California Trying To Ban Clear At Airport Tired of You Skipping the Line… Non-Compete Agreements

➡ California might ban the security screening service, Clear, from its airports. Lawmakers argue that Clear, which lets people pay to skip long security lines, creates an unfair system between those who can afford it and those who can’t. This has sparked a debate about whether it’s fair to allow people to pay for better service. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission is planning to ban non-compete agreements, which stop employees from working for competing companies, arguing that they limit workers’ ability to earn more and stifle innovation.

California ban and clear from their airports. There’s a new bill. I don’t know why they would do this. I’m just learning for the first time. And then on top of that, the non compete agreements. Make sure you guys hit a like for the algorithm. Subscribe to the channel and turn on your notifications. Let’s deep dive into this, y’all. Tonight, the popular security screening service clear is facing some possible turbulence in California.

The company could be banned from the state’s airports after lawmakers say it’s created a system of haves and have nots when it comes to skipping the long lines. Here’s CB’s Carter. Really? Hold on. In long airport security. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on, hold on. I thought the day was going to be banned and clear when I seen this story sent to me, I thought the day was going to be banned and clear because it prohibits something or it stops some kind of movement or it slows the flow inside of the airport or something like that.

You telling me that California is so liberal and they so caught up on a diversity equity and inclusion conversation that they saying that clear basically creates a space where people that’s willing to pay. I got clear. So you saying people that’s willing to pay extra in order to be able to get through quickly have to be punished. And they are. Come on, man. The legislators in California, y’all ain’t got nothing better to do? Y’all ain’t got nothing.

So you that jealous? So you sitting in the line over here. You ain’t got TSA precheck. You ain’t got clear and you getting jealous. And so y’all petition y’all legislators to get rid of a good business model that they’re profitably profitable off of because your feelings is hurt. Tell me this ain’t a real thing. Tell me that the legislators in California didn’t take this up and then frame it like, oh, no.

Because there’s a haves and a have nots. As far as the people being able to get through the line. Tell me that that’s not what this article is about. Seriously. Oh, my God. Unreal. California. Y’all are the worst. Y’all are the worst. Be lions. One thing is perfectly clear. Those who pay extra get rewarded. What the current system does is it allows a clear customer to cut the line.

California state senator Josh Newman introduced a first in the nation law that would stop customers who pay the $189 annual fee from leapfrogging the security line at the state’s airports. All clear. Really does is it moves me in front of you, and we get to the same place in front of the conveyor belt. Only by then you’re mad. The TSA agent’s all stressed out, and I paid dollar 189 because I think I’m better than you.

How is this different than any other service that we pay to jump the line? People pay to jump the line at theme parks. They pay to jump the line going into music, concerts, sports. Not only do we pay to jump the line, not only do we pay to jump the line, we pay to be a lot more comfortable. So next thing you know, y’all gonna be taking out delta one and first class two and saying, no, everybody gotta ride the plane the same way because we’re all going to the same destination.

What is wrong with y’all? Who voted this guy in? They paying to jump the line. They’re paying to sleep on the airplane. They’re paying to lay back. They’re paying to have bigger seats. They’re paying for Delta Comfort. Plus they’re paying for. That’s what money does. It creates a better environment. Would they all want us to live in the same houses, the same boxes? This ain’t nothing. Listen, California is a socialist country.

They want everybody to do their own jobs. And you gonna work harder than you, but we all gonna make the same money. We all gonna live this. We gonna do a distribution. Doesn’t matter what you do. The only thing that matters is how I feel. This is the dumbest of all of the legislation that I’ve seen introduced into the United States this year. Whether it’s on a national level or on a local level.

This is quite possibly the dumbest, dumbest form of legislation that I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Let me give a round of applause for the dumbest city or the dumbest state in the world. California. Y’all not tired of this? Y’all got a homelessness crisis, a migrant crisis, a budget deficit. California got so much. Y’all got a housing explosion. Taxes is higher than anywhere in the United States of America.

Earthquakes. And God is about to just break this place off from the rest of the whole country. And y’all sitting here creating legislation because you don’t like the fact that somebody pay clear. Jesus Christ. Stadiums. The company says it has nearly 1 million California customers and pays airports there $13 million. So clear continues to contribute into the tax base. They paying the airport to be there. They running up the numbers.

They got a good business model, and y’all. And you want to get rid of it for what? So you want to mess up the money for what? You don’t like it because you don’t like the fact that you see me walking up a little bit faster than you. Several airlines have taken a stake in clear and say the lost revenue could mean higher fares. But clear, which uses fingerprinting and eye scanning in its screenings, has had issues in recent years with security lapses.

That’s the main reason the union representing flight attendants supports the bills. Don’t want to ban separate the lines. If you pay for clear, you know, go do your line somewhere else. That’s financially and logistically impractical. TSA doesn’t have the funding it needs now to adequately staff all of the security lanes that exist. And clear is also facing another business challenge. The TSA and airlines are already investing. Did y’all hear what my man said? He said, hey, man, go and take your line somewhere else.

Listen, I want to ban it all together, but just don’t put it next to the people that’s going in the regular line. Take your line somewhere else. I’m feeling some type of way. Somebody pissed him off. He was rating in a regular line. They made him wait too long. He was looking at the people over there and clear and TSA Precheck and he said, you know what? When I get home, I’m writing a whole bill to ban you mother efforts.

Y’all gonna be playing basketball. And Pelican Bay. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. Similar technology at checkpoints around the country, including right here at LAX. The goal is to move everyone through security faster, whether you’ve got clear or not. Maurice. Okay. So dumb. Anyways, in addition to that, what I did promise y’all was that I was going to mine out exactly what was happening with the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission.

As far as banning non compete agreements, do you guys know what a non compete agreement is? Let’s get into it. Welcome back. The Federal Trade Commission has just voted to ban almost all non compete agreements between companies and their employees. That new ban also applies to any existing non compete agreements. To break it down, the purpose of a non compete clause is to restrict employees from finding new jobs at competing companies both during, during and soon after employment.

The policy is set to go into effect in August, but the US Chamber of Commerce says it does plan to challenge this decision in court. Joining us here on set to explain it all, investopedia editor in chief Caleb Silver. Caleb, good morning. So labor groups say that these policies basically keep workers from making more money or having the opportunity to go seek more money elsewhere. What do you make of that? And how will a band like this change things for employees? Well, for a lot of people that have to sign non competes, and it’s not every.

I got you, Eric. Give me a second. Let me finish this segment real quick, buddy. But a lot of companies do enforce it. They could hop to another job at a better pay if they could just leave that job. But a non compete prevents them from doing that. So the FTC has proposed this rule. It says that it affects 18% of the workforce, or some 20 odd million workers, 30 million people, actually, who can’t job hop to get better pay.

It also says it stifles innovation. If you can’t leave from one job to another, companies can’t innovate, you can’t have new startups being formed because you can’t leave your job and form your own company if it competes in the same field as your other company. So it says it’s stifling job creation, it’s costing more in health care costs, and it’s making, it’s keeping people in jobs that they don’t want to be in for too long.

That’s why they proposed this rule. Yeah, let’s talk more about that. The FTC, it’s stifling the job market, it’s hurting the economy, but it keeps businesses from hiring essential employees. And right now we see just how great that need is with places struggling to hire. I mean, talk more about some of those. Yeah, let’s say you work at a restaurant, you’re a chef at a restaurant in a small town, and you want to hop to another restaurant, you could be subject to a non compete.

So you can’t go and take your staff. That’s not where they have non competes. That’s not usually what it happens. I never heard of it personally. This is me personally, I’ve never personally heard of a non compete agreement at a restaurant. I haven’t usually, non compete agreements exist where technology or something that they’re doing and that they spent a lot of money doing research and development on, or, you know, they have secrets that they have within this particular company, and they don’t want you to take those same secrets and then go and start your own company within a certain period of time before they can release the technology or that they can leverage the technology that they spent money on developing in order to do so.

They don’t want you to then say, oh, okay, well, listen, I was over here working on Apple Carplay. And I’m gonna take this, I’m gonna leave and go over to Tesla and take the same technology that I had, or the insight that I have, and then use these things that you developed. You train me, you taught me. I grew within the company. And then I want to take these same proprietary, proprietary technologies and move over into the other company and then be able to do what it is that I do.

So what happens is the non compete agreement, what it effectively does, which, here’s the key. Here’s the key about it. You don’t have to go with that company that’s forcing you to sign a non compete agreement. You don’t, and usually the non compete agreement expires. So you sign a non compete agreement. If you leave this company and you go somewhere else over the next couple of years, you can’t compete against us.

That’s basically what they saying. You can’t use the knowledge that you have that you learn from here to then go and compete against us because it basically breaks the non compete agreement. That’s basically what it does. Copyright is hard to prove, Ash. It’s hard to prove. It’s very, very hard to prove. So if I go in here and you come work for me, right, and I develop this new, innovative technology, and I’m about to release it, and then you go over to Google and then give it to my competitor, or give knowledge to my competitor to do the exact same thing that you came over here and I was paying you an egregious amount of money for, then that basically messes up what I have.

And it’s largely also for smaller companies to be able to compete against larger companies so that larger companies don’t also take the employees or incentivize the employees to leave the smaller companies and go over to the larger companies. So we only looking at it from one point of view, right. The first point of view is you got a Google over here, you got a Tesla over here, you got an Amazon over here.

And so why would somebody be incentivized, an employee be incentivized to work over here and then take care of this over here and built their own thing over here, and then see it through when somebody else that’s got bigger pockets and just hire all the employees and basically shut your company down and then take everything that you use to build it from the tech, from the employees that help you do it or was a part of it, why would they stay? Because they can get a.

You gonna give them a crazy amount of money over here. It don’t really mean anything to them. And so what they gonna basically do is shut you down as a smaller competitor even though you got a non compete agreement. So you can go and work at another company, but you can’t work at that other company, and a capacity in which it competes against the very thing that you was working for over here.

That’s what a non compete agreement does. And here’s the key again. You don’t have to sign it. Correct, Z. Exactly what Apple did with the Watch company technology. You don’t have to sign it if you don’t want to work there. And you say, you know what? I don’t want to be here for this amount of time and working on this particular project and getting paid this amount of money, you shouldn’t have to sign it.

But what they’re basically hinging this on is the idea that you can’t make way more money by job hopping within a certain period of time, and it stifles the amount of money that you’re going to generate long term by being able to jump over to a competitor and making more money. So it’s a sticky conversation, but I see it from both perspectives. It’s a very, very sticky conversation with you.

That’s part of the reason they do this. But it’s also for executives in companies that may be exposed to trade secrets or working on projects that a competitor might want to get their hands on by hiring that team. There is a stipulation in this new rule, section five of the FTC act, that says for senior executives, those making $151,000 or more, it doesn’t apply to them necessarily. Speaker one.

But it’s not listening. The senior executives are not the ones that you got to worry about. It’s not the senior executives. It’s the software engineers. It’s the directors. So people that’s ahead of a particular program, those are not necessarily singular. Singular? I’m sorry. Those are not necessarily senior executives. They are not necessarily in a c suite. But it does not mean that they don’t have technology, insight, information, understanding of exactly how this pro, you can go into a place and set it up exactly like the place that you came from with improvements in order to compete against the person that you just lost your job from or the person that you just left the job from.

This is not a done deal by any means. The chamber of commerce, as you mentioned, is suing. They say you can’t do this because companies need to protect their workers, their trade secrets, et cetera. But the FTC says there’s ways around this. NDAs, non disclosure agreements, ways to protect trade secrets other than just by keeping people in the same job, not allowing them to job hop. It sounds like there might be quite a few people then, in the types of industries, finance, things like that, that this is actually not going to apply to.

So maybe it’s not quite as big of a headline as banning them. All right. $151,000 is a lot of money. Those senior executives who are making that are more. Absolutely, Caleb. Are there any downsides? Senior executives make way more than $151,000. The downsides, if it does pass, is that, yes, the trade secrets that you may be working on, maybe you’re working on autonomous cars, maybe you’re working on a great recipe.

You can’t necessarily move that from one place to the other. That could hurt companies. The other downside that the Chamber of Commerce says is that you are making it tough for companies to compete. The FTC says this is anti competitive. This is almost antitrust. This FTC, led by Lena Khan, has been pretty aggressive. This is the first time in 50 years that they’ve tried to do an economy wide ban of a non compete clause and really change the way companies operate.

It’s got a long way to go before it passes. And then if it does, somebody taking the thing that I developed and I worked so hard for just willy nilly. Cause he. I think that the problem is that y’all think that it’s only. Here, let me, let me get that. I appreciate it. How you doing? How you feel, babe? I think that the problem that y’all think is that this only applies to larger companies.

So y’all not really concerned about it because larger companies is not a big deal. Thank you. It doesn’t. It applies to smaller companies. Startups, mom and pop startups, people that’s in their garages. It applies to everybody. So it’s not just applying to the smaller companies that’s the problem. That’s the problem. .

See more of The Millionaire Morning Show w/ Anton Daniels on their Public Channel and the MPN The Millionaire Morning Show w/ Anton Daniels channel.