|
|
Post by BTVNadmin on Feb 10, 2009 14:39:42 GMT -5
Then how do you explain the long absences of Harvey Leonard (7 -> 5) and Kim Carrigan (7 -> 4 -> 25) between jobs? That's what those were.
|
|
|
|
Post by waianae on Feb 10, 2009 14:48:37 GMT -5
Thanks Max for explaining it.
|
|
db54
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by db54 on Feb 10, 2009 16:22:58 GMT -5
nope, like Max says non compete is alive and well in Mass. EMC for example amongst others has won some considerable legal engagements causing people to have to resign from positions.
Speaking of which - Remember Todd Gross? He found the information on the businss model particularly interesting. Seems he also went that route and had to deal with the non compete otherwise that "contract" dries up faster than a spring rain on a summer day.
Speaking of which, in speaking with him on this, we thought perhaps we could find an alligator who could get loose on the ski slopes during a snow storm. Thus, he could appear on the Weather, News and Channel 56 for the entire day as "breaking news".
|
|
|
|
Post by BTVNadmin on Feb 10, 2009 17:49:21 GMT -5
Well, 7 likes their newscasts to be snappy! (Try the veal. I just died inside.)
|
|
sp113
New Member
Posts: 26 
|
Post by sp113 on Feb 10, 2009 22:17:53 GMT -5
nope, like Max says non compete is alive and well in Mass. EMC for example amongst others has won some considerable legal engagements causing people to have to resign from positions. Speaking of which - Remember Todd Gross? He found the information on the businss model particularly interesting. Seems he also went that route and had to deal with the non compete otherwise that "contract" dries up faster than a spring rain on a summer day. Wrong, wrong wrong. Non-competes are banned in Massachusetts by law for broadcasters. This can't be compared to a situation at EMC. Chapter 149: Section 186. Broadcasting industry; noncompete agreements Section 186. Any contract or agreement which creates or establishes the terms of employment for an employee or individual in the broadcasting industry, including, television stations, television networks, radio stations, radio networks, or any entities affiliated with the foregoing, and which restricts the right of such employee or individual to obtain employment in a specified geographic area for a specified period of time after termination of employment of the employee by the employer or by termination of the employment relationship by mutual agreement of the employer and the employee or by termination of the employment relationship by the expiration of the contract or agreement, shall be void and unenforceable with respect to such provision. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with litigation of an affected employee or individual. |
|
db54
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by db54 on Feb 11, 2009 4:24:00 GMT -5
[/quote] Wrong, wrong wrong. Non-competes are banned in Massachusetts by law for broadcasters. This can't be compared to a situation at EMC. Chapter 149: Section 186. Broadcasting industry; noncompete agreements. Section 186. Any contract or agreement which creates or establishes the terms of employment for an employee or individual in the broadcasting industry, including, television stations, television networks, radio stations, radio networks, [/quote] A recent -- but fortunately less momentous -- example concerns non-competition agreements. August 23, 08 Governor Patrick signed a new law prohibiting non-competition agreements for social workers in Massachusetts. It states that any contract with a social worker licensed under Chapter 112 of Massachusetts General Laws that includes a “restriction of the right of the social worker to practice in any geographic area for any period of time after termination” is void and unenforceable with respect to that restriction. The law does not invalidate or render unenforceable the remainder of a contract or agreement containing such a restriction. This law adds to a very short list of professions as to which there is a statutory prohibition on post-employment non-competition agreements: physicians, nurses, broadcasters, and now social workers. In addition, non-competes are invalid as to lawyers pursuant to the Rules of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. ok, where are our local labor lawyers... When being fired or forced to resign as in this case - ya wanna be paid then you shall not etc... and how then does the broadcasting industry get around this as they seem to have done in more than one case at WHDH? To Boister this position read on;  As drafted, noncompetition and nonsolicitation restrictions typically will apply for a specified duration following a termination for any reason, including an involuntary termination such as a layoff. Generally, under Massachusetts law, the fact that an employee was terminated in a layoff (as opposed to leaving voluntarily or being terminated for cause) is not by itself a basis for refusing to enforce a noncompete. (Note that some other states’ laws are different. For example, in New York, while the issue is not entirely settled, most courts will not enforce an otherwise valid noncompete if the employee has been involuntarily terminated without cause.)
Nevertheless, a Massachusetts judge is less likely to enforce a noncompete where the employee was laid off. In considering requests for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to enforce noncompetes, judges are required to engage in a balancing of the equities, which involves consideration of basic fairness: would it be fair to enjoin the individual from competing with a former employer under the particular circumstances of the case? In a difficult economic environment, with companies laying off workers and unemployment rising, many Massachusetts judges will not want to enforce a noncompete against a laid off worker and will look for ways to avoid or scale back enforcement.
So, an employer seeking to enforce a noncompete following a lay off needs to stack the deck as much as possible with factors that would favor enforcement. As a starting point, noncompetes should be clear, understandable to employees, and narrowly drafted to protect the company’s legitimate interests in confidential information and/or good will. If the relevant document is vague or overbroad, employers should consider correcting those defects as part of the employee’s departure (for example, in a separation agreement). Relatedly, laid off employees should be reminded of continuing post-termination obligations and should be provided copies of the relevant agreements. Perhaps most importantly, employers should consider paying the laid off employee for some or all of the noncompete period. All other things being equal, Massachusetts judges will be more willing to enforce a noncompete against an individual who has been provided a generous severance package than against an employee who desperately is trying to provide for his or her family.
Finally, employers that wish to be able to enforce a noncompete following a layoff should gather and preserve any evidence of “bad acts” by the former employee. An injunction will be more likely where the employer isn't merely worried about future harm but can point to evidence of, for example, inappropriate transmission, downloading or retention of confidential information; solicitation of customers or employees; or refusal to return company property. Companies that are consistently vigilant about discovering misuse of their information will improve their chances of stopping inappropriate competition.  Given the above parameters - would you want to challenge the hand that is currently paying your rent? |
|
|
|
Post by BTVNadmin on Feb 11, 2009 4:27:29 GMT -5
I'm currently seeking to clarify this particular situation.
|
|
db54
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by db54 on Feb 11, 2009 9:10:03 GMT -5
I'm currently seeking to clarify this particular situation. That will help as it could simply be a ppor "choice of words" used out of context. Whatever word it is it still apparently has the same affect... as weaseleze is a science unto it's self. Opps, did I say that, I meant Legaleze as after all they are a protected species.  |
|
|
|
Post by BTVNadmin on Feb 11, 2009 9:15:08 GMT -5
Right - I've had it explained to me by a higher source. They're NOT legal, but they used to be, so even if it's still in his contract, they can't impose it. However (and this is where my understanding gets foggier), the contract curtails itself to a more "reasonable" length of time (i.e. six months or so) and he is obligated (regardless of market) to sit that out because he is still technically their employee. I assume the reason that they can't make him wait the whole three years is because it would amount to unreasonable restraint of trade, but don't quote me on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 11, 2009 15:50:52 GMT -5
Confirmed. Brandon Rudat is leaving 7. boston.com for details.
|
|
|
|
Post by anchorguy on Feb 11, 2009 17:18:26 GMT -5
So who is taking over Randy and now Brandon's seats?
|
|
sp113
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by sp113 on Feb 12, 2009 12:25:51 GMT -5
OK, where are our local labor lawyers... When being fired or forced to resign as in this case - ya wanna be paid then you shall not etc... and how then does the broadcasting industry get around this as they seem to have done in more than one case at WHDH? There are many reasons why an employee may not show up immediately at another station, none of which may be due to the "non-compete" clause. The new station may hold off exposing them until they feel the time is right. There may be prep time involved. They employee may choose for the vacation he's never had, etc. And, lastly, he may still be employed by the previous station, even though he is not on the air. However (and this is where my understanding gets foggier), the contract curtails itself to a more "reasonable" length of time (i.e. six months or so) and he is obligated (regardless of market) to sit that out because he is still technically their employee. Right. A station may take someone off the air, in anticipation of not renewing their contract down the road. He is still getting paid, he is still not allowed to work elsewhere, it's just that the station is not requiring him to show up to work. ;-) i.e..Paid for sitting at home. The law states that the ability to keep an employee off the air at a competing station shall not extend beyond the terms (and payments) of the contract. Randy may very well be a paper employee of Asnin and Ch 7 for the next couple of years. The question about non-competes is...is the contract over or not. If the contract is still in force, and the employee is getting paid, the employer calls the shots...even if they are making him stay home. If the contract is over (even by 1 day), there are no restrictions. Now, quite often, even though the contract expires, employer/emplyee come up with a severance agreement. We will pay you a one-time sum of $XXX so that for X period you will not appear on a competitor, nor will you speak to the press or bad-mouth us. Not use trade-secrets, etc. The employee can agree to sign...or not agree to sign...or negotiate the terms. That's voluntary. |
|
kvn
Full Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by kvn on Feb 13, 2009 10:19:09 GMT -5
He is not going quietly, that is for sure. The product being put out has lost its appeal, there is need for change, and a cutting of costs to offset the loss of revenue. That is the reality of the private sector. Plus there is an over-capacity in the Boston news market, too many stations, and too many hours of news reporting. If you dont get this, you arent paying attention or you are in denial. With or without the mysterious "non -competitive " clause, he will be hard pressed to return somewhere else at high maintenance compensation levels, and perhaps only at the expense of some other individual. And believe me age 59 is not too young to retire. But good luck to him.......
|
|
andy
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by andy on Feb 13, 2009 15:32:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BTVNadmin on Feb 13, 2009 16:00:08 GMT -5
You're not going to believe this - but I seriously had THE EXACT SAME IDEA and spent the morning jotting down lyrics to send to them before I found out they'd done it themselves!
My suggested chorus:
And the viewers say Randy
Is a fine guy
What an anchor he could be
Now that those cheap bastards at 7
Set him free!
(I still like mine better!)
|
|
As drafted, noncompetition and nonsolicitation restrictions typically will apply for a specified duration following a termination for any reason, including an involuntary termination such as a layoff. Generally, under Massachusetts law, the fact that an employee was terminated in a layoff (as opposed to leaving voluntarily or being terminated for cause) is not by itself a basis for refusing to enforce a noncompete. (Note that some other states’ laws are different. For example, in New York, while the issue is not entirely settled, most courts will not enforce an otherwise valid noncompete if the employee has been involuntarily terminated without cause.)
