Banning Non-Competes

[MasterB]

It is a good thing once the contract ends you should sign with any other broadcaster in the same market. I remember 20 years ago that Bill Steffen once his contract ended with WZZM he went across the street to Wood TV in 2001 been there for 20 years wasn't chief when he first signed with Wood TV until Craig James retired at the end of June 2008. At the time WZZM didn't put a Non-Compete in his contract so you could start at Wood TV ASAP. I remember Jennifer Dowling worked for WWMT in 2011 and one year later was with WXMI Fox17 in 2012 worked for Fox17 for a few years Jennifer now works in Portland.

[Matt]

What's next? Banning non-disclosure agreements?

Bottom line is the government has no role in interfering with 2 consenting adults entering into contractual agreements, so long as nothing in the agreement would otherwise constitute or force either person to engage in illegal activity.

For consistency purposes, it would have to be banning of compulsory union membership in states that haven't banned that outdated practice.

[Deleted User 15555]

Also, you argue that employers should not have the right to prevent employees from jumping ship for more money. The flip side of this, however, is that employees should not have the right to hold their employer hostage to their demands for more money. Non-compete clauses help prevent this from happening. Moreover, when you sign an employment contract, you know what you're getting paid. If you don't like what a company is offering to pay you, then don't sign the dotted line in the first place. You can't sign an employment contract and then piss and moan that you're not getting paid what you're worth.

“Employees should not have the right to hold their employer hostage for their demands of more money.”

Boy, capitalism is a real bitch when the free market works against the big guy isn’t it?

Sure contracts are an agreement. But circumstances change. Employers can dump employees when convenient, so why not the employee?

No one should be trapped in a situation that develops after that agreement is signed. And if you’re going to be cheap and pay people 30k, don’t charge them 1/3rd of that base salary to leave. Charge $500 to do some recruiting and fill the spot? That doesn’t seem unfair.

[zzand]

I have signed three non-competes in 40 years in the industry and in two of the three cases it was never an issue, in the third case, a 50 dollar lawyer letter made it go away. These days most states toss them out if taken to court.

[bmw]

Sure contracts are an agreement. But circumstances change. Employers can dump employees when convenient, so why not the employee?

That depends on the terms of the contract. You don't want to get dumped by your employer for no good reason, be sure to get such language into your contract.

No one should be trapped in a situation that develops after that agreement is signed.

So I assume you're against long-term apartment and/or property leases? How about 30-year mortgages?

[Matt]

I have signed three non-competes in 40 years in the industry and in two of the three cases it was never an issue, in the third case, a 50 dollar lawyer letter made it go away. These days most states toss them out if taken to court.

Your facts are not convenient for professional victim, Sinklair.

[craig11152]

The problem with the noncompete concept is it allows a former employer to have control over a former employee's future employment . That sort of thing needs extreme limits established by law.

[Kennelly Heaviside]

Radio was much more fun before noncompetes. I miss the days when there were there were live DJs and two or more stations in the same market with the same format, owned by different companies. I also miss the days when a DJ could leave one station and show up the next day on another station, and even mess up and say the old callsign. I miss stations that didn't even cue records.

[km1125]

One of the reason for 'non-competes' is to protect your investment and risk in a new employee. Giving them training, experience and (in these cases) on-air exposure ("advertisement and improving the employee's 'brand') is an investment. It's basically an internship but they're still getting paid pretty reasonably.

I see a few perception issues here. If the employee has the perception that they're going to be "charged them 1/3rd of that base salary to leave", then perhaps they should really reconsider if that position is worth 2/3's worth of the base salary to begin with, and 'park away' that 1/3 in case they leave. Then they'd be "whole", even with signing the non-compete.

Seems like there must also be a saturation in the market for talent in the industry if folks are accepting these agreements. Perhaps these folks should be blaming their peers for accepting these agreements in the first place. If NO ONE would sign one of these agreements, then they would not exist. Period.

[Deleted User 15555]

Sure contracts are an agreement. But circumstances change. Employers can dump employees when convenient, so why not the employee?

That depends on the terms of the contract. You don't want to get dumped by your employer for no good reason, be sure to get such language into your contract.

No one should be trapped in a situation that develops after that agreement is signed.

So I assume you're against long-term apartment and/or property leases? How about 30-year mortgages?

Mortgages you can sell your house at anytime. These companies will threaten to sue you if you leave early unless you can pay 1/3rd of your pay to get out.

And good luck on getting contract language changed from these companies. Negotiating in good faith is a two-way street and those who have contracts at stations don’t get that.

Why are you so against a level playing field BMW? If you aren’t in broadcasting why do you care that employees would have more freedom to get what they’re worth?

[bmw]

Why are you so against a level playing field BMW? If you aren’t in broadcasting why do you care that employees would have more freedom to get what they’re worth?

I'm against government interference in two consenting adults making otherwise legal contractual agreements. There's nothing forcing an employee to sign the dotted line. So long as there are employees ready and willing to sign contracts with non-compete clauses, there will be employers including such clauses in said contracts. This is a free market problem looking for a government solution. The free market solution is employees refusing to agree to such terms.

btw - while my main occupation is that of information technology, I still have an ongoing contract, renewed annually, with one of my clients which allows me to sell their products in my ebay store (I won't mention the company or the type of product, but they're not tech-related). Part of that agreement is a non-compete clause (as well as a non-disclosure clause). It basically says that I agree not to directly compete against the company so long as the contract is in place, as well as for a 90-day period after the termination of said contract. I have no issue whatsoever with these terms, and having done work for this company for this long, I fully understand why those terms are there. km1125 above is correct - a new employee gains a lot of experience and knowledge and training at the expense of the company, so in that regard, a new employee is an investment, and an employer doesn't want an employee to just use them for that.

[Deleted User 15555]

Free market is allowing equal opportunity on both sides. One side having so much control is not free market.

It’s rich calling 30k salaries an “investment”.

[bmw]

If anything, the balance is out of whack right now in favor of employees due to Covid and due to government picking and choosing which businesses can stay open and which ones must close down for a year or more, all the while the government is PAYING otherwise able-bodied employees to sit and home and collect a government paycheck, thereby artificially shrinking the labor market.

That tangent aside, the idea that somehow employers have an illegally unfair upper-hand in contract negotiations is utterly ludicrous. Absent literal collusion between multiple otherwise direct-competitors in an industry to force non-compete clauses into employment contracts, you cannot argue that there is an uneven playing field favoring employers.

[Deleted User 15555]

Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean adjustment isn’t necessary.

Non-competes and outrages fees to break contracts prevent accountability by the employer. Take a look nationally at all the open broadcast positions. Employees should have more freedom to leave if companies don’t hold up their staffing levels, something of a day to day operation that wouldn’t be visible when an employee enters that agreement

You won’t get an argument that a fee to break a contract isn’t justified. But the rates of these broadcast companies today are criminal.

Balance is good. And there isn’t balance. Again “free market only when it works for me”.

[Deleted User 15062]

There are ways around non-competes. I successfully went around 1 and worked at another station cross town. You have to plan and look carefully at management who gave the contract.

And to be frank- non-competes only work for the employer.

When I got a better offer and position, I did my research. In certain circumstances, those clauses are not legal. I was THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL person to escape a non-compete from a large radio company, in my cluster.

Point being, even without the president's help, they are reversible. Do your research and bring it with you. I personally know this.