Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:26 PM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,161,983 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Lest the point is missed, I want you free market types to justify requiring employees to agree to non compete agreements. Particularly when said agreements are hidden withing the employment deal.
You have to come up with valid questions. They are not hidden and no one is forced to sign one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:29 PM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,161,983 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post

They are being used more and more so it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't already or soon would be subject to them.
So that would be no, you do not know if they are but we are still suppose to comment as if they are?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:30 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,817,332 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Ahh, so you're for big daddy government coming in regulate.
where did i say that? non competes restrain the ability of employees to move from one employer to another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Don't like it, then don't sign the contract. That's how a free market works.
sure, dont sign the contract, and dont get the job. very simple, and restraint of trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You seemed to post in the first part that you understand why people wouldn't be able to just change employers?
no, i said i understand why non competes were created in the first place, i never said i agreed with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:31 PM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,161,983 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Non compete clauses are usually accompanied by a time length and a territorial radius.
Yep....it actually worked good for my daughter as the end of the area was actually closer to where she lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:31 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,014,556 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Heard this topic on the news the other day and did a little looking:

Noncompete agreements are spreading beyond the high-tech and sales fields to professions such as hair stylists, camp counselors, yoga instructors and exterminators.


A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete that barred him from working at any salon in nearby towns for one year.

After the ruling, McKinnon survived for a year on unemployment benefits of $300 a week. “It was pretty lousy that you would take away someone’s livelihood like that,” he told the Times. “I almost lost my truck. I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me.”

I would never sign a noncompete clause ever. Just because it is rumored courts won't enforce the deals, no one needs that legal doc hanging over their head. Her story is more than enough reason not to ever sign one.

If new grads, employees would stick together on this, the non compete clause would go away just like the Dodo bird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:35 PM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,161,983 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post



no, i said i understand why non competes were created in the first place, i never said i agreed with them.
So it makes no sense to you for a business to say...."I'm going to invest many hours with you teaching you this business and trust you with the many customers i've acquired along the way and in return you will not leave upon said training and go to work for another similar company for X years".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:36 PM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,161,983 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
I would never sign a noncompete clause ever. Just because it is rumored courts won't enforce the deals, no one needs that legal doc hanging over their head. Her story is more than enough reason not to ever sign one.
Done correctly they are enforceable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:44 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,716,857 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
So a McDonalds counter person has received special training and so cannot go to work a Burger King?

Face it. These low level non competes are nothing more that a means for businesses to exercise tyranny on their their employees.
tyranny on their employees? It is the employee who applies and accepts the job. If they don't like the job or the policies they are "free" to choose to leave. That is not tyranny.

Tyranny: A cruel and oppressive government or rule.

When a government uses an arm of the government to oppress (silence) the people that is a form of tyranny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:46 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,817,332 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
So it makes no sense to you for a business to say...."I'm going to invest many hours with you teaching you this business and trust you with the many customers i've acquired along the way and in return you will not leave upon said training and go to work for another similar company for X years".
like i said, i understand why non competes were created. but lets say you are an engineer for hendrick motorsports, say on jimmy johnsons race team. and lets say you are making pretty good money, doing that job, and you are rather successful at the job. now lets say joe gibbs comes along and offers you a lot more money to work for him, as well as greater responsibility, say chief engineer for gibbs racing. you want the job, as your job at hendrick is ending at the end of the season, but you signed a non compete agreement, so you cannot take the gibbs racing job, in fact you cannot take ANY job with ANY nascar team for a period of time. is that fair to you? you now have to not only change job, but you have to leave nascar to get a job, and as such you now have to learn to deal with the engineering issues on say an indy lights race team for a lot less money. again is that fair to you?

large companies accept that their employees move from job to job, it happens. so what they do is improve their business to remain highly competitve.

non competes to me are a businesses way of swaying we are lazy and dont want to really compete against others, and dont want to improve our business, so we dont want others to improve their businesses either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:53 PM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,161,983 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
like i said, i understand why non competes were created. but lets say you are an engineer for hendrick motorsports, say on jimmy johnsons race team. and lets say you are making pretty good money, doing that job, and you are rather successful at the job. now lets say joe gibbs comes along and offers you a lot more money to work for him, as well as greater responsibility, say chief engineer for gibbs racing. you want the job, as your job at hendrick is ending at the end of the season, but you signed a non compete agreement, so you cannot take the gibbs racing job, in fact you cannot take ANY job with ANY nascar team for a period of time. is that fair to you?
Absolutely. When Hendricks hired you, you signed an agreement that you decided was in your best interest. It would seem that you got what you expected from them. Now you provide what they expect from you.

But I have to say once again, I can not even say that this is a problem as I see guys switching teams all the time.


Quote:
you now have to not only change job, but you have to leave nascar to get a job, and as such you now have to learn to deal with the engineering issues on say an indy lights race team for a lot less money. again is that fair to you?

large companies accept that their employees move from job to job, it happens. so what they do is improve their business to remain highly competitve.

non competes to me are a businesses way of swaying we are lazy and dont want to really compete against others, and dont want to improve our business, so we dont want others to improve their businesses either.
I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for them, you say you understand that reasoning but still you run the train off the tracks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:55 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top