Excessive Heat Warning

Jimmy John’s Under Fire for Worker Contracts

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

jimmyjohns

Jimmy John’s doesn’t want its low-wage workers to apply for jobs at rivals.

Now, lawmakers are calling for an investigation into the sandwich chain’s policy of making workers sign contracts that bar them from working for its competition.

Calling the practice a form of intimidation, House members Rep. Joseph Crowley and Rep. Linda Sánchez have drafted a letter calling on the Labor Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate “disturbing reports” of the chain’s practices which are “inconsistent with trade and labor laws.”

The letter already has over 30 signatures from other Washington lawmakers.

The Huffington Post first reported last week that the sandwich chain requires hourly workers to sign non compete agreements that would prohibit them from working at any other restaurant that sells sandwiches or has a location within three miles of a Jimmy John’s for a period of two years.

These sorts of agreements are commonplace for highly-paid top executives or employees who have access to trade secrets.

But requiring sandwich makers and delivery drivers to sign such contracts “looks more like bullying under color of law,” the letter from the lawmakers states.

Crowley and Sánchez, both Democrats, say non-compete clauses can intimidate workers who are already struggling to get by on little more than minimum wage. They also say it “runs counter to the American ideal of open competition,” and stifles worker’s ability to find better paying jobs.

Jimmy John’s, which has has more than 2,000 locations in 43 states, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The sandwich shop franchise is already facing a class action lawsuit by employees who claim that they were forced to work off the clock, according HuffPo.

5 comments

  • harrisbock

    This is like a retailer telling their employee they can not work for another retailer for a period of time. If the employee wants to quit, or is fired, and the contract is binding…they are blocked from any retail job. That locks them in as a slave. I would never work for a company like that.

  • Tom

    Non-competes are often abused for legal, IT, engineering & research, and salesbut at least there is a legitimate theoretical foundation for having them.

    But a SANDWICH SHOP and DELIVERY DRIVER?!?!?

    It’s honest work for their pay, no disrespect to their employees, but there’s no way these people are waling off with ‘proprietary knowledge’ that they can give to a competitor – it’s pure slavery

    Ought to be a class action suit against them big time – it is most definitely an ‘adhesion contract’, in the very worst form, with no consideration whatsoever

  • Darryl

    I worked for All Clean of Iowa and they(HE) does the same stuff . Greedy business men who act like they care but the bottom line is money .He owns a grease hood clean business

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.