New Week, New Headlines: Non-Competes - Everything You Need to Know & Wait, Shouldn't Everyone Get Overtime?

Friends!BIG news week last week as new rules for workers hit the books. So, we're breaking it down.

Topic 1: Non-Competes - Everything You Need to Know
The recent federal ban of non-compete agreements is a win for workers. But not all workers are included in this ban. We cover everything you need to know,: the history, the ruling, the next phase and what you need to do to protect yourself.  References:
 

• FTC Press Announcement
• FTC Noncompete Rule 
• U.S. Bans noncompete agreements for nearly all jobs - NPR
• FTC is sued by business groups over its ban on noncompete agreements, which may delay enforcement - CNN
• Mapped: Where noncompete agreements are banned or restricted - Axios
• Why the U.S. Chamber is Suing to Block FTC’s Noncompete Ban - U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Many workers barely recall signing noncompetes, until they try to change jobs - NPR

Topic 2: Wait, Shouldn't Everyone Get Overtime?
We tackle the latest rule by the U.S. Department of Labor on overtime pay and why its reach isn't as all-encompassing as you might think.  References:

• Samsung's 6-Day Work Week
• Google Asking Teams to Work 120 Hours a Week

In our latest podcast episode, we delve into the seismic shifts occurring in the American labor landscape. With the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) recent move to ban non-compete agreements and the U.S. Department of Labor's new rule affecting overtime pay, the very foundations of employment practices are being challenged and transformed. These changes are set to reshape the future of work, offering new pathways to

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. We are not responsible for any losses, damages, or liabilities that may arise from the use of this podcast. The views expressed in this podcast may not be those of the host or the management.

Thanks for listening!

Hey! We love new friends! Connect with us!

• On The Socials! You Tube, TikTok, Instagram on LinkedIn - Mel + Francesca.
• The LinkedIn Group: We'd love to have you join the Your Work Friends Group on LinkedIn
• Drop Us a Line: Send us your ideas, questions, comments, complements, whatnot, to friend@yourworkfriends.com

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

So non-compete agreements have been used in the US since the late 18th century.

Speaker 2: 0:05

Wait, did you 18? Wait, so we're talking like 1700s, 1700s, baby. Okay, I love the fact that non-competes in this country predate the Declaration of Independence Phenomenal. Welcome to your Work Friends. We're your 2HR friends, I'm Francesca and I'm Mel and we have no filter, but we're getting you through all this work shit. We're back with new week, new headline Mel, it was a massive week for work news. What are you talking about this week?

Speaker 1: 0:48

Yeah, it was huge. I am talking about the Federal Trade Commission's recent announcement on banning non-competes.

Speaker 2: 0:55

Oh, nice, and I'm talking about the US. Department of Labor introduced a new rule that affects overtime pay. But wait, I want to know why doesn't everyone get overtime? Let's talk about it.

Speaker 1: 1:06

Yeah, let's talk about it. Non-competes have officially been banned by the FTC Not immediately, by the way We'll talk about that in a second but what this means is for millions of people, non-competes are going away, which is a very good thing. So I'd love to start with a little bit of the history of non-competes. It actually has a really interesting history how we got here, what you need to know, who it impacts and what you need to do in the meantime.

Speaker 2: 1:42

I am wondering for those folks that might not know what is a non-compete?

Speaker 1: 1:45

Yeah, a non-compete is typically an agreement that you get into with an employer when you start, where you're agreeing to either one not move to a competitor within a certain timeframe, or, two, start your own competing business within a certain timeframe. Got it Cool.

Speaker 2: 2:03

So the history here, what is it?

Speaker 1: 2:04

Yeah, the history is pretty interesting. So non-compete agreements have been used in the US since the late 18th century.

Speaker 2: 2:12

Wait, so we're talking like 1700s, 1700s, baby. Okay, I love the fact that non-competes in this country predate the Declaration of Independence Phenomenal.

Speaker 1: 2:23

Yeah, although it was loosely in place, right? So the non-competes evolved from essentially common law principles that were designed to balance employers' interests in protecting their business, but also with employee rights to work freely. So originally they were primarily used by businesses to protect trade secrets and retain highly skilled employees. So a quick timeline here for folks. The foundational case that's often cited for this is called Mitchell versus Reynolds, which happened in 1711. That's a US-based case. No, this was a British case and it was influential in our American law. So essentially we're like yeah, sounds good, let's use it over here. This case established the basic precedent that we see today that non-compete agreements could be enforceable, but also not to harm employees. You could still move on. Essentially, if it impacts your livelihood, it's not enforceable. They can't enforce something that might prevent you from making a living and surviving. Right, sounds fair. Revolution. Our industrial economy exploded.

Speaker 1: 3:43

Businesses were increasingly using non-competes to protect themselves against competition from former employees who might use trade secrets. So I like to use the example of the railroad system. You wouldn't want someone who started in this railroad suddenly they're starting their own competing railroad because they were a former employee, they know your secret sauce and now they know how to make it better and attack your weaknesses right. So essentially it was for not really everyday workers. It was for the high skilled workers, executive level folks within these companies who might have information in that space or be privy to that information that they could take elsewhere. And the enforcement of those agreements were strictly requiring that employers provide clear evidence that this was to protect legitimate business interests. Only Again, it's on the employer to prove that this was to protect legitimate business interests. You couldn't just give anybody a non-compete, you had to show that there was a reason for it.

Speaker 1: 4:42

In the 20th century, our labor market continued to grow and the use of non-competes started to expand beyond executives and highly skilled professionals to include a real broad range of workers, down to hourly workers. Here you go, you work, here, you work at a sandwich shop. You can't take our trade secrets to go to another sandwich shop. Just, it doesn't make sense, right? Enforcement of this continues to hinge upon them being reasonable, not imposing undue hardship on workers or harming the public interests. And now, in the 21st century, with globalization, the rise of tech really solidified further use of non-competes. We see that in tech, we see that in law, we see that in big public accounting firms, you have these non-competes in place to protect sensitive information. Also, during this time, we started to see growing concerns about the overuse and abuse of non-competes, especially as they continue to be applied to lower wage or less skilled positions which arguably do not involve trade secrets or sensitive information of an organization. Yeah, non-competes.

Speaker 2: 5:55

They've been such a standard part of an offer letter, an employee contract, and I think what's interesting is you really do start to see a lot of the overreach. I had colleagues that wanted to write a book or they wanted to publicly speak or they wanted to start a side business and they weren't allowed to do that. It's not like they were divulging any trade secret. The 11 herbs and spices of the Kentucky Fried Chicken were nowhere in any of those but they couldn't do it. It was like no, we have you, you are ours, or if you're going to do that, we're going to take the profit from it.

Speaker 1: 6:29

Yeah, I've also seen it working in talent acquisition, where someone may have had their own established side business outside of work and now they have to give it up because it's no longer allowed. And that's tough, that one's a tough one. A lot of folks don't even remember signing non-competes, as you mentioned. It's buried at time, it's buried in the offer, it's buried in the onboarding documentation. And a lot of folks will find themselves in dicey scenarios when they get to the end of their employment. Or they're in the middle of their employment and they're looking to start a side business for something that they're passionate about and they're being told no. Or, as you mentioned, they're writing a book and now they find out, oh, I don't even own this book, I don't even get to make the profit from this book. So, although there are lawsuits towards people with non-competes, it's actually not a lot that it happens. It does happen.

Speaker 1: 7:27

Primarily, this has been used as kind of psychological fear towards employees. So many workers will leave and out of fear that they may be sued by this massive organization and they're just a single individual without the same resources or access to legal support that these large organizations have. They are in such fear that they don't do anything else, which can be argued if it attacks our livelihood. So there was an example that was in one of the research articles I read where a woman had essentially worked for a large design firm but when she left as a solopreneur just offering her own design services not for the same level of clientele or anything like that she deferred doing that because she had a non-compete for two years and her biggest fear was what if they come after me and then I'm stopped before I could ever get started. The challenge was this was her trained profession and this was her skill set, and so it did affect her livelihood because now she needed to put that on hold.

Speaker 2: 8:32

Yeah, the one thing I really love about non-competes being lifted for a lot of folks is that when you look at how people are going to make money, you're seeing it now. You're going to start to see it more and more in the future. Most likely, you're going to make money. You're seeing it now. You're going to start to see it more and more in the future. Most likely, you're going to make money from multiple revenue streams, meaning you're going to have a mosaic of revenue streams. One of those revenue streams might be a full-time job and a side gig and a speaking engagement and a book and a blah, blah, blah, and to me, this just allows that to happen much more freely and without the fear that you're talking about, which is really important for people to be able to make a living in the way that we need them to.

Speaker 1: 9:12

Yeah, and it's one thing if you have a policy while you're working here we don't allow that then that's up to a potential employee to make the decision or the trade-off for themselves, if they they're okay with that and they will accept that. But an employee-employer relationship is a contract, right, and so once you exit that contract, which is essentially at the end of your employment, the biggest argument here is that then it should be done. There's no reach beyond that agreement that you've already been in because it's ended. So what happened last week? The FTC ruled to ban non-competes and they noted quote to promote competition, to protect the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, to increase innovation and to foster new business formation. This ban, by the way, was proposed back in January of 2023, folks, so this isn't on a whim. This is something that's been discussed for years and back in January it really started to pick up steam and they did several research efforts to identify what's the value here, what's the impact, why is this important? After they did all of this, research findings suggested that clauses like non-compete make it much harder for employees to switch jobs, and this does stifle wage growth and it does stifle innovation and it does stifle career progression for a ton of people.

Speaker 1: 10:35

There's been a lot of increased scrutiny and criticism of non-competes. There's already been a ton of changes at the state levels and Axios put out a really nice map that shows where things, what's happening in what states, whether your non-compete is enforceable or not. If they have certain restrictions in your state, we'll link to that in the show notes and highly encourage folks to check that out. What's going on in your state while this federal ban is still going on. But according to the FTC, for existing non-competes, the final rule adopts a different approach for senior executives than it does for other workers. So for senior executives, existing non-competes are going to remain in force and that makes sense to me. Those are the folks with access to trade secrets and potential information that could harm a business, and that's fewer than 1% of workers overall at this time, by the way, and the FTC defines senior executives as workers who are earning more than $151,164. Side note, ftc, can we just make it an even number next time?

Speaker 2: 11:42

Yeah, so like? Is that like 15? And why yeah?

Speaker 1: 11:45

yeah, what about the guy that's making one cent more? No, the 165.

Speaker 2: 11:49

151, 165.

Speaker 1: 11:52

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 11:53

Well, it sucks to be human, or one sex to be human.

Speaker 1: 11:57

So that's an exact, and anyone who's in a policymaking position, those are your senior executives and that makes total sense For all other workers, those who are not in these senior executive level positions non-compedes will not be enforceable after the effective date of this ban. And for everyone out there, a couple of things. The ban is expected to be effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, not after the April 23rd announcement. So don't start counting your calendar days just yet. It's not in the Federal Register yet and, as you can imagine, it's getting litigious.

Speaker 2: 12:35

I am not shocked at all. Not shocked at all.

Speaker 1: 12:38

Definitely you're not going to see this immediately and you should keep an eye on it, especially if you're in a non-compete and what's happening here and there are businesses who are absolutely pro this ruling. They know, yeah, there are other ways of protecting trade secrets. This is not one of them. You don't need to do this and they feel there's room for non-compete maybe, but really it should only be applied to that very limited group of people. So kudos to those pro businesses who are for this ban. I think it's progressive.

Speaker 2: 13:12

It is very pro-business too because, quite honestly, most organizations don't want to have to operationalize and not compete anyway. It's very time consuming. Why? The less regulation we can have around this kind of stuff? Great, especially when things like a non-disclosure agreement seat this right. And, by the way, every single organization that has a consulting firm in it, they don't sign non-competes, they sign NDAs, they sign a non-disclosure agreement and that seems to be fine. And every consulting business is running from company to company to company. So non-disclosure agreements save this issue. Let's get rid of the red tape.

Speaker 1: 13:45

Yeah, let's cut it down, cut it down. By the way, 1711 folks. I think it's time to take a look at this. Is this still working for?

Speaker 2: 13:53

us, maybe it isn't.

Speaker 1: 13:55

Maybe it isn't so. A lot of benefits to this ban, according to the FTC. One greater innovation. They estimate that an average of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents will in the first year alone and they expect it to rise to about 30 to 50,000 by the 10th year of this ban. They expect more startups to happen. The FTC estimated 2.7 increase in new firm formation, so about 8,500 businesses per year. New businesses per year. They also expect overall higher earnings for employees. They estimate that there will be a boost of about $400 to $488 billion in increased wages for workers over the next decades as a result of this ban. And there's also a reduced health care cost. They expect $74 to $194 billion in reduced spending on physician services over the next decade as a result of the ban.

Speaker 1: 15:00

Look the pushback. As always, the US Chamber of Commerce is suing to block the ban. We will link to the article in the show notes which provides their full explanation for why they are going after this ban. But some of the key takeaways that I pulled out here.

Speaker 1: 15:18

They felt that quote the FTC is acting outside its constitutional and statutory authority and undermining well-established state laws that have long governed the use of non-compete agreements. They also stated this was overreach and that it sets a dangerous precedent for government micromanagement of businesses. They conducted a survey with businesses and noted that and I would say I'm assuming the survey it was not included in this article, so someone please do correct me if I am wrong here they conducted a survey with businesses I'm assuming their Chamber of Commerce connected businesses and noted that 80% use restrictive covenants like non-competes, but 62% of those businesses said that less than 10% of their workforce is subject to those restrictions. And then they also noted that 78% of employers who responded to the survey offer additional compensation that covers the span of the non-compete duration or longer to ensure their sensitive information is safeguarded, while also providing financial support to former employees.

Speaker 2: 16:26

I just want to say no, absolutely not.

Speaker 1: 16:28

That's bullshit. Show me the proof on that one, because I've been in a non-compete. Francesca, you've been in a non-compete. Have you ever received compensation for your non-compete duration?

Speaker 2: 16:38

Absolutely not, Absolutely not. Nor have I ever been in a conversation or we're talking about compensation where we're like how are we going to cover the non-compete stuff? Like ever, never, ever.

Speaker 1: 16:48

I've never seen it. That might happen at the super executive level. I've never seen it happen, absolutely not. The lawsuit is strictly focused on this federal ban. They're not going after state regulating policies for non-competes, which I found interesting, because there are states who do fully ban it. So if you have no issue at the state level, why is there an issue at the federal level? Just curious.

Speaker 2: 17:12

It's just so much easier to do business especially across the United States.

Speaker 1: 17:31

It's clear it's clean, Less shit to operationalize. You've got the NDA in there for to see when it will truly go into effect. In the meantime, workers should review their existing contracts. You should see if you have a non-compete in place. You need to understand your state's laws. Again, we're going to connect you to that map.

Speaker 1: 17:46

You can go out on your state government websites and do a search for this stuff. Understand your rights and restrictions in this space. If you're hoping to leave or start your own thing, you want to also have a clear understanding of your organization's policies around having your own business and make sure you're in compliance so that suddenly, when they do random checks and in searches on compliance, you don't get caught up in something that may have you lose your job. And if you're reviewing your offers, read the fine print. I can't emphasize this enough when you get an offer, if you can review it with an attorney. If you can't, at least you review it and ask questions and ask specifically if it's not in your offer, am I going to need to sign a non-compete? If so, get it in writing and negotiate the length. You can completely negotiate to remove it potentially and you can negotiate the duration of that non-compete, so don't be afraid to do that.

Speaker 2: 18:45

Yeah, this week the US Department of Labor introduced a new rule that affects how overtime pay works. Effective July 1st 2024, they're going to increase the salary thresholds from $35,568 to $43,888. So you get overtime if you make less than $43,888. $688. Then, effective January 1st 2025, that threshold will increase to. If you make less than $58,651, you will get overtime. And then, additionally, starting July 1st 2027, the salary thresholds will update every three years. So basically, what they're saying is that you'll get overtime pay, starting July 1st, if you make less than $43,000. Starting January 1st 2025, you can make less than $58,000. And it'll just keep going up and up to make sure that we're staying up to date with wage data.

Speaker 2: 19:44

I think that's fantastic that more people will get overtime. We have overtime, which is time and a half for hourly workers, but historically, a lot of salaried workers have not gotten overtime. It's just something that hasn't really been done. And so now we're saying if you make less than these amounts the 43, the 58, you'll now get time and a half, anything over 40 hours of workweek. But it really got me thinking about why doesn't everyone get overtime? And there are three main reasons why I'm asking, especially now. One is there are many salary jobs that work well beyond 50 hours a week. I'm thinking things like drivers, servants, accountants. Right yeah, there are these professions that are just known for working well beyond 40, well beyond 50, sometimes well beyond 60, 70 hours a week. We know this, it's just been accepted. So that's reason number one, Like how come those people don't get?

Speaker 1: 20:41

overtime. One of our first episodes was covering how working 55 hours or more per week is actually literally killing people.

Speaker 2: 20:50

That brings me to my second point Because, right, we talked about this, mel we know working more than 50 hours a week is physically unhealthy. 17,000 plus people die every single year because they're working more than 50 hours a week. It's very unhealthy. And we also know it's unproductive as well. Microsoft in Japan just moved to a four-day work week because they found productivity boosted by 39.9%. So we know working more than 50, it's unhealthy and unproductive.

Speaker 2: 21:24

And my third point here is I don't know about you, mel, but I'm seeing an uptick in a lot of companies throwing what I'm calling people at the problem. So there were two things percolating this week. It's been percolating for a few months now, but especially this week. I'm like Jesus. Here we go. One is a lot of businesses, especially in their external communications, are really laying these sports and war analogies on thick in terms of what their business is going through, using terms like all the ads on deck or new muscles or we're in the trenches. And when you start to see that, I always think why are we using sports and war metaphors for our business?

Speaker 1: 22:05

It's so common. It's so common.

Speaker 2: 22:09

It's so common. It's just the hair on my neck stands up when I start seeing a lot more war and sports analogies and the way people are talking about their business, especially because right on the heels of that, you typically see companies throwing people at the problem. Companies often place additional demands on their workers when business is not going well, and you'll start to see this in the form of asking people to do more with less. You start seeing things like peeling back benefits sometimes, and the number one thing you see quite a bit is asking people to work more hours, even if it's an unspoken rule.

Speaker 1: 22:49

You start to see that where there's this peer pressure that you're a responsive organization, no matter the cost of someone's mental health or physical health, and suddenly people feel they need to be responsive. On nights, weekends, it's 24 7 now for a position within a corporate environment.

Speaker 2: 23:12

That's just not required and oftentimes people are throwing people at the problem because their strategy is off. The strategy is not working. So all of a sudden, now we need all hands on deck. All of a sudden, people need to see the gap in the strategy, when the problem isn't the fact that we don't have enough people. The problem is your strategy is wrong, and let me give you two examples that happened just this week. In this right, samsung came out in Korea after having the worst financial performance in a decade. They're asking their executives in Korea to work a six-day work week, to quote unquote inject a sense of crisis.

Speaker 1: 23:55

One Gross and inject a sense of crisis. The language alone. I don't like More. Yeah, and although it's coming out that it's happening in Korea, it happens here already. It's just not publicized or really spoken about. There are certain professions where it's expected that you just do it, you just do it.

Speaker 2: 24:13

We all know them. We all know them. That's a set standard. I think there's an uptick here too. To your point, it is happening here. Here's a second example. Google has widely been in the news for being a little bit behind the ball with generative AI. Chatgpt came in and everybody was asking what's up with Google. The team that's working on their AI modeling, gemini, were praised in an all-hands meeting this week because they went from working 100 hours a week to 120 hours a week after leadership said that they needed to twitch faster, like the athletes, twitch faster, gross. So again, sports analogy and I say that only because the strategy for Google was off. The strategy for Google was off, and so now they're throwing people at the problem Working 120 hours a week is 17 hours a day, seven days a week.

Speaker 1: 25:08

It's just gross. I remember I think recently I shared with you I was following a recent thread on hourly billing at law firms and there's an annual report that comes out that talks about the highest billing associate for the year and someone was in that bucket at over 4,000 hours. And just so you know, a full-time employee is typically 2,080 hours per year. Someone working over 4,000 hours and billing over 4,000 hours essentially has done two jobs in one year, two years worth of work in one year.

Speaker 2: 25:43

Yeah, and that's a relatively and associated as a relatively junior person right In a law firm.

Speaker 1: 25:48

I mean they could be a mid-level assistant. It doesn't matter, they're not partner.

Speaker 2: 25:51

They're not.

Speaker 1: 25:52

they're not counsel. They're making good bucks, but they're not making the mega bucks and it doesn't equate to your life or the time you give.

Speaker 2: 26:07

And it's unreasonable. This is the thing. This is going to happen more. It will.

Speaker 2: 26:09

My point of bringing this up and we'll talk about how overtime was conceived and what are the rules around overtime in a second here.

Speaker 2: 26:14

But what I'd be keeping my eye on is the uptick again in that war in sports analogy, and when you hear that, why are you hearing that I would be looking at. Is this a strategic issue or is this really a people issue? The third would be are you okay with your organizations asking team members to work more than I would even just say 50 hours a week to solve a business problem? Because your business has multiple levers that it can pull to state business issues. Outside of asking people to work more hours, there are a whole host of things that they could be doing proactively or reactively before they pull this lever. I think we're going to see this more and more as people are trying to figure out how they're going to leverage AI, how we're going to handle things like inflation, wars, etc. This is going to happen more and more. Keep your eyes on it. But I do want to have a conversation around how do we even determine who gets overtime or not, Because the history here is pretty interesting.

Speaker 1: 27:22

Yeah, it's outdated and definitely needs to have a revisit. This is all in the right direction. By the way, I'm super excited about the news that they're increasing the threshold year over the next few years. But is it enough? It is not. But is it enough? It is not Based on, I just think, of the research alone we've done for this podcast and all of the interconnectivity of what we've learned in a short span of time of what's really happening right now.

Speaker 1: 27:51

And this exempt, non-exempt employee classification really started back in 1938 with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Started back in 1938 with the Fair Labor Standards Act. For folks who don't know, that was under the New Deal era with President Franklin D Roosevelt. Okay, and that's when we introduced this wide-ranging regulation concerning minimum wage, overtime pay and child labor. One of the primary functions of this classification was to ensure that workers received fair wages and were not subjected to excessive working hours without appropriate compensation.

Speaker 1: 28:29

So under the FLSA, employees are categorized as either exempt or non-exempt, and this determines your eligibility for overtime pay. So non-exempt employees are employees who are entitled to overtime pay. Under FLSA, non-exempt employees must be paid at least time and a half for any hours worked beyond a standard 40-hour work week, and this category of classification generally includes hourly workers, but it also includes salaried workers. Depending on their job duties and their salary levels, what you just explained in terms of those thresholds, those salary workers will likely be classified as non-exempt because they're eligible for overtime, and then we have exempt employees. Exempt employees are not eligible for overtime pay, regardless of how many hours they worked beyond the standard 40-hour workweek. So to qualify as exempt, employees typically must be paid on a salary basis and not less than a specific minimum amount and perform job duties that are executive, administrative, professional or may fall into a few other specific categories like outside sales, and the criteria that is used to determine this is the salary basis test or a duties test. So you said duty, sorry we're immature, sorry.

Speaker 1: 29:49

So when HR departments are classifying jobs, they typically will do these tests to see is this employee exempt or non-exempt? But here's the issue folks employee exempt or non-exempt? But here's the issue. Folks Work has changed significantly since 1938.

Speaker 2: 30:05

I don't think most people had phones in their house in 1938.

Speaker 1: 30:08

Literally. We just talked about the right to disconnect, where nobody is disconnected any longer because you are reachable 24-7. There is literally legislation being put forth to protect people from the 24-7 workday and I am in agreement here between the evidence that shows 55 hours or more is literally killing people at work, the fact that we cannot disconnect, the fact that there's an unspoken rule that you'll need to work nights or weekends. Where are the protections for everybody beyond the thresholds for lower salaries? I think, across the board, we need to determine what is a new salary threshold at every level and what do we consider reasonable working hours and what's excessive Right? Because, going back to that definition, this was established to ensure workers received fair wages and were not subjective to excessive working hours without appropriate compensation.

Speaker 2: 31:14

I think, if anything, let's start having the conversation about where are the protections for employees at all levels, especially as things get excessive. There's no real definition of excessive right now for people that make more than those thresholds that were set with this law, and it's interesting for everyone to keep their eye on the ball around what their organization is doing and what they're asking their people to do. Organization is doing and what they're asking our people to do. Mel, we'll be back next week with Dr Beth Kaplan.

Speaker 1: 31:45

Yeah, we will. Yes, dr Beth Kaplan is an expert in belonging and she's doing some really interesting work in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania on helping organizations measure belonging in the workplace In the meantime, if you want to get ahold of us, come over and join us on the TikToks, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, and where else can they? Find us, mel Listen, drop us a note at friendatyourworkfriendscom. We will reply. Have a great week, bye friends. Bye friends. Bye friends.