associated with a suit.
His wife Larisa Borowske was fired, too. They suspect they were let go because they were involved in protesting wage theft by their employers and later striking.
Blocked from Work
The Borowskes’ jobs involved living on-site, because they were on call for emergencies. Now unemployed, the couple has one month to find new housing — and can’t get new employment in the only sector they’ve known for nearly a decade.
“We’re older employees, but we still have a little time to work,” said Borowske, who is 56. “We can’t go to another building and become caretakers.”
Kevin and Larisa Borowske were fired and evicted by property management company FirstService Residential in Minnesota, which had them sign non-compete agreements when they were hired. (SEIU local 26)
The Borowskes feel like their life has been turned upside down. Along with their housing and their job, they lost their health insurance and more.
“Oh, my goodness, my life insurance was terminated on the same day [I was fired],” Borowske said. “In fact, they supply us with telephones; they shut off our telephones. So we couldn’t communicate, and we had to run out and buy telephones.
“I’m just not sure how we’re supposed to survive this, but we will.”
Borowske describes himself as “an award-winning employee” — four years ago, he was one of three workers who got special recognition, out of a pool of 650. His good reputation has earned him the support of condo residents; many have been calling and offering to hire him for small repairs to tide him over until he secures another job.
But he politely declines. “I can’t, because I’m afraid of what would happen if FirstService found out.”
New Rules?
Federal Trade Commission headquarters in Washington. (Victoria Pickering, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
The FTC proposed a rule in January to ban employers from forcing workers to sign non-compete agreements. The Minnesota legislature is also considering outlawing the practice.
If enacted, the national ban would boost worker earnings by an estimated $300 billion per year across the economy. Studies show that non-compete agreements depress wages, probably in large part by suppressing wage competition — employers don’t have to worry that their employees will leave for a better-paying competitor.
Courts already frown on non-compete agreements; often they are ultimately ruled unenforceable. But no matter the eventual outcome of a court case, FirstService still reaps the short-term benefits of terrorizing workers and discouraging organizing.
“Back when we got hired, they’re like, ‘You have to sign [the non-compete agreement] if you want to be an employee of FirstService,’” Borowske said. “And of course, at the time, I didn’t really give it much thought. You just do what they tell you.”
His starting pay in 2004 was $8 hourly. Over the years his pay rose to $16.05, which he credits to the Service Employees’ national Fight for $15 campaign, even though his job at FirstService was nonunion.
Management didn’t give Borowske a reason why he was fired, but he thinks his union organizing and wage-theft settlement have put a target on his back.
At the outset of the pandemic in March 2020, Borowske went to management about being underpaid. By June, he had joined a lawsuit that found that FirstService Residential had not paid overtime to 100 workers “by failing to include housing credits in calculating the regular rate of pay used to pay overtime compensation,” according to court papers.
The company settled for $250,000, of which $150,000 went to the 100 caretakers. The Borowskes’ payouts were $12,095 and $2,919.
Last October, Borowske was among 300 maintenance and desk attendants who went on an unfair labor practice strike at seven of the largest condo buildings in the Twin Cities. They were striking against management’s intimidation tactics as they organized to join SEIU Local 26.
“Because of my unionizing efforts, my wife and I got terminated,” he said.
Luis Feliz Leon is a staff writer and organizer with Labor Notes. [email protected]
This article is from Labor Notes.
The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Support CN’s
Winter Fund Drive!
Donate securely by credit card or check by clicking the red button:
Yes, thanks, CN and thanks Luis Feliz Leon! Its people like you that help working people get some respite from corporate gangsters.
Yup!
Victimization of the worker by obtaining leverage over the individual that limits their self determination. It’s often referred to as slavery.
Thanks CN
Yes, thanks, CN and thanks Luis Feliz Leon!