Legislature Outlaws Non-Competes

[SirRoxalot]

Buh-Bye...

The management POV on non-competes is:

"We invested time, money, and promotional considerations to turn you into a household name. We want to make sure that our investment doesn't benefit another company."

I believe that TV used non-competes more extensively than radio in the latter half of the 1900s, until radio broadcasters decided that it seemed like a good idea for them, too. It seems to me that the real growth of non-competes took place after 1980, and it really exploded with the corporatization of radio (i.e. "Clear Channelitis") in the '90s and the current decade.

I doubt that losing non-competes will damage the broadcasting industry. It's possible that it might create a little more competition for top-flight talent, which could mean more money for a few. It will likely be "businesses as usual" for those who are in the trenches. Personally, I find it repugnant that someone who isn't paying me can prevent me from working.

PS - Non-competes for weekenders? Now THAT'S exploitative.

 

[luvcoors]

In the last 5 years, I've personally experienced the following (since the cases are about people I worked with or worked for me) with non-competes and contracts in general:

-A board-op (paid hourly, 30 per wk.) at CC being forced to sign a non-compete. Being his first job in the biz while in school, he signed it. 8 months later when his hours were cut (to less than 1/3 of original) because of budget issues, he sought out another position crosstown. After a couple of weeks, he found one. Did the honorable thing and gave 3 weeks notice even though he was hardly working, mgmt. then all of sudden promised him more hours to stay...he politely declined. CC mgmt. then decided to go legal and sent his new employer a notice threatening action. New company declined to fight it because of current litigation between the 2 companies feeling it would further the issues, but stood by their decision in hiring him, telling him they'll keep his spot for 6 months and would wait to have him. It ended well

-Another former co-worker decides to leave position giving 30 days notice citing family reasons (moving & getting out of radio) and other personal ones. Mgmt. threatens employee up until final days of work about not being able to break the contract regardless of the issues, even though it's documented why employee is leaving. Finally, bluff is called by employee and it's suddenly revealed the day employee leaves that "corporate decided to let you go". PLEASE!

-Someone on my staff a few years back had some personal issues & decided they needed to leave and move 3 months before deal expired. After meeting with upper mgmt. and processing the info...it was given green light and employee had decided to stay 6 more weeks in order to give me a chance to replace them. 2 days before employee was to leave (and had secured new employment where moving to while staying with family)...upper mgmt. says the employee now can't leave. What the...? Bottom line, employee ended up being "released" from deal 2 weeks before expiration...but yet new job was gone since the new employer felt they were wronged!

I have more...but bottom line, it's become the new way of doing business. In order to avoid these basic non-competes or other restrictive clauses...you need to be in a position of importance to be able to have the leverage to have them stricken. They want you to sign a deal with a non-compete but an open ended clause that allows them to release you "at-will" (budget cuts, etc.) but still enforce a non-compete (which I've seen done too)? Then they have to pay you off...can't have it both ways!

There's current litigation between all the companies about employees within markets and across markets...they're all trying to strike deals.
Waive your non-compete about DJ X in this market and I'll give you sales person Y in this other market...trust me it's happening!

Like it's been mentioned...be more fair to your horses...they'll run more miles with better results!

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Coors the stuff you mention sounds just plain mean spirited. It's a wonder anyone even wants to work for these "people".

Would you believe at one station I work at jocks were actually bragging they had a contract. It seemed dumb to me then and I haven't changed my opinion. Some people don't stop to think what can happen until it happens.

I will do anything for an employer if they show that they care about me. Even little things help.

 

[aaronread]

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.

FWIW, I got a rather frantic-sounding email from the NYSBA today, asking all members to immediately lobby Paterson to veto the bill.

 

[umtrr-author]

I have more...but bottom line, it's become the new way of doing business. In order to avoid these basic non-competes or other restrictive clauses...you need to be in a position of importance to be able to have the leverage to have them stricken. They want you to sign a deal with a non-compete but an open ended clause that allows them to release you "at-will" (budget cuts, etc.) but still enforce a non-compete (which I've seen done too)? Then they have to pay you off...can't have it both ways!

I can tell you first hand that this tactic is not limited to radio...

 

[Element9]

Republicans and Barrister Savage will disagree, but this is one case where the (public employee) unions serve those who are not protected by unions. It would be a genuine surprise if their influence on the governor did not result in the bill being signed into law.

-9-