> Unless things have change, Metro's non-compete only applies
> to working for a competing traffic service.
>
You are absolutely right,and nothing has changed. I'm attempting to correct
a misconception that Arbitorn is propagating. In the example he/she used, that person lost the spot at a TV station through no fault of their own, thus she is not bound to the non-compete. In fact, Metro would retain that person or place them in another market if there is an opening. If someone loses their position because the station can no longer afford that level of service, it would take a very insensitive company to enforce a non-compete. I'd even say it would be illegal and probably get thrown out of court if Metro even tried to enforce it.
So, if anyone has heard that she cannot be hired elsewhere in the market because of Metro's non-compete, that is completely false. In fact, it might be said that Arbitorn citing that example only hurts her chances. Someone that might want to hire her might shy away from it after reading that post. Being in management with Metro in this market puts me as close to that situation as you can get, so trust me on this.
I normally don't participate in these boards, but a misconception that could hurt a good reporters' ability to be hired needed to be corrected. And two more things...1)I would never insult anyone by trying to hire them at $6 hour, and 2)Metro is not responsible for the on-air talent search. That is all theirs, thankfully.