Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Banning Non-Competes
Re: Banning Non-Competes
When you are only making 20-30k, you don’t have the means to fight this in court. And shouldn’t have to. If you’ve served your two or three year contract, you should be able to go anywhere immediately after the contract has ended. I’m fine with employers having a fine or what Sinclair calls “liquidated damages” if you break the employment agreement midway through the contract. But if you’ve completed the contract length, they shouldn’t be able to then say you can’t get an in-market job for another year after the contract ends. That’s crazy…
And you can’t say it’s not enforceable. It is. Sinclair has successfully sued to keep people from taking jobs. Could it be challenged. Sure. But only if you have tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees. And most of us don’t.
This effort to eliminate non-competes allows us to even the playing field. Only management hates it because it makes them have to actually put effort and money into keeping good workers.
And you can’t say it’s not enforceable. It is. Sinclair has successfully sued to keep people from taking jobs. Could it be challenged. Sure. But only if you have tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees. And most of us don’t.
This effort to eliminate non-competes allows us to even the playing field. Only management hates it because it makes them have to actually put effort and money into keeping good workers.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
If you've completed the contract length, then there is no non-compete left. You're just thinking of the portion of the agreement that obligates you to stay for a predetermined length of time.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
KM: not exactly. The contract bans you from any employment in-market for up to a year after the contract ends. So if the employment agreement says my two year contract ended today, Sinclair would ban me from working for any other media company (TV, newspaper, radio, digital) in the Flint-Saginaw DMA for 12 months… It’s ridiculous. They enforce the non-compete even if they fire you, you quit, or you completely served out the entire length of the contract.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
No need to go to court. I didn't have to. Simple research and documentation of that research is sufficient to get out of the terms of any non-compete. Most are lazy and won't do the work to get out of a non-compete. Remember, my former company sues as well. But, I never got sued. I was smart.sinklair wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 8:48 amWhen you are only making 20-30k, you don’t have the means to fight this in court. And shouldn’t have to. If you’ve served your two or three year contract, you should be able to go anywhere immediately after the contract has ended. I’m fine with employers having a fine or what Sinclair calls “liquidated damages” if you break the employment agreement midway through the contract. But if you’ve completed the contract length, they shouldn’t be able to then say you can’t get an in-market job for another year after the contract ends. That’s crazy…
And you can’t say it’s not enforceable. It is. Sinclair has successfully sued to keep people from taking jobs. Could it be challenged. Sure. But only if you have tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees. And most of us don’t.
This effort to eliminate non-competes allows us to even the playing field. Only management hates it because it makes them have to actually put effort and money into keeping good workers.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Teddy: I’d like to see your so-called “validation”… both that you were released without a lawsuit… and that you are “smart”!
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Simple: call Deb Piechock at Cumulus Toledo. (419) 725-5700. Date: May 22, 2014. See this is validation. Last I heard, I was THE ONLY successful person to get away scott free to date. So there you go LovinLoser101. Do your research. But you're too lazy to do the research. You just wanna complain.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Teddy: as you would say, that doesn’t prove anything.
And for one brief fleeting moment, let’s assume everything you say is 100% true. It proves my point. If your argument is since 2014, you were the only successful person to walk away from your contract… that’s a problem. It means there are many, many more broadcasting professionals who were being held to these unfairly restrictive contract covenants that prevent them from seeking employment AFTER their contract ends.
If what you say is true, then you should be advocating for the same freedom of choice that we are seeking.
And for one brief fleeting moment, let’s assume everything you say is 100% true. It proves my point. If your argument is since 2014, you were the only successful person to walk away from your contract… that’s a problem. It means there are many, many more broadcasting professionals who were being held to these unfairly restrictive contract covenants that prevent them from seeking employment AFTER their contract ends.
If what you say is true, then you should be advocating for the same freedom of choice that we are seeking.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
It does prove something. It proves they are just as lazy as you. Now keep being the National Enquirer. Because you WON'T do your research, as you want your life to be miserable.sinklair wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:52 amTeddy: as you would say, that doesn’t prove anything.
And for one brief fleeting moment, let’s assume everything you say is 100% true. It proves my point. If your argument is since 2014, you were the only successful person to walk away from your contract… that’s a problem. It means there are many, many more broadcasting professionals who were being held to these unfairly restrictive contract covenants that prevent them from seeking employment AFTER their contract ends.
If what you say is true, then you should be advocating for the same freedom of choice that we are seeking.
As for those other people, if they are lazy, why is that your problem? It never was. LL101, you never were credible. I would invite for you to also advocate for them, not complain and sit around kvetching, as your butt gets sore. Notice the difference between the 2.
My signature says it all. It can be for workplaces and it can be for those who need to change their lives. Bad persons never change their lives, as they never admit to any problems. Therefore they tell the world that they are a bad person... while complaining or being addicted.
And as for you not being LL101 (your fake cyber attack posting)- LL101 argued with "itself" all the time using many many many names. That's common knowlege.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Funny, Teddy. You sound a lot like one of the 25-66 managers who post anonymously here.
And your pseudo psychoanalysis sounds like it came out of a Cracker Jack box.
If you don’t like my “complaining” as you call it, move on. It’s clear you don’t understand this is a forum discussing Flint/Saginaw area TV media.
There’s a reason why 25-66 is a perennial last place station. I just put a face in the cause for our shortcomings when management likes to cover its ample @sses. Instead of fixing the problems, they would rather spend their time trying to shut us up.
And your pseudo psychoanalysis sounds like it came out of a Cracker Jack box.
If you don’t like my “complaining” as you call it, move on. It’s clear you don’t understand this is a forum discussing Flint/Saginaw area TV media.
There’s a reason why 25-66 is a perennial last place station. I just put a face in the cause for our shortcomings when management likes to cover its ample @sses. Instead of fixing the problems, they would rather spend their time trying to shut us up.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Did you ever stop and think that maybe you are the problem? You bitch and complain about your situation, your company, and ANYONE that holds a leadership position. Maybe it's time for a little self reflection.
What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?
- audiophile
- Posts: 8546
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Mark it up with your changes in blue ink, sign each page, copy it and give it to them. They probably wouldn't have said anything.Frosty wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:33 pmNot so fast. Many years ago, I was given a non-compete to sign --- more than 2 years after I had been working for said movie theater/broadcasting company. I asked for revisions and was stonewalled. Quickly began a job search and was fired soon after. Fortunately, I got a job across town quickly and had no non-compete to deal with. A co-worker signed it and had lots of trouble when he jumped to a competitor. That was not fair.TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 pmThere may be a common ground here, to restrict noncompete agreements and to define which ones the court would throw out in a lawsuit. Maybe a severance package at 100% salary in the same timeframe which the noncompete agreement was in force. I seem to remember a company discussed here that said you couldn't work within 600 miles of the market for like 5 years. That seems ridiculous, and should be unenforceable. If the companies don't like it, don't require unreasonable noncompete agreements. Easy fix.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Yep. I do something similar anytime I get the "we own rights to all your IP" clauses in contracts I have to sign. Change it to something reasonable and it's no issue, but they always as for the moon initially.audiophile wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:38 amMark it up with your changes in blue ink, sign each page, copy it and give it to them. They probably wouldn't have said anything.Frosty wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:33 pmNot so fast. Many years ago, I was given a non-compete to sign --- more than 2 years after I had been working for said movie theater/broadcasting company. I asked for revisions and was stonewalled. Quickly began a job search and was fired soon after. Fortunately, I got a job across town quickly and had no non-compete to deal with. A co-worker signed it and had lots of trouble when he jumped to a competitor. That was not fair.TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 pmThere may be a common ground here, to restrict noncompete agreements and to define which ones the court would throw out in a lawsuit. Maybe a severance package at 100% salary in the same timeframe which the noncompete agreement was in force. I seem to remember a company discussed here that said you couldn't work within 600 miles of the market for like 5 years. That seems ridiculous, and should be unenforceable. If the companies don't like it, don't require unreasonable noncompete agreements. Easy fix.
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Matt: no, I have never considered myself as the problem at 25-66 for one simple reason…. the problems were here long before I started, and will be here (unfortunately) long after I leave. If I don’t discuss the multitude of problems, it’s not like they go away.
Ratings will still suck. Pay will be embarrassingly low. Bad morale. Lack of diversity in management ranks. No journalistic integrity, our news will continue to be for sale. Corporate must runs.
But sure, put the blame on me for all of 25-66's problems if that makes you sleep better at night.
Ratings will still suck. Pay will be embarrassingly low. Bad morale. Lack of diversity in management ranks. No journalistic integrity, our news will continue to be for sale. Corporate must runs.
But sure, put the blame on me for all of 25-66's problems if that makes you sleep better at night.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 10:00 am
Re: Banning Non-Competes
C’mon Matt. I’ve been working for the State for nearly 25 years and have had ONE decent director of my office in that time period. The current director at my office is what I call an over educated idiot, as he lacks common sense but has a Masters Degree. The rah rah positive attitude that he demands in the office just ignores a multitude of issues there. I point them out and am deemed negative. No, I’m not negative but I just don’t walk around with those colored glasses on.
And this is EXACTLY what Sinklair does with pointing out the issues at 25/66. My God, they pull Mike Redfield off weekday evening broadcasts to do weekends because of the trickle down effect of firing Rachelle Spence? That’s just completely ignorant management
Re: Banning Non-Competes
Woolfolk is doing weekends now? Hopefully if Mike lands something better they let him out. Although the contracts probably lock you in regardless even though that schedule isn’t what you signed up for.