1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cali Supreme Court rejects non-compete clauses

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    I thought about posting this in Journalism Topics Only because many TV reporters and anchors have to deal with non-compete clauses, but since the court decision's not specific to journalists I put it here instead.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/07/BAUH12716R.DTL&tsp=1

    I like this ruling. Your old employer shouldn't be able to tell you where you can and cannot work.

    Actual ruling is here (PDF, big).
     
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    I don't have a problem with no-compete clauses so much if it's the employee who leaves on his own with a contract. But if the employer tells the employe to get lost, that's definitely a problem. Unless, of course, said employer is still paying because of a contract.
     
  3. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    Sorry, Tony ... this is yet another one where we disagree.

    If Joe Schmoe's contract at one place is up and he gets a better offer from the competitor across town, his now-former employer shouldn't be able to tell him where he can and can't work once his contract has expired. Key factor here: once his contract has expired.
     
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    We agree, coff. I only agree with no-competes while the contract is still in effect. Once it's up, free to go anywhere. My stand is basically a carbon copy of what buck just posted.
     
  5. Care Bear

    Care Bear Guest

    I work at a TV station under an expired non-compete. The large media company that I work for has bought another affiliate in the market. The strongest station in our market was bought by a different company. It has been wink wink delivered to us that we cannot apply at any station currently being bought because these "duopolies" are still under negotiation. My non-compete expired a year ago. I find this to be absolute bullshit. My non-compete is over, done with...but I can't apply at any of the other decent stations in town. The FCC sucks. This is a monopoly.
     
  6. JR

    JR Active Member

    Why should the employer have the upper hand in this issue?

    If Bob's Widget company can terminate a contract unilaterally, the employee should have the same right--without punishment

    Non-compete clauses exist in almost every industry and unless there's proof that an employee is literally stealing proprietary informaion, they're only enforceable through corporate intimidation.

    Bob's Widget company likely has more resources to fight this in court; Joe Blow doesn't--so they acquiesce.

    More kowtowing to the corporate agenda. Just what we need in North America
     
  7. Care Bear

    Care Bear Guest

    My post was not really adhering to the thread, but I will say that most non-compete situations (that I have seen) were not fair to the employee. And so many employees stay in horrible situations because they are scared of legal action. And they have been involved in truly unfair circumstances. This non-compete nonsense needs to be fixed.
     
  8. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Non-competes are just illegal bullshit.
     
  9. joe

    joe Active Member

    An ex got fired for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement that came out of the blue. I supported her on principle and financially and never regretted it, even though we were making close to $90,000 a year combined.
     
  10. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Any decision that buttresses employee rights is a welcome one, particularly in this economic climate. It was a pleasant surprise from this court, though. Maybe the Supremes have been following the Brett Favre situation?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page