Banning Non-Competes

[sinklair]

President Biden is expected to issue an order to ban workplace non-compete clauses.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... te-clauses

This should scare the hell out of cheap companies like Sinclair Broadcasting. No longer will they be able to force workers to sit on the sidelines for a year before taking a job across town. It will force 25-66 either to clean up its act or potentially lose good employees to 5 or 12.

No longer will Sinclair be able to ignore its worst in the market pay structure… and even worse management/low morale.

Imagine at the end of contract, a hard to find producer can be recruited by another station in the market. Or a top anchor or reporter could sign off one day and appear the next day on another channel.

And while it would have a big impact on the broadcasting end of the business, what should really scare the hell out of Jen and Cody is the ability for Sales Account Execs/Marketing Consultants to go across town.

This is long overdue and could be what is needed to make managers here understand that they are responsible to actually pay people a decent wage.

[km1125]

So he's going to make it illegal for two consenting parties to come to a legal agreement?? Wonder how quickly this will get challenged and found unconstitutional?

It's the employees that are at fault here. If you don't want a non-compete, then don't join a company that has one. Companies would have to raise the stakes to get potential employees to join and not bother signing one, because that's exactly what's happened over the years. If employees aren't getting the perks that make a non-compete attractive, then they shouldn't be jumping ship to join a company that requires one. Period. If Sinclair was the only company requiring one, they'd not be able to recruit new talent.

[TC Shuts Up]

There may be a common ground here, to restrict noncompete agreements and to define which ones the court would throw out in a lawsuit. Maybe a severance package at 100% salary in the same timeframe which the noncompete agreement was in force. I seem to remember a company discussed here that said you couldn't work within 600 miles of the market for like 5 years. That seems ridiculous, and should be unenforceable. If the companies don't like it, don't require unreasonable noncompete agreements. Easy fix.

[Frosty]

There may be a common ground here, to restrict noncompete agreements and to define which ones the court would throw out in a lawsuit. Maybe a severance package at 100% salary in the same timeframe which the noncompete agreement was in force. I seem to remember a company discussed here that said you couldn't work within 600 miles of the market for like 5 years. That seems ridiculous, and should be unenforceable. If the companies don't like it, don't require unreasonable noncompete agreements. Easy fix.

Not so fast. Many years ago, I was given a non-compete to sign --- more than 2 years after I had been working for said movie theater/broadcasting company. I asked for revisions and was stonewalled. Quickly began a job search and was fired soon after. Fortunately, I got a job across town quickly and had no non-compete to deal with. A co-worker signed it and had lots of trouble when he jumped to a competitor. That was not fair.

[Deleted User 15555]

So he's going to make it illegal for two consenting parties to come to a legal agreement?? Wonder how quickly this will get challenged and found unconstitutional?

It's the employees that are at fault here. If you don't want a non-compete, then don't join a company that has one. Companies would have to raise the stakes to get potential employees to join and not bother signing one, because that's exactly what's happened over the years. If employees aren't getting the perks that make a non-compete attractive, then they shouldn't be jumping ship to join a company that requires one. Period. If Sinclair was the only company requiring one, they'd not be able to recruit new talent.

Name a business or industry that charges workers 25% or more of their 30,000-40,000 salary to leave if the situation isn’t right and then once they pay, won’t let them find a place of employment unless that company says it’s okay.

[Deleted User 15555]

If companies want stipulations for employees who break contracts that’s something that could be understood.

But the level of restrictions and the amount of those fines have gone beyond reasonable.

[TC Shuts Up]

Lawyers write these things not for the employer or employee, but for themselves. What they write invariably makes them more money.

Another thing. When things start to go bad, ask for the actual official company employee manual. It's different from the one they give you when you go to work for them. The official manual is full of things they don't want the employee to know. If they refuse to acknowledge its existence, start looking. Unfortunately, the official company employee manual often only appears when subpoenaed.

Those fines are ridiculous given the salary involved. The reason they get away with it is too many people want too few jobs in broadcasting. Look at various places online, and you'll see many who have left the business and are much happier without the craziness. The same goes for many businesses.

Think of it like the sign up list for 15 minute airshafts in the middle of the night on "student run" college radio stations, even carrier currents in the past. Many find it's not as glamorous as it appears. And the student managers are often tyrants. Good experience for the real world though.

[sinklair]

KM: written just like one of those managers requiring non-compete clauses… or someone who has never worked in the broadcasting industry.

So let’s explore your nonsensical reasoning. You blame the employees for pursuing employment in their given field. If I should go to a company that doesn’t require signing one of these contracts with a non-compete, which one should I go to? 25-66 (Sinclair), 5 (Meredith) and 12 (Gray) all have these clauses. In fact, every major commercial broadcaster in Michigan have these clauses.

The reasoning that companies say they need these non-competes is that they are protecting trade secrets and other “vital” business interests. That’s BS as well. Tell me what trade secrets an entry level photographer, reporter, or producer is privy to? Even the most experienced anchors don’t have the level of information that could irreparably harm one of these billion dollar broadcasting companies.

The fact is Sinclair and other local broadcasters just want to make it harder for its employees to leave and seek employment at a competitor. That’s not a good reason to allow continued use of these clauses. There’s a better approach as an employer… pay your employees better, improve morale, provide better benefits, etc.

If you think non-competes are so important, I’d say limit them to the very well compensated General Managers, In Over Her Head News Director, the Director of Declining Sales and other department heads.

[Realist]

Seems to me that I’ve read where non competes, when a company fires someone and doesn’t have a payout clause in said employees contract, have been ruled unenforceable in Michigan. Courts have looked at it this way: how can you deprive someone from making a living after terminating their employment?

I truly can see, once his contract at 25/66 expires, Dave Bondy going back to TV5 (once Gray’s acquisition is complete) if this Executive Order is signed.

[bmw]

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.

[sinklair]

BMW: it must be nice living in your fantasy world. However government regulates all types of activity. And when it comes to making sure companies don’t collude to prevent the lawful search for employment (AKA life, liberty and the pursuit of moolah), government has the right and responsibility to even the playing field.

[bmw]

Collusion? LOL. Companies aren't working together in some sort of conspiracy to force non-compete clauses onto employees.

So what are your thoughts on 1-year leases? Should I be able to break a 1-year lease after just 6 months and not pay my landlord for the remainder of the agreement?

[sinklair]

Hardly the same comparison. But thanks for playing. You sound like one of the anonymous 25-66 “managers” who post on the Buzzboard.

The argument is whether employees should be prevented from seeking employment with a competitor for 6 months to a year AFTER the employment contract has ended.

If you’re a manager worth your spit, you don’t have to worry about losing your employees to the competition. Do the right thing and earn the respect of your colleagues and you’ll keep people from jumping ship. However, treat your employees like sh*t and pay them barely a living wage, then yes, you will lose them to the competition. It’s the free market, baby!

If you don’t want to pay Dave Bondy what he’s worth then Dave should be allowed to go to 5 or 12 if he can make more money there. Same goes for a new photog… MMJ… producer… digital staff. If a station is really that concerned about a little known MMJ, it’s simple, pay him or her more. If the company doesn’t want to pay more, that’s its right… but it shouldn’t then be concerned about the employee working across town.

[bmw]

Just because employment has ended doesn't mean the employment contract has ended. Just like how even if your occupation of a building has ended, that doesn't mean you don't still have obligations to the landlord.

And side-note; I hate to disappoint you, but I do not and have never worked in TV or radio (or any media business for that matter).

[bmw]

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.