I thought the free market was supposed to function primarily by means of
incentives. Non-compete agreements seem coercive by nature.
The "why only one industry" argument is a good one. The rest is
anti-worker nonsense. Imagine if non-compete agreements were widespread and
infected fields that people specialize in. What if you couldn't be an auto
mechanic for another company for years after you left one? What if you
couldn't be a veterinarian for another clinic for years after you left one?
Donald has outed the vast majority of media as being in the fake news business.
This is not a time to try to gain sympathy for fake news outlets.
Perhaps they need a non-transit bill if one is raised and educated in Utah then
they can’t migrate out of state until they they have paid their share of
state and church tax.
Sorry DN, no one is buying it. If a company wants to protect its investment they
need to offer a competitive salary package. Thanks to a change in leadership,
our nation is once again becoming an employee's market where labor is
valued and employers are in competition for workers. Non-compete contracts
simply lock employees in jobs stopping the free-flow of labor and holding down
wages. But what about high-tech? Won't they view Utah as
anti-business? High-tech is about the only industry left in California and they
don't recognize non-compete contracts at all. I think we'll be ok. But
keep the 0.05 BAC for DUI. That'll help regulate the inflow of refugees
All non-competes should include post-employment compensation equal to the time
frame they are written for. If the employee, his training or position is so
valuable that the company is worried about the danger they pose when they go to
a competitor, there should be something in it for the employee. Non-competes
are especially unfair during times of increased unemployment, which is probably
why a pro-business legislator would think to try and pass one now when
unemployment percentages are low.
Should we be surprised that the Media Elites are opposed to a measure that would
protect and empower media employees? All three arguments raised in this piece
i worked for a company in salt lake decades ago, that said we couldn't
work for a competitor for 2 years. The supreme court ruled that an employer
can't keep a worker from finding work in his chosen field. Why do
these issues raise their ugly heads, once the courts have ruled???
Non compete agreements should only come with guaranteed contracts for
Non-compete clauses are completely one-sided in any industry, including
journalism and media. Only the employer receives benefit, not the employee, not
the employee's family, not the community. Claiming that getting rid of
non-compete clauses "harms the people it is trying to protect" is
completely disingenuous. The employer wields much greater bargaining power than
the employee during any hiring process, and to an even greater degree any time
the job market gets tight. And when non-compete clauses can be sprung on
employees even AFTER they have been hired, when they no longer have any
bargaining power whatsoever, and have already passed up other opportunities to
accept employment, it is both coersive and immoral. Post-employment non-compete
clauses should be non-enforceable in all industries, including the media.
I found the editorial's arguments less-convincing than I'd like. That
said, I'm still opposed to the bill. I did find the "why one
industry" argument compelling. But, even more so is why must this be
legislated? An employee should be able to be a good negotiator. If they require
a non-compete, you counter with limitations: geographic area, time, what
businesses are included, what does and does not trigger it (leaving the company
vs. being force out), minimum salary increases, etc. You make sure that you
receive fair benefits in exchange for the fair protection that the employer is
asking of you.
Here's an idea, Deseret Media, how about instead of contracts that limit
what a person can and cannot do; how about provide benefits that keep them
wanting to work for you instead of going to a competitor.Non-compete
contracts are TERRIBLE for people in all industries. They may be great for the
bottom line to big businesses though; who can pay bottom dollar and ensure their
workers stay on just to make a living.Sounds like your company is
lobbying against the public; for and on behalf of the rich. Just propaganda to
ensure plutocracy is strengthened.
"dissemination of news through broadcast and digital mediums."Wow, the Deseret News uses mediums? I thought their targeted readership was
only the living.
Should the calculus on invoking free market and contract principles be modified
when one of the contracting parties is exempted from laws prohibiting unfair
competition?For example, the Deseret News is protected from federal
antitrust laws pursuant a Joint Operating Agreement with the Salt Lake Tribune
under the Newspaper Preservation Act.As a result, unlike many
businesses, parties to a Joint Operating Agreement may engage in price fixing,
profit pooling, and market allocation. A news gathering and reporting
organization not protected by a Joint Operating Agreement may not engage in such
practices without the risk of running afoul of federal antitrust law.
non competes are anti free market and anti family. I am under one, and although
I have no plans to quit, if I did I would be out of luck. I wouldn't be
able to work in my career field that I have spent 15 years building skills in, I
wouldn't be able to provide for my family for 2 years, when the contract
finally expired I would probably have a hard time finding employment because I
would be 2 years out of date and have a 2 year gap on my resume. I'm sorry
Deseret News, you won't convince me that non competes are a good thing.
I once worked for a company that had non-compete clauses in the employment
contracts of some key executives and sales personnel. It was stated right up
front when hiring took place so the employee was aware of the implications from
the time they came on board. It would typically bar the employee from working
for a competitor in a similar position for a period of one year. One thing
conspicuously missing from the DN opinion piece is the fact that in many cases
where non-compete agreements are put in place in a contract, there is a
provision that a cash payment to the employee will be made to lessen the
financial impact to them. This is something that any potential employee
bringing value to a company can negotiate at the hiring stage. I am opposed to
any legislation of this type that applies to only one business sector. It
should either cover all employers or none. Also, as TheJester stated, it is
only fair that a non-compete agreement should be voided if an employee is fired,
rather than when they quit for greener pastures.
"The individual worker has security and can negotiate terms that help both
the individual and the company."This could be part of any
employment contract. What does it have to do with non-compete agreements?
If you've ever had an employer surprise you with a non-compete agreement
after you had been working for them for a year, you'd understand the
coercive and one-sided nature of these agreements.
Who has the power? That's the question that is raised when sexual
harassment is charged. Did the person with the power use that power to coerce
an employee to do something that was not in his/her the best interests?This sentence particularly bothers me: "The new bill
"prohibits an employer and an employee from entering into a post-employment
restrictive covenant if the employer's primary business is news media."
Who has the power? Can the news media claim "free speech"
when their goal is to squelch the "free speech" of a citizen? Can the
news media claim with a straight face that they are negotiating a non-compete
agreement to assist the employee in any way? Can restricting the employment
opportunities of an employee serve anyone except the news media?How
one-sided can that type of contract be? Who has the power? Who is
using that power to force an employee to engage into a "negotiation"
that harms the employee's future employment, future earnings, and future
ability to care for his/her family?Frankly, I'm surprised and
disappointed with this article.
Non-compete agreements are anti-market in nature. The writer of this op-ed
would lead you to believe that employees can "negotiate" the terms of
their non-compete agreements, but it is a fallacy. Negotiation works when both
parties have equal leverage. In company/employee relationships the leverage is
heavily weighted toward the company, which possesses vastly more resources and
often state and federal laws written to protect the company's position and
assets.At a minimum, Utah's non-compete laws should be changed
so that an employee who was terminated from their job by the employer will have
their non-compete agreement voided. If the employer feels that the
employee's value is not sufficient to keep the employee in a position the
employer should have no right to dictate where that employee can work next.
"We hope lawmakers will understand the implications of this bill and defeat
it."I'm sure they understand it. What matters is who is
paying them , and how much, to pass it.
Of course a Media company is opposed to this. And funny how they get a quote
from Kevin Eubank opposed to this because he hasn't run into it. Yet did
he forget how his father was forced off the air for a couple years when he moved
to KSL from KUTV2?You can protect your company against an employee
leaving with Non-disclosure rules. But Non-Compete contracts force employees to
stick with an employer they may not really care for or move to another market
It's interesting that this paper favors hiring restrictions on their
departing employees while it has historically favored "right to work"