wandering worker meaning

• Littler GPS
• Workplace Policy Institute
• Littler CaseSmart
• Littler Home Care Toolkit
• Littler LaborSmart
• ComplianceHR
• Littler X-celerator Toolkits
• Littler Knowledge Management
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
• Littler Edge
• Littler Pay Equity Assessment
• Workplace Training
• Littler onDemand
• Remote Work Toolkit for Employers
• Self-Service Toolkits
• Recognized for Innovation
• We’re ready for your tomorrow – because we’re built for it.
• Littler Investigation Toolkit for Employers
• Littler Inclusion, Equity and Diversity Playbook

Dear Littler

Dear littler: what are the wage and hour issues with our wandering workers.

Dear Littler:  We’re a small company based in Austin, Texas – but we’re growing.  We made it through the pandemic, and we’re all looking forward to getting back to work.  We recently announced that employees can return to the Austin office voluntarily, starting in August.  When HR sent around the email, we heard from dozens of our employees letting us know they didn’t plan to come back; they want to continue working remotely.  We anticipated this, and we’re working with them to navigate their individual situations.  But one thing we did not anticipate: some of them don’t want to come back because they’ve moved! 

Fortunately, most of them are still in Texas – and we’ve made it work.  But one employee, Wanda Wanderer, moved to Bismarck, North Dakota in April last year – without telling us!  Wanda is a Junior Analyst in our Accounting department.  She’s a delight to have around the office but to be honest, she’s been quite productive working remotely during the pandemic – she worked overtime nearly every week during our financial challenges in spring 2020.  We don’t want to lose her.

We see this as an opportunity; maybe allowing more remote work and flexibility will open the door to better recruiting for our growing teams. But before we cross that bridge, is it a problem that we’ve been paying Wanda as a Texas employee? 

We’re only worried about our wage and hour issues for now.  Our pay practices are nothing out of the ordinary for Texas; everyone is full-time, we follow the FLSA, we pay semi-monthly, we provide two weeks of paid time off for all employees to use for whatever purpose they want each year and they can carry it over year after year. That should be fine… right?  It’s not as though she moved to California after all!

—Worried & Wondering About Wanda Wanderer

Dear Worried & Wondering,

The first rule of thumb for remote worker relocation (wandering workers) is “location, location, location.”  The law that applies to a person’s work will most likely be the law of the jurisdiction where that person is working – even if the employer is located elsewhere.  With limited exceptions of states whose courts have found “extraterritorial application” of their laws, most state legislatures and courts recognize that their power to regulate the work is limited by the state’s border.  What does that mean for you?  It means, if your employees are working in a different jurisdiction, you need to assess and determine what compliance obligations you have in that jurisdiction, from the beginning.

Now, that didn’t happen here.  But let’s start with the good news: North Dakota does not have daily overtime or double time pay requirements or mandatory split-shift premiums. And, both Texas and North Dakota follow the federal minimum wage rate. And other good news: Texas and North Dakota both allow semi-monthly pay – not all states do!  So, your current pay practices are likely compliant in North Dakota. As long as Wanda has accurately recorded her time, and she’s been paid for hours over 40 at 1.5 times her regular rate, you likely don’t need to worry about minimum wage, overtime, or late wages. 

Which may lead you to ask, what other wage/hour problems are there to worry about?  Well, Worried & Wondering , quite a lot, even in a Midwest flyover state!  We see three wage/hour challenges here:

• Unlike Texas, North Dakota law includes a general indemnification provision for “expenses or losses incurred as a direct consequence of discharge of duties.” N.D. Cent. Code. 34-02-01.
• Unlike Texas, North Dakota law has a provision regarding mandatory off-duty meal periods for non-exempt employees. N.D. Admin. Code. 46-02-07-02.
• Unlike Texas, North Dakota has a quite particular law describing the limited conditions in which earned, unused vacation time can be forfeited at an employee’s termination. Generally, in North Dakota, once paid time off is awarded, it is considered wages due at separation. See N.D. Admin. Code 46-02-07-02.  

We’ll also note, North Dakota is a “Captive Program” state for workers’ compensation insurance coverage. This means that workers’ compensation insurance cannot be obtained through private insurance or self-insurance.  In general, workers’ compensation laws are employee-friendly and typically allow the employee their choice of where to file a claim for injury incurred during the course and scope of employment in any state where the employee works.  Besides filing in their work state, an employee can also file a workers’ compensation claim in the state where the work injury occurred, even if that state is not a place where the employee typically works.  For this reason, employers should consider having insurance coverage that applies wherever the employee works, and many employers already have nationwide coverage.  To determine if you have a coverage problem for Wanda’s prior work in North Dakota, and coverage for the future, consult your insurance broker and look into the state program.

What does this mean for Wanda Wanderer?  She might be entitled to payments that you have not provided (business expenses) and she might have claims that she could raise with the state’s department of labor (missed meal periods). If Wanda has an injury on the job while working remotely, and files a claim in North Dakota, both the state and Wanda will be surprised to learn that the company has not paid into the mandatory program.  And, if at some point you decide to require her return or part ways with Wanda, she may be entitled to all her accrued paid time off if she doesn’t come back.

Of course, each of these topics requires an individual assessment of the law, and potential risks; we’re here for you! Remember the second Wandering Worker rule of thumb: “ignorance is no excuse.” The fact that Wanda did not tell you she moved might help with some arguments about good faith and lack of willfulness (always good things to have in wage/hour world) but there is no exception that allows employers to violate laws they do not know about.  As G.I. Joe used to say: Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

There are a few more items to think about: other areas to review and consider when evaluating a remote worker relocation, or considering allowing remote work in a new jurisdiction:

• state and local taxation, including “nexus” coverage;
• registration to do business in new jurisdictions;
• additional or new paid sick leave obligations;
• counting issues under the Family and Medical Leave Act and similar state laws; 
• payment of a different minimum wage or salary to be exempt from overtime;
• different meal and rest break compliance; 
• additional wage and hour obligations, including a change in available exemptions under a different state law;
• job posters, pay data reporting, and hiring notifications;
• wage-theft notice requirements where none previously existed;
• unemployment insurance payment obligations; and
• conflicting laws, including extraterritorial application of a variety of state laws.

One final tip: Tackle this head on, before Wanda Wanderer wanders again!  Remember to get a remote work agreement in place, recognizing only one approved remote work location, and establish a policy that remote workers need permission to change remote locations. 1   

I suspect if you do not tell Wanda to stay put until you’re up to speed on compliance obligations nationwide, we may hear about Wanda Wanderer again… did I mention North Dakota has an emergency paid sick leave requirement? 

Stay tuned for our next Worried & Wondering About Wanda Wanderer installment, where we will address other thorny employment law issues arising from our Wandering Worker.

See Footnotes

1  Littler’s Remote Work Package for Employers is a great place to start; it includes a model policy and model agreement that have those features. Click here for more information. 

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.

Get the Latest From Littler

Subscribe RSS Updates

Claire B. Deason

Focus areas, related news & analysis.

• Law360 Pulse
• Law360 Tax Authority
• Law360 Insurance Authority
• Law360 Real Estate Authority
• Discrimination
• Wage & Hour
• About Employment Authority
• Sign up for our newsletters
• About Law360 Authority

4 Ways Employers Can Manage Wandering Workers

By Daniela Porat · July 26, 2021, 6:37 PM EDT

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Related Sections

• Employment Authority Wage & Hour

Recent Articles By Daniela

May 02, 2024

April 29, 2024

April 25, 2024

April 22, 2024

April 19, 2024

April 17, 2024

April 15, 2024

April 10, 2024

April 08, 2024

Already have access? Click here to login

Get instant access to the one-stop news source for business lawyers, sign up now for free access to this content.

Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)

Phone Number (###-###-####)

PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.

Password (at least 8 characters required)

Confirm Password

Law360 Employment Authority may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest. You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications. We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy .

Already have access?

• Password: Forgot your password?
• Remember login

Sign up for our Employment Authority Wage & Hour newsletter

You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:.

Law360 Employment Authority takes your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy .

United States: What To Do About "Global COVID Nomads" And Other Wandering Workers Who Telecommute From Abroad For Personal Reasons

Technology facilitates remote work in ways that, years ago, just were not possible. Take telecommuting. These days, all kinds of jobs that had to be performed at an employer site are now performed remotely. Some call center workers, for example, now work from home using home telephones - no brick-and-mortar call center needed. Some secretaries now telecommute using laptops and the internet. Some teachers now teach remotely using laptops and video links. There are architects, doctors, lawyers and judges who, these days, use the internet and video to transmit blueprints, diagnose patients, and try lawsuits from home.

The COVID-19 pandemic hit in early 2020 and immediately set off enormous disruptions across workforces worldwide, like hours cuts, furloughs and layoffs. At that point, the work-from-home trend that had been growing steadily for years just exploded. Millions of on-site workers around the world shifted, overnight, to telecommuting.

The instant worldwide transformation to ubiquitous work-from-home inevitably sparked novel logistical problems and sticky legal challenges. Among the more complex is the singular phenomenon that came to be called "global covid nomads," the small percentage - but enormous worldwide number - of employees that COVID-19 transformed into telecommuters who then slipped away to work from new homes in foreign countries.

Of course, even " domestic covid nomads" cause compliance issues when they get away and start working in some new state, province or municipality. But a global covid nomad, by definition, triggers international legal challenges. These challenges can be particularly tough to rectify, even hard to spot. Indeed, often the very first challenge with a global covid nomad (or other international "wandering worker") is the immediate supervisor who sees nothing amiss and simply figures: Why not just let this valued employee move overseas, if he wants to? He's working remotely anyway - where he lives is none of our business.

Our discussion here unpacks the legal issues around global covid nomads and international wandering workers, with the goal of devising strategies for structuring these relationships legally. Our discussion breaks into four parts: (A) a taxonomy of international telecommuters; (B) legal issues and risk assessment; (C) five compliant structures for long-term or indefinite-term international telecommuting, and (D) strategies for keeping short-term international telecommuting short.

Click here to read the full Littler Report.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

  © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2024. All Rights Reserved .

Login to Mondaq.com

Password Passwords are Case Sensitive

Forgot your password?

Why Register with Mondaq

Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles (one-article limit removed) from the diverse perspectives of 5,000 leading law, accountancy and advisory firms

Articles tailored to your interests and optional alerts about important changes

Receive priority invitations to relevant webinars and events

You’ll only need to do it once, and readership information is just for authors and is never sold to third parties.

Your Organisation

We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation. It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Popular searches

Land your dream job, how to explain a wandering career path to a potential employer.

Idealist Guest

If you have had various, seemingly unrelated jobs, chances are you worry about how to present yourself to a potential employer. After all, too many jobs can come across as having a  lack of stability and focus .

However, there are ways to demonstrate how your diverse set of experiences can make you a great employee. A recent post on 99u  shares a few tips on how to explain your wandering career path:

Find the common threads, and use them to tell a good story.

No matter how random or varied your experiences, there is always a common thread. An interest you have, or an experience you were seeking, or a skill you were trying to develop. So think hard, and find that thread. Use it to tell a story that says something about you as a person – something more compelling than just having “put your time in” at one job for several years.

“Absolutely. Well, I think the best way to describe that time was that I was searching for the best way to develop my creative side in a way that made sense, in a way that actually benefited people and I could feel the impact. It definitely took some time to find that.”

Sell your versatility

That background is your proof that you can handle uncertainty and come out better for it. They don’t have to take it on a leap of faith that you can dive into new things and get your bearings quickly – the proof is right there. In a world where every company and organization is moving quickly in a changing landscape, and every hiring manager needs you to onboard quickly and as painlessly as possible, these are great traits to have. Use that as a source of confidence for yourself.

“I’m sure I can come up to speed on this quickly. The situation seems similar to when I did XYZ – and that project went well in terms of bla bla bla. I’m also reminded of my time at ABC where the main challenge we faced was [insert here] – just like this role/project.”

Click here to read the rest .

by  Allison Jones

This post was contributed by a guest author.

Explore Jobs on Idealist

It’s normal for your mind to wander. Here’s how to maximise the benefits

Psychology researcher, Bond University

Associate Professor in Psychology, Bond University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Bond University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Have you ever found yourself thinking about loved ones during a boring meeting? Or going over the plot of a movie you recently watched during a drive to the supermarket?

This is the cognitive phenomenon known as “ mind wandering ”. Research suggests it can account for up to 50% of our waking cognition (our mental processes when awake) in both western and non-western societies .

So what can help make this time productive and beneficial?

Mind wandering is not daydreaming

Mind wandering is often used interchangeably with daydreaming. They are both considered types of inattention but are not the same thing.

Mind wandering is related to a primary task, such as reading a book, listening to a lecture, or attending a meeting. The mind withdraws from that task and focuses on internally generated, unrelated thoughts.

On the other hand, daydreaming does not involve a primary, active task. For example, daydreaming would be thinking about an ex-partner while travelling on a bus and gazing out the window. Or lying in bed and thinking about what it might be like to go on a holiday overseas.

If you were driving the bus or making the bed and your thoughts diverted from the primary task, this would be classed as mind wandering.

The benefits of mind wandering

Mind wandering is believed to play an important role in generating new ideas , conclusions or insights (also known as “aha! moments”). This is because it can give your mind a break and free it up to think more creatively.

This type of creativity does not always have to be related to creative pursuits (such as writing a song or making an artwork). It could include a new way to approach a university or school assignment or a project at work. Another benefit of mind wandering is relief from boredom, providing the opportunity to mentally retreat from a monotonous task.

For example, someone who does not enjoy washing dishes could think about their upcoming weekend plans while doing the chore. In this instance, mind wandering assists in “passing the time” during an uninteresting task.

Mind wandering also tends to be future-oriented. This can provide an opportunity to reflect upon and plan future goals, big or small. For example, what steps do I need to take to get a job after graduation? Or, what am I going to make for dinner tomorrow?

Read more: Alpha, beta, theta: what are brain states and brain waves? And can we control them?

What are the risks?

Mind wandering is not always beneficial, however. It can mean you miss out on crucial information. For example, there could be disruptions in learning if a student engages in mind wandering during a lesson that covers exam details. Or an important building block for learning.

Some tasks also require a lot of concentration in order to be safe. If you’re thinking about a recent argument with a partner while driving, you run the risk of having an accident.

That being said, it can be more difficult for some people to control their mind wandering. For example, mind wandering is more prevalent in people with ADHD.

Read more: How your brain decides what to think

What can you do to maximise the benefits?

There are several things you can do to maximise the benefits of mind wandering.

• be aware : awareness of mind wandering allows you to take note of and make use of any productive thoughts. Alternatively, if it is not a good time to mind wander it can help bring your attention back to the task at hand

context matters : try to keep mind wandering to non-demanding tasks rather than demanding tasks. Otherwise, mind wandering could be unproductive or unsafe. For example, try think about that big presentation during a car wash rather than when driving to and from the car wash

content matters : if possible, try to keep the content positive. Research has found , keeping your thoughts more positive, specific and concrete (and less about “you”), is associated with better wellbeing. For example, thinking about tasks to meet upcoming work deadlines could be more productive than ruminating about how you felt stressed or failed to meet past deadlines.

• Consciousness
• Daydreaming
• Concentration
• Mind wandering

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Program Development Officer - Business Processes

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

How to Tame Your Wandering Mind

Learn to take steps to deal with distraction..

Posted April 24, 2022 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

• Understanding Attention
• Find counselling to help with ADHD
• We can tame our mind-wandering.
• Three tips can help you use mind-wandering to your advantage.
• These include making time to mind-wander and controlling your response to it.

Researchers believe that when a task isn’t sufficiently rewarding, our brains search for something more interesting to think about.

You have a big deadline looming, and it’s time to hunker down. But every time you start working, you find that, for some reason, your mind drifts off before you can get any real work done. What gives? What is this cruel trick our brains play on us, and what do we do about it?

Thankfully, by understanding why our mind wanders and taking steps to deal with distraction, we can stay on track. But first, let’s understand the root of the problem.

Why do our minds wander?

Unintentional mind-wandering occurs when our thoughts are not tied to the task at hand. Researchers believe our minds wander when the thing we’re supposed to be doing is not sufficiently rewarding, so our brains look for something more interesting to think about.

We’ve all experienced it from time to time, but it’s important to note that some people struggle with chronic mind-wandering : Though studies estimate ADHD afflicts less than 3% of the global adult population, it can be a serious problem and may require medical intervention.

For the vast majority of people, mind-wandering is something we can tame on our own—that is, if we know what to do about it. In fact, according to Professor Ethan Kross, director of the Emotion & Self Control Laboratory at the University of Michigan and author of Chatter: The Voice in Our Head, Why It Matters, and How to Harness It , mind-wandering is perfectly normal.

“We spend between a third to a half of our waking hours not focused on the present,” he told me in an email. “Some neuroscience research refers to our tendency to mind-wander as our ‘default state.’”

So why do we do it?

“Mind-wandering serves several valuable functions. It helps us simulate and plan for the future and learn from our past, and it facilitates creative problem-solving,” Kross explained. “Mind-wandering often gets a bad rep, but it’s a psychological process that evolved to provide us with a competitive advantage. Imagine not being able to plan for the future or learn from your past mistakes.”

Is mind-wandering bad for you?

“Like any psychological tool, however, mind-wandering can be harmful if used in the wrong context (i.e., when you’re trying to focus on a task) or inappropriately (i.e., when you worry or ruminate too much),” according to Kross. In other words, mind-wandering is a problem when it becomes a distraction. A distraction is any action that pulls you away from what you planned to do.

If, for instance, you intended to work on a big project, such as writing a blog post or finishing a proposal, but instead find yourself doing something else, you’re distracted.

The good news is that we can use mind-wandering to our advantage if we follow a few simple steps:

1. Make time to mind-wander

Mind-wandering isn’t always a distraction. If we plan for it, we can turn mind-wandering into traction. Unlike a distraction , which by definition is a bad thing, a diversion is simply a refocusing of attention and isn’t always harmful.

There’s nothing wrong with deciding to refocus your attention for a while. In fact, we often enjoy all kinds of diversions and pay for the privilege.

A movie or a good book, for instance, diverts our attention away from real life for a while so we can get into the story and escape reality for a bit.

Similarly, if you make time to allow your mind to drift and explore whatever it likes, that’s a healthy diversion, not a distraction.

The first step to mastering mind-wandering is to plan time for it. Use a schedule maker and block off time in your day to let your thoughts flow freely. You’ll likely find that a few minutes spent in contemplation can help you work through unresolved issues and lead to breakthroughs. Scheduling mind-wandering also lets you relax because you know you have time to think about whatever is on your mind instead of believing you need to act on every passing thought.

It’s helpful to know that time to think is on your calendar so you don’t have to interrupt your mind-wandering process or risk getting distracted later.

2. Catch the action

One of the difficulties surrounding mind-wandering is that by the time you notice you’re doing it, you’ve already done it. It’s an unconscious process so you can’t prevent it from happening.

The good news is that while you can’t stop your mind from wandering, you can control what you do when it happens.

Many people never learn that they are not their thoughts. They believe the voice in their head is somehow a special part of them, like their soul speaking out their inner desires and true self. When random thoughts cross their mind, they think those thoughts must be speaking some important truth.

Not true. That voice in your head is not your soul talking, nor do you have to believe everything you think.

When we assign undue importance to the chatter in our heads, we risk listening to half-baked ideas, feeling shame for intrusive thoughts, or acting impulsively against our best interests.

A much healthier way to view mind-wandering is as brain static. Just as the random radio frequencies you tune through don’t reveal the inner desires of your car’s soul, the thoughts you have while mind-wandering don’t mean much—unless, that is, you act upon them.

Though it can throw us off track, mind-wandering generally only lasts a few seconds, maybe minutes. However, when we let mind-wandering turn into other distractions, such as social-media scrolling, television-channel surfing, or news-headline checking, that’s when we risk wasting hours rather than mere minutes.

If you do find yourself mentally drifting off in the middle of a task, the important thing is to not allow that to become an unintended action, and therefore a distraction.

An intrusive thought is not your fault. It can’t be controlled. What matters is how you respond to it—hence the word respon-sibility.

Do you let the thought go and stay on task? Or do you allow yourself to escape what you’re doing by letting it lead you toward an action you’ll later regret?

3. Note and refocus

Can we keep the helpful aspects of mind-wandering while doing away with the bad? For the most part, yes, we can.

According to Kross, “Mind-wandering can easily shift into dysfunctional worry and rumination. When that happens, the options are to refocus on the present or to implement tools that help people mind-wander more effectively.”

One of the best ways to harness the power of mind-wandering while doing an important task is to quickly note the thought you don’t want to lose on a piece of paper. It’s a simple tactic anyone can use but few bother to do. Note that I didn’t recommend an app or sending yourself an email. Tech tools are full of external triggers that can tempt us to just check “one quick thing,” and before we know it, we’re distracted.

Rather, a pen and Post-it note or a notepad are the ideal tools to get ideas out of your head without the temptations that may lead you away from what you planned to do.

Then, you can collect your thoughts and check back on them later during the time you’ve planned in your day to chew on your ideas. If you give your thoughts a little time, you’ll often find that those super important ideas aren’t so important after all.

If you had acted on them at the moment, they would have wasted your time. But by writing them down and revisiting them when you’ve planned to do so, they have time to marinate and may become less relevant.

However, once in a while, an idea you collected will turn out to be a gem. With the time you planned to chew on the thought, you may discover that mind-wandering spurred you to a great insight you can explore later.

By following the three steps above, you’ll be able to master mind-wandering rather than letting it become your master.

Nir Eyal, who has lectured at Stanford's Graduate School of Business and the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, is the author of Indistractable: How to Control Your Attention and Choose Your Life.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Grammar Coach ™
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

[ won -der-ing ]

Crowds of wandering tourists crossed the square.

They were historically a wandering people, moving seasonally through the area.

They followed a wandering path down the mountain.

For our honeymoon we had a period of delightful wandering through Italy.

Her wanderings took her all over the world.

mental wanderings;

the wanderings of delirium.

Wandering by Alzheimer’s patients is a problem in nursing homes.

Discover More

Other words from.

• wan·der·ing·ly adverb
• wan·der·ing·ness noun
• un·wan·der·ing adjective
• un·wan·der·ing·ly adverb

Word History and Origins

Origin of wandering 1

Example Sentences

Later, information emerged that this sea lion is known for its wanderings.

This is counter-intuitive because spontaneous fluctuations and mind-wandering can also lead to depressive rumination and anxiety.

Similar to playing and dreaming is the wandering of our minds.

When psychologists do that, they find that mind-wandering is staggeringly frequent.

Mind-wandering is often considered a harmless quirk, as in the cliché of the scatter-brained professor.

Mr. Bachner found it by wandering through the market and identified a craftsmen here who works in a tiny booth.

And, in a gratuitous show of homicidal prowess, Moses kills two assassins he meets while wandering in the desert of Sinai.

After wandering at haphazard some little way I met a peasant in a sleigh.

He showed signs of a restless, wandering soul, someone searching for meaning around him.

I spotted American students wandering around London last week dressed in Stars and Stripes shorts and bikini tops.

She observed his pale looks, and the distracted wandering of his eyes; but she would not notice either.

This mode of learning promotes attention and prevents mind-wandering.

He paled a little, and sucked his lip, his eyes wandering to the girl, who stood in stolid inapprehension of what was being said.

John and Judas became the good and evil Wandering Jews of mediæval folklore.

He was relieved to learn that his grandson Moses Mole was not wandering about the garden, after all.

Related Words

How a new ban on noncompete employment contracts could mean more money for Utahns

New rules from the federal trade commission will limit how employers use noncompete agreements, and the data shows that’s a good thing for workers..

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Dr. Rachel Walton cradles a cat named Spot as she waits for the anesthesia to take effect before taking a few skin biopsies on Friday, Oct. 28, 2022. Veterinarians, perhaps unexpectedly, are frequently limited in their employment options by noncompete clauses.

What do California, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Oklahoma have in common?

Those four states that have banned noncompete agreements between employers and employees.

That list makes you appreciate that this isn’t an issue stuck in partisan politics. The idea that a person should be able to work where they so choose is one that appeals to both free-market conservatives and worker-protection liberals.

Other states have been limiting the enforcement of noncompetes in recent years. In 2016, Utah’s HB251 decreed that noncompetes must be a year or less — anything beyond that would be considered legally void.

Now, the Federal Trade Commission has gone further, and applied a new rule to all 50 states that will go into effect in early September. Essentially, it bans all future noncompetes. Furthermore, it retroactively negates all noncompetes that have already been signed, with the exception of senior executives making over $151,000 annually. (Non-execs with big paychecks will also see their current noncompetes eliminated.)

Finally, businesses have to actively tell their employees — by text, mail, email, or delivered on paper by hand — that their noncompetes are no longer enforced.

The model language suggested by the FTC is pretty darn pointed: not only does it indicate that your non-compete clause in unenforceable, it positively indicates workers can go seek a job with any company or start a new business — even as a competitor.

This is a big change! Businesses are divided on it: Some say that noncompetes allow them to invest in their employees’ training more, knowing they can keep them locked in for a period. Other businesses want to open up the playing field and compete for labor talent through wages, benefits, culture, perks, and so on.

Workers, though, are pretty uniformly in favor of the move. Of the 26,000 comments the FTC received during its public comment period (from both businesses and workers), over 25,000 of them were in favor of banning noncompetes.

In issuing the rule, the FTC released a 570-page document . Many outlets have called this a 570-page rule, but the rule part of it is only really nine pages. That, though, is preceded by 561 pages of a surprisingly readable and scientific explanation of why they’re choosing to ban noncompetes — that I’d encourage you to read if you have infinite time and a hankering to understand why the FTC does stuff.

For everyone else, that’s why this column exists.

Noncompetes a “pernicious force”

A surprising number of people are employed with a noncompete clause of one kind or another. The FTC estimated it at about one in five workers.

I didn’t know that 45% of physicians have a noncompete clause, along with a similar number of veterinarians. I also wouldn’t have suspected that 30% of hairstylists do.

A surprising number of low-income workers have non-competes: 13% of workers who make under $40,000. Meanwhile, 53% of those with noncompetes are hourly workers. Big businesses frequently use noncompetes; one survey indicated 32% of employers with more than 50 employees use them for all of their employees. Low-paying businesses do too: 29% of businesses where the average wage is below $13 per hour use noncompetes for all their workers.

Signing a noncompete has a decent chance of becoming, as the FTC writes, a major “pernicious force” in one’s life, forcing one to “make choices ... detrimental to their finances, their careers, and their families.” The comments to the FTC have all sorts of stories like this:

• One bartender making $10 an hour said her employment contract signed on her first day had a noncompete clause she wasn’t aware of. When she was sexually harassed at her job, she left for another bar — and was promptly sued for $30,000.

• A cardiologist reported that his small health care practice was acquired by a larger firm. The firm asked the doctors to sign noncompete clauses, but ended up pushing them out the door in favor of other doctors. The cardiologist’s patients had to decide between trusting a new set of doctors or driving over an hour away to continue their current care. Another doctor said he had a similar occurrence, and found that his patients simply chose to skip care because they couldn’t afford to drive that far.

• A geologist said she was able to find a part-time job in her field out of college, but was let go. Because of her noncompete, she couldn’t take another job in her field in her location and instead took a job as a waitress.

Oh, and many comments from multiple industries wrote about how they were forced to move their families, or move away from family, so that they could continue to provide income without violating their noncompete agreements.

On one hand, yes, these are agreements signed by these workers. But many reported their companies used unethical practices to induce workers to sign them: hiding them in boilerplate language, presenting them after an employee had already left their previous job, or even introduced while they worked their current one. Many had no real choice.

Just on this point alone, the FTC reasoned it would be reasonable to ban noncompetes.

Economic benefits of banning noncompetes

But the FTC also calculated that there would likely be significant benefits to the economy as a whole if they banned noncompetes. Among them:

Wage increases

The FTC relied on a pretty significant body of academic work that showed that people’s wages went up when noncompetes weren’t enforceable or didn’t exist. Theoretically, this makes sense: If people have more leverage to leave their job, they can demand raises or simply find higher-wage employment.

The largest study referenced, for example, looked at wage data nationally from 1991 to 2014, comparing states with various noncompete laws, and estimated that wages would increase by 3% to 14% if non-competes were banned.

When Oregon banned noncompetes for hourly workers, wages went up 2-3% there overall, and 4.6% in industries that frequently use noncompetes. Interestingly, wages went up for 3.5% for women and 1.5% for men. A Hawaii ban on noncompetes for tech workers raised those wages by 4%. There’s also significant evidence that banning noncompetes raises wages even for people who don’t have them, thanks to making the labor market more competitive.

In the end, the FTC conservatively estimated that banning non-competes would increase wages by 0.86%. For Utah specifically, the FTC said banning noncompetes would mean $715,807,809 in increased worker wages, for an average of $542 per worker. (This includes both workers with and without noncompetes.)

More business creation

Because noncompetes typically prevent workers from starting new businesses to compete with their current ones, they have a significant distributional effect on the economy. Essentially, noncompetes limit the number of small, new spinoff businesses in favor of bigger, more established companies.

There’s a significant argument that this hurts the economy as a whole. Many tech historians argue that California’s law prohibiting noncompetes is the major reason Silicon Valley is the epicenter of the tech boom — a claim that I thought was a little preposterous at first, until I learned that 70% of Silicon Valley stocks listed on the NASDAQ have roots as spinoffs of one 1960s-era semiconductor company .

One point of evidence for this came from Utah. When Utah limited noncompetes in the mid-2010s, one study found entrepreneurship and self-employment increased by 5.6%. Similar changes came to Hawaii and Massachusetts, when they limited noncompetes.

Overall, the FTC estimates that banning noncompetes will increase new firm creation by 2.7-3.2%.

Furthermore, more patents tend to be filed in states with noncompete limitations, as workers have more ability to chase profits on their novel ideas. The FTC estimates this ban will increase the number of patents filed by 11-18%.

Lower prices?

Those two above economic results will have differing forces on inflation. On one hand, wages going up means companies will increase their prices. On the other hand, more competition and technological innovation in the market from new competitors in the market should mean lower prices.

Which one will win? It probably depends on the industry and how competitive — or non-competitive — it currently is. The FTC identified health care as a industry ripe with potential for innovation and new players, especially at the most intimate, doctor-patient level. Studies in states with noncompete limitations indicate that prices decrease significantly for health care in those areas. Overall, the FTC estimated that prices will decrease for physician and clinical services overall by $74-$194 billion over the course of 10 years, no small downward adjustment.

Other industries weren’t as closely studied, so the FTC made no claims about lower prices there. But they hoped that the ban on noncompetes would result in higher worker productivity overall, thanks to better worker-firm matching, which would lead to better prices down the road.

Changes in institutional investment

While this article has been very rosy about the ban so far, it’s worth noting the major criticisms. In particular, noncompete proponents argue that the contracts allow for more big-money investment into firms and more educational investment within firms for training employees. The rationale is that investment is more likely to be recouped in a world where employees can’t leave after receiving it.

It was an interesting element of Utah’s 2016 debates on the topic. As worker after worker came to the House and Senate committees on the the issue to say how noncompetes had impacted them, business owners argued that they’d reduce their spending on training their employees as a result of any change. That may well be true, but training can also function as a differentiator in a competitive labor market.

To their credit, the FTC incorporated these costs in their decision, but simply decided the pros outweighed the cons. I thought economic commentator Noah Smith wrapped this up well:

“It’s really more about the type of economy we think will be better overall. An economy with strong noncompetes will be a little more like Japan — workers will be better trained but will switch jobs less and make lower salaries, big dominant companies will do more R&D but disruptive new startups will be shut out of the market by lack of personnel,” he wrote. “It’s about the choice between a dynamic, competitive economy and one dominated by big, secure companies. Personally, observing the outcomes in both the U.S. and Japan, I’m inclined to go with the former.”

We’ll see what happens here overall — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already filed suit against the FTC for the action, and it’s possible a court stays the ban. But I think that’d be shortsighted. When you take into account the negative impacts non-competes have had on workers’ lives, add in the likely positive impacts on the economy as a whole, banning non-competes seems like a definite win.

Editor’s note • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.

Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

May’s flavorful finds: Chef Jeff’s budget-friendly delights at Smith’s

Weber state university takes utah nurse to next level in life, career., modern storage solutions: harnessing the power of shipping containers, decoding health insurance: your casual guide to finding the perfect plan, arch canyon protest rally at blm building turns into campaign event, lyman announces new running mate after first pick deemed ineligible, featured local savings.

Promote growth or staunch it? What the noncompete ruling means for Columbus health care

Noncompete contracts could soon be void under a new ruling by the Federal Trade Commission , a move that could spark major changes in Columbus' rapidly growing health care industry.

The commission – a U.S. government agency that enforces laws protecting consumers from unfair business practices – announced a ban on noncompete contracts nationwide last week. While the ban won't take effect until 120 days after the ruling is officially registered, the commission estimated that it would reduce healthcare costs by $74-194 billion over the next decade nationwide .

A noncompete is typically a clause in a contract between an employer and a worker that prevents them from working for a competing employer or starting a competing business, usually within a geographical area or after a certain amount of time. Such clauses, the commission argues, hinder fair competition, suppress wages and stifle innovation.

This is especially relevant to the health care industry, argues Ruqaiijah Yearby, a professor of health law at The Ohio State University. Noncompete clauses can often apply to patents for medical devices or treatments, meaning health care workers may not be able to continue their work or collaborate with other experts if they're in a competing health system once they leave their jobs.

That's a big deal for a city like Columbus, with its four major health systems and nationally-acclaimed research facilities, like those at The Ohio State University and Nationwide Children's Hospital.

Exacerbate worker shortage or promote growth?

Different sectors of the healthcare field are divided on the ruling.

Opponents are criticizing the ruling as "bad policy" and an overreach of federal powers that will only further advance the healthcare workforce shortage that's rocked the U.S. since the COVID-19 pandemic. Banning noncompete language would exacerbate that struggle acutely felt in the Buckeye State the Ohio Hospital Association argues.

"The FTC’s rule will adversely impact hospitals across Ohio, including those in rural areas, which incur significant expense to recruit physicians and other caregivers to their communities and invest heavily to maintain their practices in those communities," the association said in an emailed statement.

If hospitals don't have a surefire way to hang onto their providers, it will aggravate workforce shortages and communities' access to care could be jeopardized, according to OHA.

Yearby said banning noncompete language would do the opposite. More people could return to the health care industry because workers' would have more power to negotiate wages and other benefits in a more competitive environment, and employers would be more incentivized to provide them.

"You need to try to compete to get the best workers," Yearby said. "Part of competing is to pay people, to give them benefits and resources to make them want to stay, as well as to have a healthy environment for them to stay in."

"It is a good day for healthcare," she said.

Where Columbus' major health systems stand

The commission's ruling already faces several legal challenges, i ncluding from the United States Chamber of Commerce , who argued that the FTC doesn't have the authority to enforce such a sweeping and overly-broad law.

Critics also point out that the ruling isn't clear how it would impact nonprofits, which the commission doesn't have jurisdiction over. But the FTC says it can evaluate using special criteria to see if nonprofits are or are not truly exempt.

All four of Columbus' major health systems operate as nonprofits or not-for-profits.

A spokesperson for Nationwide Children's Hospital told The Columbus Dispatch that it maintains contracts "with a limited group of administrators and medical staff that include non-compete language." The hospital is currently reviewing the ruling and "will comply with any and all guidelines as they apply to us," the spokesperson said.

Ohio Health, the healthcare system that includes Riverside Methodist Hospital and Dublin Methodist Hospital, said in a statement to The Columbus Dispatch that it "considers the terms of its employment agreements to be confidential" and did not confirm whether it uses noncompete language. They are reviewing the commission's ruling and "will comply with any applicable requirements."

Mount Carmel Health System said through a spokesperson that they are also reviewing the ruling and "evaluating its impact on our contracts." They declined to comment on whether they use noncompete language in those contracts.

The Ohio State University's Wexner Medical Center declined to comment on the ruling.

• Manage Account
• Website Survey
• Voter Guide
• Things to Do
• Public Notices
• Help Center

news Politics

Dallas closed building because workers were ‘wandering’ in areas that were off limits

City council committee asks auditor to investigate why workers in the city’s permitting office were allowed in the tower for four months when it was not fully certified for occupancy.

By Everton Bailey Jr.

9:00 AM on May 3, 2024 CDT — Updated at 8:03 PM on May 3, 2024 CDT

A top Dallas official said a city-owned building was not shut down in April because employees’ safety was at risk, but because a small number of people working in the building were “wandering around” in areas that were being renovated and were not permitted for occupancy.

Assistant City Manager Majed Al-Ghafry told City Council members during a committee meeting Thursday he decided to have employees move out of the 4700 N. Stemmons Freeway building after four months out of concern the presence of workers on unauthorized floors would interfere with the facility’s ongoing renovations.

Dallas bought the building in 2022 for $14.2 million and has since spent nearly $7 million to renovate it. It could cost another $7.8 million in upgrades to make the entire building ready for workers, Al-Ghafry and other officials said Thursday. The needed work includes a new fire alarm system and fixing two non-working elevators. The city hopes to return employees to the building by fall. The committee has asked for an audit of the purchase and ongoing issues with the building.

Get the latest politics news from North Texas and beyond.

By signing up you agree to our  Terms of Service  and  Privacy Policy

The building only has a temporary certificate for the fifth floor .

“In full transparency and confidence, there wasn’t any life and safety issues that caused me to do this,” Al-Ghafry said during the ad hoc general investigation and ethics committee meeting. He said the building had a valid temporary certificate of occupancy.

“I just didn’t want the minutia of a couple of staff members to go back and forth, going to different floors and creating all kinds of stories that they perceive to be an issue. So I wanted to put a stop to that,” he said.

He later told council members it was “one or two employees” who wouldn’t stick to the fifth floor, requiring more than 50 employees to be moved back to the permitting office’s old headquarters at the Oak Cliff Municipal Center.

Thursday marked the first time since the building was shut down that Dallas officials overseeing the city’s permitting and construction offices publicly addressed issues with the Stemmons building to council members.

Employees began moving into the building in December. In January, an employee’s spouse filed a complaint with the state fire marshal’s office alleging a series of safety issues with the facility. In February and April, city fire inspections discovered fire code violations , and Al-Ghafry said employees started moving out of the building on April 9 after it was determined that the fire alarm wouldn’t sound on all of the floors. The building was fully closed by April 10.

Al-Ghafry didn’t mention roaming employees in the Stemmons building to the mayor and council when he sent his initial reasons for closing the facility.

“This move is the result of additional facility improvements recently identified at their current location that necessitates moving existing staff in the building back to OCMC for the time being,” Al-Ghafry said in an April 9 email to the City Council. “Remaining improvements include work on the fire suppression system, IT equipment, connectivity, elevator work, and other key tenant improvements.”

Though Al-Ghafry said Thursday workers weren’t allowed to be anywhere beyond the first and fifth floors and had been warned against it, the city’s Development Services Department Director Andrew Espinoza said employees had been working on the second and third floors between January and March.

“We had applied for temporary certificate of occupancies on (floors) two and three and in our excitement and momentum to get in, we never finalized those temporary certificates,” Espinoza said. The development services department oversees city permitting. Espinoza is also the city’s chief building official who oversees building inspections. He said no employees were disciplined for being on other floors in the building.

Al-Ghafry and other officials blamed the issues with the building on a lack of communication between city departments, saying a thorough walk-through of checks on every floor wasn’t done until last month. This is despite a recommendation from the Fire Department that the building’s fire alarm be inspected because an inspection hadn’t been done since April 2022, Dallas Fire-Rescue Deputy Chief Chris Martinez said during the meeting on Thursday. Checks are supposed to be done annually, he said. Martinez also serves as the city’s fire marshal.

Jennifer Nicewander, director of the city’s bond and construction management office, said fire alarm testing wasn’t done earlier because no issues were reported during reviews before the City Council approved buying the building in August 2022.

“I think we were still relying at that time on the fact that the previous inspection said it was functional,” Nicewander said. “There was nothing there to trigger us to do a test since everything that we had seen up until that point said it had been functional.”

Council member Gay Donnell Willis replied, “When we’re spending $14 million on that, we should have done that.”

Council committee members expressed frustration there wasn’t more urgency to ensure the building was safe for city workers .

“It seems to me that we just checked the boxes and that we didn’t do what was necessary to ensure the life safety of our own employees,” said council member Paul Ridley.

The committee approved asking the city auditor’s office to investigate the circumstances around the building’s purchase, why employees were continuing to work in the building, and to review employees’ complaints about being in the facility.

Espinoza described only hearing minor complaints from employees working in the building. Complaints included the women’s bathroom not having mirrors, bathrooms in general needing to be repainted, and long lines for elevators in the mornings because only two worked in the building, he said.

But those worries were in stark contrast with the January letter filed with the state fire marshal about the working conditions in the building. The employee’s spouse alleged the building had overflowing toilets and urinals, inoperable elevators and fire alarms that weren’t alerting the entire building. She also noted the building lacked final certificates of occupancy. The state fire marshal’s office said they forwarded the complaint to the city.

Al-Ghafry told council members on Wednesday the February city fire inspection of the Stemmons building was due to a complaint, but said he didn’t know any details about it.

Fire Department inspectors found more than three dozen fire code violations in the building, including the lack of a certificate of occupancy for the entire facility even though the city allowed tenants in a first-floor cafe and on the seventh floor. Other violations included issues with the fire alarm system, fire extinguishers, fire sprinkler system, building exit signs, and faded fire lanes in the parking lot, according to the Feb. 8 report. Al-Ghafry said Thursday that the building still has a seventh floor tenant, a construction company, whose lease ends in 2026.

Problems with the fire alarm and the building not being properly supervised in lieu of having a fully working fire alarm system were found during inspections on April 3 and April 4, according to the reports. A review on April 3 found the fire alarm was not audible in a majority of the building when it was tested.

Al-Ghafry on Thursday said the city did not bend rules to keep the tower open.

“We did exactly the same thing as we would do to a private entity asking for a [temporary certificate of occupancy],” he said. “We did not cut corners to just occupy the building.”

Council member Cara Mendelsohn, who chairs the committee, said she felt it was important for the city to fully understand what happened and how.

“This purchase and subsequent activities are of importance to the taxpayers and business community and the tragic irony of a permit office not being able to open because it failed inspections and not secure a certificate of occupancy is lost on no one,” she said.

Everton Bailey Jr. . Everton covers Dallas city government. He joined The Dallas Morning News in November 2020 after previously working for The Oregonian and The Associated Press in Hartford, Conn.

Early returns show Dallas voters favoring $1.25 billion in bond requests

Scouting Mavericks-Thunder: Which MVP candidate has the edge in Western Conference semis?

D-FW under flood watch through weekend, overnight storms expected

Houston flooding with more rain to come

Royse City ISD student made ‘credible threat’ to high school on social media, police say

Synonyms of wandering

• as in rambling
• as in nomadic
• as in roaming
• as in trespassing
• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Thesaurus Definition of wandering

 (Entry 1 of 2)

Synonyms & Similar Words

• digressionary
• digressional

Antonyms & Near Antonyms

• straightforward
• undeviating
• peripatetic
• galavanting
• on the move
• gallivanting
• perambulatory

Thesaurus Definition of wandering  (Entry 2 of 2)

• knocking (about)
• gadding (about)
• kicking around
• vagabonding
• milling (about or around)
• trespassing
• transgressing
• breaking the law
• falling from grace
• backsliding

Thesaurus Entries Near wandering

wandering (into)

Cite this Entry

“Wandering.” Merriam-Webster.com Thesaurus , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/wandering. Accessed 4 May. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on wandering

Nglish: Translation of wandering for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of wandering for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, 12 star wars words, the words of the week - may 3, 9 superb owl words, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, your favorite band is in the dictionary, games & quizzes.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of wander noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• I went to the park and had a wander around.

Questions about grammar and vocabulary?

Find the answers with Practical English Usage online, your indispensable guide to problems in English.

Other results

Nearby words.

College protesters are demanding schools 'divest' from companies with ties to Israel. Here's what that means.

In addition to a cease-fire in Gaza, protesters on college campuses across the country are calling on their schools to divest from all financial support of Israel.

Divestment usually refers to selling shares in companies doing business with a given country. Divestment has long been a goal of a movement that seeks to limit what it considers hostile operations by Israel and an end to expanding what the United Nations has ruled are illegal settlements.

Now, college protesters are hoping to force their universities to divest to put financial pressure on companies doing business in Israel to meet those two objectives.

“The university should do something about what we’re asking for, about the genocide that’s happening in Gaza,” said Columbia University student and protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who is Palestinian, and noted that students have been pushing for Columbia to divest from Israel since 2002. “They should stop investing in this genocide.”

Israel launched its Gaza campaign soon after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas , a U.S.-designated terror group that left 1,200 Israelis dead, according to officials, with an estimated 250 people taken hostage. The subsequent military response by Israel has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

Like many universities, Columbia owns shares of various companies as part of its financial operations and endowment. However, information on Columbia’s exact holdings was not immediately available, and it was not clear whether investment information published by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), the group leading the protests at the school, was accurate.

Whatever the case, while some of the shares Columbia owns may be directly held stock investments, other assets are likely held indirectly through investment instruments like mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that are designed to expose investors to a variety of firms.

And as students at Brown University acknowledged in a separate proposal targeting their school’s alleged Israel-tied investments, excluding specific investments from these indirect stock holding products “would be logistically challenging.”

In fact, they concluded that none of their school’s current direct investments appeared to be in individual companies violating its anti-Israel screening criteria.

Meanwhile, mutual fund and ETF holdings are constantly changing, the Brown students said.

The actual mechanics of divestment thus make it a more difficult undertaking than it may first appear, said Alison Taylor, clinical associate professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

“You get into questions of, ‘What percentage of a company’s business is actually tied to the activities in question?’” Taylor said.

Columbia’s Investment Management Company, which oversees the school’s market assets, does have an advisory committee on socially responsible investing.

This committee has pledged that it will screen against investing in firms that operate private prisons; derive significant revenues from thermal coal; and engage in tobacco manufacturing. It also has had a policy against investing in companies doing business in Sudan. 

So there is precedent for Columbia to limit its financial exposure to socially irresponsible firms, CUAD says. At present, Columbia’s investment in the companies that CUAD accuses of having ties to Israel makes it “complicit in genocide,” CUAD says. 

“By withdrawing from holdings that profit off of Israeli human rights violations, Columbia can invest in other, more worthwhile companies,” CUAD says in a December proposal submitted to the socially responsible investing committee calling for divestment.

A representative for Columbia’s responsible investment committee did not respond to a request for comment.

Columbia President Minouche Shafik has not specifically addressed the divestment calls in her statements on the campus turmoil. Her predecessor, Lee Bollinger, rejected calls for divestment in 2020, saying that a vote by students calling for one merely represented “particular views about a complex policy issue” and that there was “no consensus across the University community about” the issue.

Sylvia Burwell, the president of American University in Washington, D.C., said a student vote calling for divestment did not represent the school and would not be recognized.

“It is AU’s longstanding position to oppose boycotts, divestment from Israel, and other related actions known as BDS,” she said in a statement last week, referring to a Palestinian-led movement called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

“Such actions threaten academic freedom, the respectful free expression of ideas and views, and the values of inclusion and belonging that are central to our community.”

There is debate about the efficacy of divestment. Some evidence suggests that the buyers of shares being sold off as part of a divestment campaign can sometimes turn out to be worse actors than their original holders, NYU’s Taylor said.

She gave the example of Myanmar, where energy giant Chevron ending up selling off an asset to an entity that human rights groups said was even less accountable.

Divestment supporters often cite the successful campaign to dismantle South Africa’s apartheid regime as an example of what can be accomplished.

But Taylor and others have said the groundswell of international and civil-society support that was needed to end apartheid has not materialized in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“It required everyone to be at the table,” she said. “South Africa is a  good story, but I don’t know whether we’re there yet.”

In a 2021 study of the impact of divestment, business school professors at the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University found the practice had little impact.

Instead, they said, activists seeking to change a company’s behavior should instead hold on to their investments and exercise any rights of control they may have to change corporate policy.

The Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that seeks to counter antisemitism, likewise concluded that shareholder resolutions have proven effective at changing corporate behavior, even as it criticized such efforts as “simplistic” and not constructive.

“Organizations file resolutions repeatedly until they get the change they want, often garnering more votes each year,” the ADL said in a 2022 article on its website . “Even if a proposal fails, sometimes just the fact that it is filed may be enough to make a company wary of doing business with Israel.”

Rob Wile is a breaking business news reporter for NBC News Digital.