Today I saw a story in the Huffington Post with the headline Doggy Day Care Chain Makes Pet Sitters Sign Noncompetes To Protect 'Trade Secrets’. In this case, this is Camp Bow Wow having their employees sign a two year non-compete agreement stating that they can’t work 25 miles from a competitor.
Not a shock. A few weeks ago, I posted a story from 2009 about Petland suing a dog and cat groomer in St. Louis. There were other cases as well such as Canine Oasis being in a lawsuit over a non-compete agreement.
Before that, there was a story on Jimmy John’s and their non-compete agreements for people who made sandwiches. A few weeks ago, I posted a video from 2013 on a woman from Subway who was fired for being sick and was told that she couldn’t work within 100 miles of another sandwich shop in Michigan.
No, I’m not trying to say anything bad about the fact that the Huffington Post is behind in mentioning these stories. I’m glad they’re doing it. I’m glad that the Seattle Times ran their story on a maintenance worker being put on a non-compete agreement. Maybe at some point news and cable networks will run a story as well once they feel that the story is credible. So far, that hasn’t happened.
The truth is that there is nothing illegal about the companies putting their employees on non-compete agreements. As my employment lawyer told me more than 8 years ago, non-compete agreements should be illegal. It’s up to the government to do something about this. As long as they do nothing, then this will continue.
We can look to legislation in the following states: Minneapolis, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland. There was proposed legislation by the Democratic representatives because the feeling was was that employees were not protected from companies who put out non-compete agreements. The legislation in all of these states failed. It’s not hard to guess why this legislation failed.
In Maryland and New Jersey, the legislation was that if you were fired from your job and forced to collect unemployment benefits, then your non-compete agreement would be invalid. Democratic Representatives stared this legislation. Republicans opposed it. Yes, the Republicans opposed this legislation, sending a message that they don’t have a problem paying unemployment benefits to people who can work but can’t work in their industry due to their non-compete agreement.
Over the next few days, people will be retweeting the story on Camp Bow Wow. People will say how outrageous it is that these people are on non-compete agreements just like they said that Benny Almeida shouldn’t be on a non-compete agreement. As non-compete lawyers will tell you, if these employees have a problem with this, then they should hire an employment lawyer, go to court, and spend over $10,000 to fight this. That’s why we have the courts and that’s why there is no reason to regulate non-compete agreements.
There is your answer in a nutshell. This is one of the reasons we have non-compete agreements. It’s because the party that you’re feeling great about - The Republican Party - has prevented legislation from passing that would regulate non-compete agreements.
Maybe you’ll read a story in the Huffington Post next week about waiters and waitresses being on non-compete agreements. That shouldn’t be a shock since maids are on non-compete agreements. As my employment said, this will continue, until the state and local government steps in and regulates non-compete agreements.
If you would like some insight as to feelings the Republicans have, you can listen to this podcast on Amendment One in Georgia.
If you would like some insight as to feelings the Republicans have, you can listen to this podcast on Amendment One in Georgia.
Ron Hummer
http://resultsmatterradio.businessradiox.com/2012/04/30/noncompete/
http://resultsmatterradio.businessradiox.com/2012/04/30/noncompete/
No comments:
Post a Comment