Where there's a non-compete, there's an arbitration provision.
The trend in arbitration these days is that increasingly, courts are saying that once you agree to arbitrate a dispute, you are only entitled to protections of federal law, and not state law, per a Supreme Court ruling last year and the general trend in which the courts are moving. In other words, if you sign an arbitration provision and your company didn't pay you minimum wage, you are entitled to FLSA damages, but if your state's minimum wage is higher, an arbitrator could rule that only federal law applies, and you will lose that extra $1 a hour in state mandated wages.
I don't know whether arbitrators are finding for employers in the case of non-compete clauses because it's a private system of justice with no public record. Given that it's state substantive law governing them, and you aren't entitled to the protections of state law in arbitration anymore, and arbitrators are bought and paid for by the company and don't serve the public, I do not think we should conclude that these non-compete clauses are not being enforced.
I keep complaining about arbitration and the Supreme Court. It is not some esoteric thing that impacts only lawyers and your right to get a $1 back from AT&T. It's fucking with people's lives every single day.
It is worth mentioning though that noncompetes CAN be enforceable, and often the more competitive the industry or the more selective the knowledge, companies will enforce it.
Just throwing that out there since the tone of this thread seems to be that they aren't enforceable. They very well might be in some jurisdictions.
And as an anecdote, I'll add that my brother left his old company and started his own when they tried to make him sign a stricter non compete. For every person that leaves his old company and works for him, he has to pay a lawyer to make sure it doesn't violate the agreement bc his old company WOULD take him to court over it.
This is an area where H always say lawyers are like condoms. They may be pricey and a pain at the outset, but it may be better to deal with that then to deal with the consequences of NOT using one.
Where there's a non-compete, there's an arbitration provision.
The trend in arbitration these days is that increasingly, courts are saying that once you agree to arbitrate a dispute, you are only entitled to protections of federal law, and not state law, per a Supreme Court ruling last year and the general trend in which the courts are moving. In other words, if you sign an arbitration provision and your company didn't pay you minimum wage, you are entitled to FLSA damages, but if your state's minimum wage is higher, an arbitrator could rule that only federal law applies, and you will lose that extra $1 a hour in state mandated wages.
I don't know whether arbitrators are finding for employers in the case of non-compete clauses because it's a private system of justice with no public record. Given that it's state substantive law governing them, and you aren't entitled to the protections of state law in arbitration anymore, and arbitrators are bought and paid for by the company and don't serve the public, I do not think we should conclude that these non-compete clauses are not being enforced.
I keep complaining about arbitration and the Supreme Court. It is not some esoteric thing that impacts only lawyers and your right to get a $1 back from AT&T. It's fucking with people's lives every single day.
I hereby move that the "Thanks Obama" meme should become "Thanks, John Roberts." Because, fuck, man.
Where there's a non-compete, there's an arbitration provision.
The trend in arbitration these days is that increasingly, courts are saying that once you agree to arbitrate a dispute, you are only entitled to protections of federal law, and not state law, per a Supreme Court ruling last year and the general trend in which the courts are moving. In other words, if you sign an arbitration provision and your company didn't pay you minimum wage, you are entitled to FLSA damages, but if your state's minimum wage is higher, an arbitrator could rule that only federal law applies, and you will lose that extra $1 a hour in state mandated wages.
I don't know whether arbitrators are finding for employers in the case of non-compete clauses because it's a private system of justice with no public record. Given that it's state substantive law governing them, and you aren't entitled to the protections of state law in arbitration anymore, and arbitrators are bought and paid for by the company and don't serve the public, I do not think we should conclude that these non-compete clauses are not being enforced.
I keep complaining about arbitration and the Supreme Court. It is not some esoteric thing that impacts only lawyers and your right to get a $1 back from AT&T. It's fucking with people's lives every single day.
That's awful. In general they are not supposed to hold up in court here because the non-compete interferes with Georgia being a "Right to work" state. Also I wasn't trying to suggest non competes are no big deal even in my state because its painfully obvious that companies can still give you problems. I have a few stories of stuff that I have seen where the company has given people the blues.
Where there's a non-compete, there's an arbitration provision.
The trend in arbitration these days is that increasingly, courts are saying that once you agree to arbitrate a dispute, you are only entitled to protections of federal law, and not state law, per a Supreme Court ruling last year and the general trend in which the courts are moving. In other words, if you sign an arbitration provision and your company didn't pay you minimum wage, you are entitled to FLSA damages, but if your state's minimum wage is higher, an arbitrator could rule that only federal law applies, and you will lose that extra $1 a hour in state mandated wages.
I don't know whether arbitrators are finding for employers in the case of non-compete clauses because it's a private system of justice with no public record. Given that it's state substantive law governing them, and you aren't entitled to the protections of state law in arbitration anymore, and arbitrators are bought and paid for by the company and don't serve the public, I do not think we should conclude that these non-compete clauses are not being enforced.
I keep complaining about arbitration and the Supreme Court. It is not some esoteric thing that impacts only lawyers and your right to get a $1 back from AT&T. It's fucking with people's lives every single day.
That's awful. In general they are not supposed to hold up in court here because the non-compete interferes with Georgia being a "Right to work" state. Also I wasn't trying to suggest non competes are no big deal even in my state because its painfully obvious that companies can still give you problems. I have a few stories of stuff that I have seen where the company has given people the blues.
Yeah, I know, I was just trying to respond to the general sentiment in this thread that these things are not enforceable in their state and therefore this is not a serious problem. That may well be true on paper, but we don't know if that's how it's working in practice anymore because of the direction the law has gone in over the last five years.
It used to be that when an arbitration provision said, "if the parties have a dispute, they need to share the costs of the arbitrator. Costs of arbitration shall be born by the parties regardless of who is successful," a court would decide if that was enforceable, i.e. if an employer can require an employee to pay the $10,000 arbitrators' fees or whatever it is to have their case heard. Thanks to SCOTUS, if a company follows that sentence with, "the parties agree the arbitrator will decide if the agreement is fair," chances are, a court will find that enforceable, and the employee arbitrator will get to decide if the agreement is fair. In other words, the employee will have to pay the arbitrator before finding out if its fair that the agreement requires the employee to pay the arbitrator.
Even if state law says its unenforceable and even if you win in arbitration, if you violate your noncompete, the company can drag you into arbitration and force you to pay for the arbitrator to eventually render that decision.
I guess I just want to emphasize that saying the clauses are unenforceable does not mean that they aren't still highly, highly problematic and without serious repercussions. They are not made-up problems simply because a few states pretend to regulate them any more than saying that employment discrimination doesn't happen because Title VII. Despite the endless number of laws on the books, workers lose more and more every single year. Laws aren't enough if people aren't enforcing them.
I had to a sign a three year noncompete at my very first job in high school. At a pretzel kiosk at the mall. :?
What?! Were you forbidden from working at other pretzel chains, or all fast food product places?
That kind of non-compete is a joke. I can't even.
Just other pretzel places, though I can't name any other pretzel chains besides the one I worked for.
But yeah, noncompetes are pretty out of control when you're making a 16 year old promise they won't reveal the secret of what makes the pretzels golden brown (baking soda).
What?! Were you forbidden from working at other pretzel chains, or all fast food product places?
That kind of non-compete is a joke. I can't even.
Just other pretzel places, though I can't name any other pretzel chains besides the one I worked for.
But yeah, noncompetes are pretty out of control when you're making a 16 year old promise they won't reveal the secret of what makes the pretzels golden brown (baking soda).
Well, that sounds more like a restriction on trade secrets, which I find more reasonable, but a lot of the same objections still apply. Of course, if you were also prohibited from working at other pretzel chains, that's crazy.
Post by decemberwedding07 on Jun 9, 2014 11:59:48 GMT -5
I was JUST talking about this the other day. The salon that I go to now has new employees sign noncompete clauses that restrict them from working at another salon within 10 miles of the salon for the next three years, or something crazy like that. The salon is near downtown. 10 miles is basically where ALL the salons are, so by signing that, they're basically forced to work at that salon for three years, or they'll have to work outside of the city.
Where there's a non-compete, there's an arbitration provision.
The trend in arbitration these days is that increasingly, courts are saying that once you agree to arbitrate a dispute, you are only entitled to protections of federal law, and not state law, per a Supreme Court ruling last year and the general trend in which the courts are moving. In other words, if you sign an arbitration provision and your company didn't pay you minimum wage, you are entitled to FLSA damages, but if your state's minimum wage is higher, an arbitrator could rule that only federal law applies, and you will lose that extra $1 a hour in state mandated wages.
I don't know whether arbitrators are finding for employers in the case of non-compete clauses because it's a private system of justice with no public record.
You can find arbitration decisions online now. Not every decision by a long shot, but they're out there. Especially labor arbitration.
Just other pretzel places, though I can't name any other pretzel chains besides the one I worked for.
But yeah, noncompetes are pretty out of control when you're making a 16 year old promise they won't reveal the secret of what makes the pretzels golden brown (baking soda).
Well, that sounds more like a restriction on trade secrets, which I find more reasonable, but a lot of the same objections still apply. Of course, if you were also prohibited from working at other pretzel chains, that's crazy.
Even then, can you call something a trade secret if the ingredient/process is unveiled to 16 year old minimum wage workers? At that point, I would assume the ingredient/process is fully available on the internet.
Where there's a non-compete, there's an arbitration provision.
The trend in arbitration these days is that increasingly, courts are saying that once you agree to arbitrate a dispute, you are only entitled to protections of federal law, and not state law, per a Supreme Court ruling last year and the general trend in which the courts are moving. In other words, if you sign an arbitration provision and your company didn't pay you minimum wage, you are entitled to FLSA damages, but if your state's minimum wage is higher, an arbitrator could rule that only federal law applies, and you will lose that extra $1 a hour in state mandated wages.
I don't know whether arbitrators are finding for employers in the case of non-compete clauses because it's a private system of justice with no public record.
You can find arbitration decisions online now. Not every decision by a long shot, but they're out there. Especially labor arbitration.
Interesting. I know I've searched in the past and have found records that list, say, the number of arbitrations filed against a given company, but few details other than that. Given the number of companies providing arbitration services and the huge range of issues they arbitrate, I imagine there's a lot of variance. It seems though a company could require that the decisions not be published as a condition of hiring the arbitrator.
Well, that sounds more like a restriction on trade secrets, which I find more reasonable, but a lot of the same objections still apply. Of course, if you were also prohibited from working at other pretzel chains, that's crazy.
Even then, can you call something a trade secret if the ingredient/process is unveiled to 16 year old minimum wage workers? At that point, I would assume the ingredient/process is fully available on the internet.
The baking soda = golden brown thing was on an episode of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood from the early 80s. I know this because it is my kids favorite episode and we watch it at least 3 times a week.
I hope you do not think that I was implying the average daycare worker was stupid. But I do think the average american is intimidated by the threat of legal action against them, simply because it could potentially be incredibly expensive for them. They think (understandably so) that a corporation has a ton of money to waste to fight something like this and will just go after them with a vengeance. That intimidation stops a lot of people from taking the risk of fighting things like non-competes.
The average daycare worker doesn't think of the average daycare as a corporation mostly because they are not. The average daycare center has enough violations just brimming below the surface that the average daycare worker cannot imagine the cantankerous and soulless lady who works in the office will do more than issue a couple of threats. I mean unless she's really looking forward to her daycare workers telling a lawyer or a judge all about the on going lice problem the parents were never notified of or the times the daycare workers had to stay late or come in early or work through lunch because of high turnover and shittacular management.
Non-competes are obviously a huge problem and I don't support them for these types of industries but whether a worker knows they are enforceable or not is often not the problem. By the time you're ready to leave your shit job, you've probably got one lined up and you'd like to see them try it for all of the bullshit you dealt with before finally exiting stage left.
Just to fully clarify, it's not that I don't think non-competes are a problem. Just that for the very low income, people don't care/are willing to take the risk. They have the idea that the company isn't going to bother and for someone making $10/hr, they probably won't. If they do, they'll deal with it then. For now though, they're going to go ahead and take that job they have on the line and let stuff happen as it may.
I would think that it's a much bigger problem in particular industries where one makes a career and/or a more limiting pool of employees and employers than say a barista at Starbucks. I think this thread illustrates this well, that if you have a certain skill set, non-competes are a huge fuck you to the employee and can screw you over. But if you work some cheap ass under $15/hr job, no one really believes anyone will do much about it if you quit working at McDonalds and head over to Burger King.
However, I think a camp counselor at some hoity summer camp surrounded by other hoity summer camps would get screwed. I'm sure the school lawyer is only happy to have something to do at the behest of a cranky ass camp director who is peeved she has to find a new employee to replace Susie who went to work at the other camp that pulls from the same student pool.
You can find arbitration decisions online now. Not every decision by a long shot, but they're out there. Especially labor arbitration.
Interesting. I know I've searched in the past and have found records that list, say, the number of arbitrations filed against a given company, but few details other than that. Given the number of companies providing arbitration services and the huge range of issues they arbitrate, I imagine there's a lot of variance. It seems though a company could require that the decisions not be published as a condition of hiring the arbitrator.
A certain online legal research subscription-only provider has several arbitration decision databases.