Banning Non-Competes

[keto]

It’s laughable that this article quotes a union boss saying how great it would be to ban non-competes contract.

Unions tout themselves as “We are an organization that honors contracts.” Yet, not here.

Where is the union-supporting “If you don’t like it, work somewhere else” crowd? You won’t find them here because they’re hypocrites.

Change laws to force others to do what you want, yet try to change the practice of voluntarily making an agreement. Nice.

[keto]

It’s laughable that this article quotes a union boss saying how great it would be to ban non-competes contract.

Unions tout themselves as “We are an organization that honors contracts.” Yet, not here.

Where is the union-supporting “If you don’t like it, work somewhere else” crowd? You won’t find them here because they’re hypocrites.

Change laws to force others to do what you want, yet try to change the practice of voluntarily making an agreement. Nice.

It’s also laughable that it quotes a general manager who says we market an on air employees brand yet won’t let that employee receive any outside benefit to that brand. And laughable that he claims to invest in talent he probably pays 35,000.

Guessing that GM is a free market guy when it comes to his politics, but not when it comes to his employees benefitting from the free market. Weird.

I'm not defending managers, either.

I'm defending the right of consenting adults to lawfully make a voluntary agreement. If someone is stupid enough to voluntarily sign a bad contract, that's not my fault or anyone else's fault except for the person who signed it. If you sign a contract, then complain about the terms, I have no sympathy for you. You have to live with it because you voluntarily agreed to it and have no recourse.

Unions violate this because they force people do to something against their will. Those who voted "no" are treated like those who voted "yes" and get fired if they fail to go against their own conscience, convictions, beliefs, and morals.

Abortion violates this because the most vulnerable human doesn't get a say in the matter.

[keto]

Although relative to this message board, non-competes certainly do not affect only broadcast employees. They are everywhere, especially wherever there is a long training process, and sensitive customer-based information is involved.

I see the need from the perspective of an employer, but I'm not sure it's proper that the former employee should be banned from working in the industry. If it involves a separation payment / severance payment, it's fine in my opinion. If not, not so much.

I do observe that the 'wind' is blowing against such agreements. People need to remember, though, that its an AGREEMENT that they are entering into. No one forced them to take the job.

Bruce Williams used to say it best: "You have dynamite in your finger tips. Be careful what you sign". Governmental involvement into what legal agreements people enter into might not be a great idea.

I agree completely.

I also warn against giving any private organization the power to tax (like unions) without the consent of all participants or from ignoring basic human rights (like the unborn).

[keto]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Please fill-in what is lacking:

Contracts are voluntary agreements between parties. Good so far?

When parties approve a contract, they are legally obligated to uphold the terms they agreed to. Still clear?

When one party violates the terms of the contract, the other party or parties have legal recourse.

So, why are people arguing whether parties can make a voluntarily agreement, formalize it, and make it legally binding?

If non-compete language can be banned, why not eliminate marriage contracts? Why not make timeshares illegal?

We're talking about voluntary contracts, where there's no gun held to anyone's head. We're not talking about taxes or unions where participants can reject the offer, but are still forced against their will and consent to abide by a contract they rejected.