Rocky D?

[ncscradiogeek]

Here is my question.
Do any of us rocky fans have a real chance of him coming back to Charleston Radio?
In looking at the situation I am doubtful.
Clear Channel is most likely not going to pick him up. If they wanted a local show they would already have a local show on 94.3
Not sure either Apex or Kirkman could pay enough for Rocky. And lastly Cumulus is not going to reverse the choice they made.
I would be interested on the thoughts from those who have actually worked or are working in radio. I am just basing my thinking off of what little I know about the workings of the market here.

 

[GordonSims]

If he was replaced with a syndicated show - then Cumulus won't be bringing him back
Were his numbers strong enough for a competitor to take a chance? I dont know.
Has Cumulus been enforcing their non-compete clauses???

 

[Gatekeeper007]

With the sudden layoff in a lot of industries including broadcasting I think it is time for the non compete clauses to be droped. If the industry won't do it then government should maybe give them a shove in that direction. Times have changed in the last few years to where you can never be sure about even having a job next month muchless next year. With this being the case non compete clauses need to be supended to meet the new times.

 

[Ssummers]

I never understood why and how a non-compete could be enforced in "termination without cause" cases anyway. That kind of sh*t should be against the law.

 

[DudeFan]

Scott:

The courts are making them much harder to enforces except where the former employer can demonstrate harm. The touchstone has always been whether it is reasonable in scope and the employee has received consideration in exchange for the non-compete. In some jurisdictions, continued at-will employment is insufficient consideration.

 

[Ssummers]

I understand that. But, like I said, "without cause" would fall into the "demonstrating harm" category, wouldn't it? And I understand the compensation part. One of my lawyers here in NC(Mike Williford) argued the "non-compete" issue several years ago before the NC Supreme Court and the "compensation", when said "compensation" took place and what said "compensation" was were the 3 key points. Prior to that, I suppose too many employers tried to compensate with CDs and station T-shirts.

 

[radiostuwright]

On the no-compete, I am not pretending to be a legal expert (or any other kind
for that matter) but I think the no compete in broadcasting was back in the day
when a station would spend big bucks to bring a talent to town, and then six
months later have him/her leave to go "across town" for a a few more dollars
a week. I think if there is a no compete, it should only run as long as the
severance. But here is an angle if you are on the wrong end of the situation,
say "If I was not good enough to keep, why would you worry about me
competing aganist you"...

 

[DudeFan]

You all are correct in that the issue of "harm" often hinges on the reason for termination. If you were terminated without cause, it can be argued that the employer found your services to be no longer of value to them (and by extension, a competitor). However, there can also be issues of proof of monetary "harm" and even changes in the market that would negate the potential damage from walking across the street... e.g., CHR jock terminated when station goes Soft AC, etc.

Like anything else, there are a number of factors that roll into the issue of consideration. Some states have said the employer actualy has to buy the right to have a non-compete. Others still say continued employment is enough.

Most states have said that a year period at most is reasonable... in fact in some fields, six months is the maximum period for a non-compete.

 

[ncscradiogeek]

How does it work in SC?
I would think that would be hard to enforce in a right to work state.