• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Local media lawsuit thrown out.

Non-competes should be illegal. Whether you quit or get fired, a previous employer shouldn't have any legal right to prevent someone from working in their chosen field for any period of time. You'd think the state would challenge these laws in particular since you then have a bunch of people sitting on unemployment or even welfare because their previous employer is blocking their ability to get another job. They don't expect someone to work in broadcasting and then get a job at McDonalds. You can stay on unemployment while seeking employment at other places within your industry. As far as the argument that these employees could start up somewhere else and divulge secrets, policies, and the like--personally I'd be more inclined to do so to an employer that was trying to keep me out of my field for 6 months or a year. I'd be running off at the mouth. Companies that require and attempt to enforce non-competes are unnecessarily folding people into the system for financial assistance. I don't know how much of a person's unemployment a previous employer is responsible for but if someone out of a job is being held in that state by the employer who fired them, the employer should have to pay 100% of their unemployment at 3/4 of their last working wage (rather than half) for at least 3 months over the length of their non-compete. Want them out of broadcasting for a year? Fine. You're paying them at 75% of their salary for the next 9 - 15 months. Watch non-competes go the way of the dinosaur. Radio is the first industry I ever encountered such a thing. If their unemployment amount is such that they find themselves eligible for welfare, the employer should have to reimburse the state. I'd also require the employer to keep that person's health benefits in force throughout the period of the non-compete. You just don't interfer with a person's ability to get another job in the field for which they're trained. That's vulgar and when you trace it back, it's just a power trip. I signed one once and never again.
 
Non-competes are very legal if the employer can prove a loss of investment. You hire Rick Dees at 1.5 million and then invest in bus sides, tv, billboards to the tune of about 1.5 million and the ratings go up…you provided the tools that helped make him successful and have the right to recoup that should another company try to hire him away. Non-competes weren’t meant for talent that makes less than the guy on the loud speaker at Wal-Mart.
 
Hermes said:
Non-competes are very legal if the employer can prove a loss of investment. You hire Rick Dees at 1.5 million and then invest in bus sides, tv, billboards to the tune of about 1.5 million and the ratings go up…you provided the tools that helped make him successful and have the right to recoup that should another company try to hire him away. Non-competes weren’t meant for talent that makes less than the guy on the loud speaker at Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

In radio, I've seen them applied to every employee in the building including board ops and sales. It's nuts. If the non-compete were applied in a situation similar to the one you laid out and in an instance where that person quit, then maybe. I still believe that every worker in this country has the right to pursue higher wages or better working conditions/benefits and if another company offers more, you should have every right to make the move without being penalized. When I asked the reason for non-competes, I always got the old "company secrets" line. I had to sign a non-compete as a board op. I've heard Forever has held people to non-competes in many instances where they had fired the person--former sales and sales managers, etc. That's ridiculous.
 
In Major Markets, perhaps and I say just perhaps I can see the reasoning behind no competes for the biggest of the talent. But in a market this size, its just insane. None of us has enough knowlege to sink the Titanic if we jump ship. I will say that I feel a non-compete if its in existance should only apply if you willingly leave on your own accord. If you are fired, laid off or otherwise "phased out", then all bets are off. A person should never be prohibited from earning a living wage in the field of their choice and when you decide someone is not good enough to work for you and you also prevent them from working someplace else, that's just wrong. If they are that big of a threat to you that they can harm your bottom line, guess they may have been good enough not to get fired in the first place hmmm???
 
We've just been through this in Buffalo where John Murphy, a major TV sportscaster and radio play by play man for the Buffalo Bills went to court to reduce the length of the one year non-compete claus in his contract with WKBW-TV, Channel 7 after he refused to accept the company's demands to cut his salary while still under contract.

The decision in the case has been sealed, but the word in the legal and broadcasting communities indicates the judge reduced the length of the non-compete to a period of six months which was agreeable to both parties. Murphy's salary was estimated to be around $125 thousand per year, although terms were not disclosed.

In the case of Virgina Smith and Forever Broadcasting it's re-assuring to find that Judge Hiram Carpenter found Forever's case "without merit." These are strong (although fairly common in legal terminology) words. Basically, it's saying 'You're wasting the court's time and resources."

Although I am not familiar with the particulars of the case, I am familiar with Keymart and Forever. They're known to be a vindictive, manipulative bunch. Forever, its parent organization Keymarket Communications and other broadcasters operating in small and medium markets have a history of shackling employees with these types of contractual covenants. For most employees in a market the size of Altoon-State College, non-competes are punitive.

Clearly, a case could be made for enforcing the non-compete had it been Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and more particularly, Los Angeles or New York. But it's far from that. Yes, an argument can be made that if the employee didn't like the terms of the contract, she should not have signed it. But often, the employee's hands are tied, as an employer attempts to strong-arm the employee, "Sign the contract and work. Don't sign and be out of work." Negotiating a fair and equitable contract for both parties is out of the question. In this regard, it's especially refreshing and encouraging to know that Judge Carpenter dismissed the case.

I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV) but these types of agreements are imposing and written to favor the interests of the employer. Rarely are they fair and equitable. My personal contention is, "The contract is up at the end of term stipulated in the agreement, not three, six months or twelve months following that date. If the employee is prohibited from working for the competition for six months, he/she deserves to be compensated to sit on the deck." Easier said than done.

Unless you're a morning drive person or a major TV personality, the employer holds the power. And even as we've seen in the Buffalo case, the judge allowed a limited term for the non-compete to stand, a period that he felt was reasonable to both parties.

Most likely, Judge Carpenter's ruling applies only to the individual and the instance noted and is not a blanket decision, but would it be a surprise if Forever appealed the ruling?

BTW, Is there a website where the judge's opinion regarding this case can be found?

Best regards,

-9-
 
Non-competes are not enforceable in Mass. and California. Most brodcast companies are also now using differently worded non-competes in New York, Michigan, Washington and Oregon.

Most of the industry has become so draconian with these in the last five years that something has to be done on a national level to bring some sanity back into the process. There is none, especially as the laws are interpreted and enforced in backwoods PA.
 
Sources within Foreverland, the Radio Circus, have told me that an appeal to the Courts decision in this case was filed at the State Superior Court about two or three weeks ago. Apparently ownership sees this loss as a threat to their non-compete with other employees or as a public embarrassment. Whatever the reason they are going to try again.
 
I don't understand why people would sign a non-compete without getting a really nice chunk of change. I realize so many do it, but it doesn't make sense to me. If a company will give you a contract worth a 100 thousand or so that's one thing. But why sign a non-compete when you will only get 20,000 or so out of it--if that.

I'd say it's pretty low of whoever makes them sign it--but I can't because it's not just one company. It's all of them. If the contract involved more money I don't think we would have this problem. I could also argue that if you did choose to sign it, then maybe you should honor it. I just don't think you should sign it. I know that there are many other qualified sales people that they could hire if they so choose. I'll suggest to a few that they apply (but not sign any non-compete). This is nothing to get worked up over. I'm going to bed now.
 
mock3 said:
I don't understand why people would sign a non-compete without getting a really nice chunk of change. I realize so many do it, but it doesn't make sense to me. If a company will give you a contract worth a 100 thousand or so that's one thing. But why sign a non-compete when you will only get 20,000 or so out of it--if that.

I'd say it's pretty low of whoever makes them sign it--but I can't because it's not just one company. It's all of them. If the contract involved more money I don't think we would have this problem. I could also argue that if you did choose to sign it, then maybe you should honor it. I just don't think you should sign it. I know that there are many other qualified sales people that they could hire if they so choose. I'll suggest to a few that they apply (but not sign any non-compete). This is nothing to get worked up over. I'm going to bed now.
Click to expand...
Don't like them...don't believe in them...but people use them. My feeling is pretty cut and dry. If you sign a no compete and you leave on your own accord, you should have to hold up to the agreement. If you are fired, downsized out the door or otherwise shown the exit, all bets are off. No company should have the right to stop someone from supporting him or herself in their chosen field.
 
It is pretty telling when a company must devote so much time and money and energy to prevent ex-employees from working with competitors. Yet, if the revolving door spins at an increasingly rapid rate, with managers, account executives, office staff turning over at a ridiculous speed, I guess it is a necessary investment.
 
The companies will fight this to the death and have so in the past in a handful of state legislatures (including PA) and Congress. If you have read what passes for a "standard" broadcast contract in larger marekts these days, you'd vomit. They want rights to your voice, likeness and creative works forever. Had a friend who wrote a novel that had nothing to do with radio or the city he was in and Clear Channel went after the royalties claming they were entitled to them under the intellectual properties clause in his contract. Judge threw it out in a heartbeat, but CC fired him anyway. Yes, the next lawsuit is pending.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom