violation of right to work? Sorry if I'm ignorant about this. (employee, applying)

[DeliveryDriver123]

So just got hired and was told I couldn't work for a competitive business for the retailer I got hired by. Unless I'm missing something, I got told that I couldn't file an application with the company's other brand. Both businesses are owned by the same company and the guy said it was a tracking issue. Now, I'm probably completely ignorant of what this actually means and he said I also couldn't work for a competitor to the store, but don't we in California have a "right to work law"? I mean, it's a free country so unless there is some legally binding contract, I would think we can work for a competitor if we wanted to.

Thoughts? It's a retail store like Walmart and Target but I'm not giving names for privacy reasons.

[timberline742]

Work for a competitor at the same time (two jobs)? Or can't work there after you leave?

They can't prevent you from leaving your job and going to another retailer. There wouldn't be a non compete in such a situation. Certainly not an enforceable one.

[Moby Hick]

I think you talking about a non-compete clause. They are indeed not enforceable in California except in very limited circumstances that would only apply if you had an ownership stake. That's not a "Right To Work Law" (which is a name given to a law to block unions from having a closed shop).

It's just bullying and bluff. But take it as fair warning that you work for somebody who has lots of problems keeping employees. Also, if the same company has another brand, don't apply there as they'll know what you did. Legal or not, you'll have problems.

[joe from dayton]

1) California is not a right to work state. Even if it was, right to work has to do with non union status -- not the ability to do whatever you want.


2) Perfectly legal for them to prohibit you from working for a competitor while you work for them. That's just a sound business decision. Except for the most unusual circumstances (which almost no one has to worry about), they can't prohibit you from working for a competitor after you leave their employment.


3) I can only guess at the tracking issue; you would have to ask them what they mean. One possibility is that my employer has several "umbrellas" for employment, but you can only work under one umbrella, otherwise it becomes an hours worked/overtime issue. For example, if you worked 30 hrs under Umbrella A and 30 hrs under Umbrella B, you do not get 60 hours of straight pay, you get 40 hours of straight pay and 20 hrs of overtime.

[fishbrains]

Joe from Dayton is exactly correct with #3.

Two different location will track your hours separately, but the federal government will view this as on employer:employee relationship.

Let's say you work for Sears/Kmart. You work 25 hours a week at Sears, another 25 hours a week at Kmart. You receive two separate paychecks, one from each company, both for 25 hours of straight time, because they don't have integrated payroll systems. The Feds view this as you working at two different locations of the same company because they have common ownership. You should have been paid 40 hours of straight time and 10 hours of OT.

Now you have a legal claim against your employer, and they owe fines to the Feds for violations of OT law.

That is why they don't want you working at a sister company.

They may not want any of their employees working at competitors either. They can't stop you from applying, but they can certainly give you if they find out you violated company policy and work for the competition.