Both the State Assembly and Senate have now passed a law outlawing non-compete clauses in broadcasting contracts. The bill now goes to the governor, who can either sign it or veto it.
Get more info here.
Get more info here.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Legislature Outlaws Non-Competes
- Thread starter SirRoxalot
- Start date
Interesting. I wonder why, with all of the other ridiculous stuff that goes on in this state, that the politicians thought this was really important? Anyway...........
I wonder if the lack of a non-compete clause will cause employers to sign more people to actual contracts? I was a pretty minor player during my time so I never signed a contract.
Rox, you might know. Do most full-time talent in Buffalo have contracts at all?
I wonder if the lack of a non-compete clause will cause employers to sign more people to actual contracts? I was a pretty minor player during my time so I never signed a contract.
Rox, you might know. Do most full-time talent in Buffalo have contracts at all?
So does this mean that if Governor Patterson signs this bill into law that Brother Wease doesn't have to wait a few more months before being able to return to the airwaves?
As for non-competes in general, while having never worked at a union station, nor signed a personal contract, I was also opposed to the idea of someone being held to a non-compete clause, especially if their previous contract expired and that person's employer let them go. But that's just my humble opinion.
As for non-competes in general, while having never worked at a union station, nor signed a personal contract, I was also opposed to the idea of someone being held to a non-compete clause, especially if their previous contract expired and that person's employer let them go. But that's just my humble opinion.
The measure has been pushed relentlessly by labor unions in New York. You know, SEIU, AFSCME, college professors and so forth. Unions really run the state. They tell Sheldon Silver what to do, and Joe Bruno had to sell out to the unions to keep a tentative grip on the Senate (a disastrous strategy which is leading to what's viewed as an almost-inevitable Democrat takeover, since there's only a one-seat majority and the Dems have cut deals with at least three GOP senators to take jobs in the Paterson administration.)
[EDIT]
I know this is all off-topic but it's the background environment which has led to the death of noncompetes.
[EDIT-off topic]
[EDIT]
I know this is all off-topic but it's the background environment which has led to the death of noncompetes.
[EDIT-off topic]
State of Affairs
The Democrats are beholding to labor unions? Who knew?
I don't know how the new law would affect existing contracts. I doubt that it could be made retroactive, so I expect that Wease won't be affected.
I believe that a number of air personalities in Buffalo have non-competes written into their current contracts. I know several people who were told to "sign it, or start looking". I don't know anybody who had the stones to tell corporate no. I do know a few people who opted to work without the "protection" of a contract over the years.
It's my understanding that it was the demise of Joe Bruno that allowed this bill to get out of committee and come to a vote in the Senate. I also understand that the NYS Broadcasters Assn. will try to put pressure on Governor Patterson to pocket the bill, delaying action until it's finally brought up for a veto vote. It would appear to be veto-proof, but this is the NYS Legislature, which has the same slogan as the NYS Lottery (i.e. "Ay, vos nunquam teneo" or "Hey, you never know").
[EDIT]
[EDIT-off topic]
The Democrats are beholding to labor unions? Who knew?
I don't know how the new law would affect existing contracts. I doubt that it could be made retroactive, so I expect that Wease won't be affected.
I believe that a number of air personalities in Buffalo have non-competes written into their current contracts. I know several people who were told to "sign it, or start looking". I don't know anybody who had the stones to tell corporate no. I do know a few people who opted to work without the "protection" of a contract over the years.
It's my understanding that it was the demise of Joe Bruno that allowed this bill to get out of committee and come to a vote in the Senate. I also understand that the NYS Broadcasters Assn. will try to put pressure on Governor Patterson to pocket the bill, delaying action until it's finally brought up for a veto vote. It would appear to be veto-proof, but this is the NYS Legislature, which has the same slogan as the NYS Lottery (i.e. "Ay, vos nunquam teneo" or "Hey, you never know").
[EDIT]
[EDIT-off topic]
If it's like Massachusetts's experience a few years ago, it would immediately render all non-compete clauses unenforceable. It's not quite retroactive...in the sense that Wease couldn't sue for lost wages between the end of the contract and whenever the bill becomes law. But he could, the day the law goes into effect, go out and work elsewhere as if his non-compete clause didn't exist. Again, this is if NYC is like Mass...I couldn't tell you if it is; I didn't even realize NY didn't have this law in place already, I'd been so used to it being in effect when I lived in Boston.
Frankly, I fail to see why it's such a bad thing. Non-compete clauses really tip the scales in favor of the employer, and while I can't speak for NY, I can sure speak for New England where that kind of leverage was widely abused to really screw a lot of talented staff.
A
anoldguy
Guest
Non competes have gone the way of the dinosaur. With just a few companies owning all the broadcast properties where would talent go anyway? Non competes have always been one-sided in the favor of the employer and they are no longer needed.
As far as unions go.... I have worked long and hard for many years and have a pension (not a shaky K-401) and benefits. I got them because of unions, not because of the luck of the draw of working for greedy employers. Thank you unions and New York.
As far as unions go.... I have worked long and hard for many years and have a pension (not a shaky K-401) and benefits. I got them because of unions, not because of the luck of the draw of working for greedy employers. Thank you unions and New York.
Eugene V. Debs I'm not, but having recently read about the historic Pullman Strike, the name's fresh in my mind.
Unions play an essential role in setting the mark and maintaining a standard of living. Teachers, university professors, steamfitters, nurses, steelworkers, ship builders, contruction trades, even cops and firemen, would have been trampled upon if not for the benefits of collective bargaining which resulted from organizing. Not many people remember when NABET, IBEW and AFTRA were legitimate unions in Buffalo and Rochester, and the Teamsters, which I believe represented certain departments at WOKR-TV?
Are unions perfect? By no means. Cite again the Teamsters and certain locals in Buffalo and Niagara County which sometimes resorted to thugery and intimidation to get their way with contractors. Inexcusable and criminal! The perpetrators have been tried, convicted and sent to prison. Even the famous Pullman Strike had a sordid component.
I've had a few go-rounds with unions, a few of which I've been a member. But in large part unions have stood stalwart against the near corporate fascism that would have stripped the country bare and rode roughshod over those workers who labored long and hard to bring home a livable wage.
Radio corporations, it seems, won't be satisfied until their companies operate on a Wal-Mart platform, providing a part time wage for a fulltime job, lacking reasonable health insurance or substantial long term security. Some of us wonder why a new generation of broadcasters appears sparse at best. After interning and working promotions for minimum wage, college graduates often learn lessons that could not have been learned in the classroom.
Unions play an essential role in setting the mark and maintaining a standard of living. Teachers, university professors, steamfitters, nurses, steelworkers, ship builders, contruction trades, even cops and firemen, would have been trampled upon if not for the benefits of collective bargaining which resulted from organizing. Not many people remember when NABET, IBEW and AFTRA were legitimate unions in Buffalo and Rochester, and the Teamsters, which I believe represented certain departments at WOKR-TV?
Are unions perfect? By no means. Cite again the Teamsters and certain locals in Buffalo and Niagara County which sometimes resorted to thugery and intimidation to get their way with contractors. Inexcusable and criminal! The perpetrators have been tried, convicted and sent to prison. Even the famous Pullman Strike had a sordid component.
I've had a few go-rounds with unions, a few of which I've been a member. But in large part unions have stood stalwart against the near corporate fascism that would have stripped the country bare and rode roughshod over those workers who labored long and hard to bring home a livable wage.
Radio corporations, it seems, won't be satisfied until their companies operate on a Wal-Mart platform, providing a part time wage for a fulltime job, lacking reasonable health insurance or substantial long term security. Some of us wonder why a new generation of broadcasters appears sparse at best. After interning and working promotions for minimum wage, college graduates often learn lessons that could not have been learned in the classroom.
There's no clear indication about the immediate impact if the Gov. signs the bill...but I'm sure the lawyers on all sides will get involved.
I'm GUESSING anyone currently out of work's non-compete will become invalid immediately and any new deals signed after the law goes into effect obviously won't contain a non-compete.
Anyone currently under contract...how it's handled, who knows! I can't see anyone's lawyers not fighting over a top level talent that decides to quit right after the law is signed so they can cross the street for more money...I think this law was designed just to further define what I believe has always existed...NY being a right to work state.
For years, people have fought these clauses and won in the past...it all depends who you deal with. This also prevents the nonsense of a company letting a high priced talent's deal expire, with no intention of re-signing them, but then trying to block them from working within the market. I don't see non-competes in sports or a variety of other careers...why should non competes be allowed in radio?
I'm GUESSING anyone currently out of work's non-compete will become invalid immediately and any new deals signed after the law goes into effect obviously won't contain a non-compete.
Anyone currently under contract...how it's handled, who knows! I can't see anyone's lawyers not fighting over a top level talent that decides to quit right after the law is signed so they can cross the street for more money...I think this law was designed just to further define what I believe has always existed...NY being a right to work state.
For years, people have fought these clauses and won in the past...it all depends who you deal with. This also prevents the nonsense of a company letting a high priced talent's deal expire, with no intention of re-signing them, but then trying to block them from working within the market. I don't see non-competes in sports or a variety of other careers...why should non competes be allowed in radio?
'Coors, New York is an "employment at will" (scroll down half way) state, which is why certain labor rules apply when non-compete language is in effect. Essentially, an employee can be given the bum's rush at any time. It helps the employer to have a paper trail and cause before dismissing an employee, but the fact is, an employee can be shown the door "at will."luvcoors said:
The language of the newly-crafted legislation will be interesting to parse. I have not read it. If the legislation is signed into law, there's no doubt the attorneys that specialize in labor law and its application will be ready to take on employers who've vindictively written non-compete's into the contracts.
One very important point however, is the fact that many companies will write their contracts and will stipulate that the contracts are governed by the laws of other states that are more "corporate friendly" such as Delaware, Massachusetts or New Jersey.
This is where the law, especially as it pertains to the locality in which the contract is applied, becomes particularly interesting. The contract may be written according to the laws of Delaware, but the employee and station are in Rochester, NEW YORK and adhere to the employment regulations of this state.
For the benefit of my brethren still in the business, the eradication of non-compete clauses is long overdue as they are unduly burdensome. I'm certainly no lawyer (although I've painted a few lawyers' homes), but I feel that when the contract term is up, it's up. Sign for two years? Then two years it is, not two years and three months or six months. The employee should be paid for the period if the non-compete is in force.
luvcoors said:
Yes and no. There have been judges that have ruled for the company and others that have sided with the employee. It's a crapshoot. A good attorney will tell his client there are no guarantees when a judge and jury are involved, whether it's a civil or criminal case. Most of agrieved employees and their attorneys will take their cases to arbitration before a judge who is inclined to tell both parties to "work it out between yourselves by a certain date, or I'll work it out and you may not like the results." This may have been the case earlier this year with John Murphy when he moved from Channel 7 to Channel 4.
Of course, if a company aggressively defends the non-compete, it may run the risk of appearing as a corporate pariah, especially if the air talent is beloved, has a long run in the market and has been a good and long-standing citizen of the community, for example, a guy like Dan Neaverth, Sr. It's even more apparent if the employee is a night guy who made $27 thousand a year while the CEO gets a corporate jet and a million dollar bonus every quarter.
Mike...
You paint houses...yet have so much knowledge of broadcast biz...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? I'm missing something here
Anyhow...lemme answer in reverse.
I'm fully aware that not everyone wins a case about a non-compete in court. I never stated that everyone wins. It's also a question of how important was the employee when the decision is made to fight it or not. If it's a talent that didn't draw ratings...sometimes they let it go. But I'd say 75% of time...they go to court no matter what.
"Employment at will"...yes I know since it's now written into people's contracts that way...also like a "3 strikes, you're out" policy on talent so that said radio company is not inclined to pay out more than 2 weeks in severance to you, if you're terminated due to bad work, behavior, etc. But, my term of "right to work" still applies here since I've PERSONALLY experienced this in NYS within radio and it was used in my case!
Yes...the lawyers will still continue to fight about which state has governing authority and I hope that this bill defines this to said radio companies. Citadel's deals say Nevada, CC says Texas, CBS still says NY. I don't know about Cox or Cumulus...but I assume that Cumulus is either Georgia or Texas. Which doesn't matter since the state where the person works takes precedent.
For years...these radio companies have made people work in fear over this stuff...finally the tables have turned.
But it did make me think...did Spitzer have the "girls" he worked with sign a non-compete so they'd say away from other politicians?
You paint houses...yet have so much knowledge of broadcast biz...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? I'm missing something here
Anyhow...lemme answer in reverse.
I'm fully aware that not everyone wins a case about a non-compete in court. I never stated that everyone wins. It's also a question of how important was the employee when the decision is made to fight it or not. If it's a talent that didn't draw ratings...sometimes they let it go. But I'd say 75% of time...they go to court no matter what.
"Employment at will"...yes I know since it's now written into people's contracts that way...also like a "3 strikes, you're out" policy on talent so that said radio company is not inclined to pay out more than 2 weeks in severance to you, if you're terminated due to bad work, behavior, etc. But, my term of "right to work" still applies here since I've PERSONALLY experienced this in NYS within radio and it was used in my case!
Yes...the lawyers will still continue to fight about which state has governing authority and I hope that this bill defines this to said radio companies. Citadel's deals say Nevada, CC says Texas, CBS still says NY. I don't know about Cox or Cumulus...but I assume that Cumulus is either Georgia or Texas. Which doesn't matter since the state where the person works takes precedent.
For years...these radio companies have made people work in fear over this stuff...finally the tables have turned.
But it did make me think...did Spitzer have the "girls" he worked with sign a non-compete so they'd say away from other politicians?
Every once in a while the blind dog finds a bone. Let's just say I took lots of notes while attending the Columbian School of Fraudcasting.luvcoors said:
B
Bob1370
Guest
It wouold be a real surprise if Gov, Paterson, who will depend on a lot of labor backing to fend off re-election challengers two years from now, vetoed this bill. And businesses for the most part don't have a dog in this fight, since only a relatively few firms in a few lines of business use non-competes and fewer still use them in the same way, without compensation to the employee for giving up his freedom to seek work, as broadcasters sometimes do.
If Paterson signs it, as he most likely will, you can expect to see people like Wease launch their new shows in their new radio homes quite soon.
If Paterson signs it, as he most likely will, you can expect to see people like Wease launch their new shows in their new radio homes quite soon.
J
JohnGault
Guest
Most broadcast companies will not want to challenge another company non-compete for the obvious reasons:
1. They avoid lawsuits, and 2. They have their own non-competes to protect.
I have never seen a case where a big broadcaster was concerned about how it would look. That would be refreshing. I have seen big broadcasters honor a non compete even when it's conditions were not being met, just to avoid a legal battle.
In the case of big talent, the non compete is understood to be paid for by the large inducement ($$$$$) to sign the contract. In the case of the traffic girl and overnight guy, it is just an abusive business practice.
1. They avoid lawsuits, and 2. They have their own non-competes to protect.
I have never seen a case where a big broadcaster was concerned about how it would look. That would be refreshing. I have seen big broadcasters honor a non compete even when it's conditions were not being met, just to avoid a legal battle.
In the case of big talent, the non compete is understood to be paid for by the large inducement ($$$$$) to sign the contract. In the case of the traffic girl and overnight guy, it is just an abusive business practice.
B
Bob1370
Guest
john Gault comments, "In the case of big talent, the non compete is understood to be paid for by the large inducement ($$$$$) to sign the contract. In the case of the traffic girl and overnight guy, it is just an abusive business practice."
Even the "big" talent isn't offered much compensation these days for surrendering his right to find another gig when his old employer throws him away. And the rank and file folks get nothing but months of unemployment if they're not willing to uproot their families just to keep employed. That's why the legislators apparently decided it was an abusive practice on its face the way it was being implemented today.
I think Governor Paterson will sign it in order to reinforce his labor backing, and send a message to employers not only in broadcasting but in other fields where noncompetes aren't yet SOP, not to embrace them and impose them on their staffs. Noncompetes arose originally within those few companies where trade secrets were jealously guarded for a legitimate competitive reason--and surprisingly, not even in all of those fields. (For example, auto engineers and designers, who carry truckloads of trade secrets in their heads and their portfolios, have nevertheless always been able to move freely from firm to firm in seeking the best available job unless they were being paid under a valid current contract--once any deal expires, if they and their employer don't mutually agree to renew, they were and are free agents.) Broadcasters whose work immediately becomes public domain as soon as it's done can't be held responsible for protecting trade secrets in a business where nothing stays secret...so they have no legitimate argument for holding an employee back from a competitor unless they keep him employed, paid and under contract. If you want to keep your talent from jumping to another station--then just keep him, period.
Even the "big" talent isn't offered much compensation these days for surrendering his right to find another gig when his old employer throws him away. And the rank and file folks get nothing but months of unemployment if they're not willing to uproot their families just to keep employed. That's why the legislators apparently decided it was an abusive practice on its face the way it was being implemented today.
I think Governor Paterson will sign it in order to reinforce his labor backing, and send a message to employers not only in broadcasting but in other fields where noncompetes aren't yet SOP, not to embrace them and impose them on their staffs. Noncompetes arose originally within those few companies where trade secrets were jealously guarded for a legitimate competitive reason--and surprisingly, not even in all of those fields. (For example, auto engineers and designers, who carry truckloads of trade secrets in their heads and their portfolios, have nevertheless always been able to move freely from firm to firm in seeking the best available job unless they were being paid under a valid current contract--once any deal expires, if they and their employer don't mutually agree to renew, they were and are free agents.) Broadcasters whose work immediately becomes public domain as soon as it's done can't be held responsible for protecting trade secrets in a business where nothing stays secret...so they have no legitimate argument for holding an employee back from a competitor unless they keep him employed, paid and under contract. If you want to keep your talent from jumping to another station--then just keep him, period.
Most non-compete clauses are written in language that fully protects the employer/company and afford little if any protection for the employee. These days, non-competes are being written into contracts for sales personnel as well as on-air talent.
On its face, the non-compete clause generates ill-will and the relationship is soured at first taste. I've heard it put something like, "Love the business, hate 'the man.'" But if air-talent were paid fairly and sales personnel were given an equitable across the board commission structure, companies might generate a greater degree of loyalty from their employees. Don't laugh. There are many sales reps and jocks that like working for a particular manager, GM or company, but the contract, particularly the non-compete clause, puts a bitter taste in their mouths.
A lot of companies give lip-service to the value of their employees. Platitudes such as, "Our employees are our most valuable asset" are seen from GE to Google, from Cumulus to Clear Channel. If the employees truly were the most valuable asset, they would be treated as such and there would be more of them. And they wouldn't be constrained by one sided contracts and non-compete clauses. Years ago, I overheard a very talented female morning side-kick bemoaning the fact that she made less than 20% of what her male co-host made.
Now then, it might be argued that nobody holds a gun to the heads of sales or air-talent when it comes to contracts with non-competes. True. At the same time, management would do itself a solid by saying, "We want you to feel like this contract treats you fairly and with respect to your talent and sales capablities."
Of course, there's the third immutable law of Karma. "What goes around, comes around." As you sow, so shall you reap (and sometimes, weep.)
On its face, the non-compete clause generates ill-will and the relationship is soured at first taste. I've heard it put something like, "Love the business, hate 'the man.'" But if air-talent were paid fairly and sales personnel were given an equitable across the board commission structure, companies might generate a greater degree of loyalty from their employees. Don't laugh. There are many sales reps and jocks that like working for a particular manager, GM or company, but the contract, particularly the non-compete clause, puts a bitter taste in their mouths.
A lot of companies give lip-service to the value of their employees. Platitudes such as, "Our employees are our most valuable asset" are seen from GE to Google, from Cumulus to Clear Channel. If the employees truly were the most valuable asset, they would be treated as such and there would be more of them. And they wouldn't be constrained by one sided contracts and non-compete clauses. Years ago, I overheard a very talented female morning side-kick bemoaning the fact that she made less than 20% of what her male co-host made.
Now then, it might be argued that nobody holds a gun to the heads of sales or air-talent when it comes to contracts with non-competes. True. At the same time, management would do itself a solid by saying, "We want you to feel like this contract treats you fairly and with respect to your talent and sales capablities."
Of course, there's the third immutable law of Karma. "What goes around, comes around." As you sow, so shall you reap (and sometimes, weep.)
How about this: Here in Charlotte a so called "right to work state" I was all set to do some part-time weekend on air work at my friendly Clear Channel station. In the middle of the mountain of paperwork there it was, the non-compete. It was for 6 months, covered radio and TV, there was no mileage specified. There were also no hours specified. The assistant PD in change of part-timers wasn't around so I palmed it and left them the rest of the paperwork all filled out. The next day I heard from the APD who called to ask the obvious question. I told him I would not sign, he checked to see if they would wave it, they wouldn't, so I said see ya!
Later I got on with CBS. They don't make their weekend talent sign a non-compete.
Later I got on with CBS. They don't make their weekend talent sign a non-compete.
B
Bob1370
Guest
Mike Sheridan commented, "Later I got on with CBS. They don't make their weekend talent sign a non-compete."
Are some companies less likely to use noncompetes than others--and when they do use them, do some firms couch them in less onerous and restrictive language than others? Who are the good guys, and who are the toughies in this regard? (Even if this may soon no longer matter in New York, that can make a difference to people thinking about moving on and moving out of state...)
Years ago, noncompetes were written in a way only to bar you from jumping your contract and moving crosstown to a competitor before the expiration date of your deal--you'd become a free agent if you chose to move on, or if the employer didn't want to keep you, starting at midnight following the expiration date of your contract. Up until that date, they guaranteed to keep you on staff and keep paying you, and in some cases, even guaranteed your working hours would stay the same. You guaranteed in return to give the company your best effort and the full range of your talents, and be a reliable and dependable employee always ready to carry out your assigned duties. I've signed agreements like that, thought they were fair (still do), and no one would argue that they aren't fair. You're trading a guaranteed paycheck and benefits for a certain period of time, for an agreement to give your best and not to jump ship until your contract is up...an equitable trade for all concerned. When did that change, and who was first to change it?
Are some companies less likely to use noncompetes than others--and when they do use them, do some firms couch them in less onerous and restrictive language than others? Who are the good guys, and who are the toughies in this regard? (Even if this may soon no longer matter in New York, that can make a difference to people thinking about moving on and moving out of state...)
Years ago, noncompetes were written in a way only to bar you from jumping your contract and moving crosstown to a competitor before the expiration date of your deal--you'd become a free agent if you chose to move on, or if the employer didn't want to keep you, starting at midnight following the expiration date of your contract. Up until that date, they guaranteed to keep you on staff and keep paying you, and in some cases, even guaranteed your working hours would stay the same. You guaranteed in return to give the company your best effort and the full range of your talents, and be a reliable and dependable employee always ready to carry out your assigned duties. I've signed agreements like that, thought they were fair (still do), and no one would argue that they aren't fair. You're trading a guaranteed paycheck and benefits for a certain period of time, for an agreement to give your best and not to jump ship until your contract is up...an equitable trade for all concerned. When did that change, and who was first to change it?
- Status