- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:56 pm
.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 1:47 pm
16
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:59 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
I saw a post on Facebook about Jimmy Johns requiring their employees to sign a non-compete contract as a condition of employment. This contract forbids the person from working at another sandwich shop for 2 years after they leave.
I personally think employers should be able to have such requirements so long as it is mutually agreed upon and is a legitimate function of business.
So, how do Republicans feel about this? Do you think private contracts between employee and employer are none of the government's business? Or, do you think government should step in to protect the worker?
I don't think the government should have a role in regulating non-competes, but motherfricking Jimmy John's asking employees to sign a non-compete is laughable. Just to be clear - this is employees at the franchise level and not the corporate level, correct?
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:00 pm to Asgard Device
Employees and employers can negotiate terms as they please.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:02 pm to AbuTheMonkey
It is not just sandwich shops. It is any business that derives more than ten percent income from sandwiches.
"any business which derives more than ten percent (10%) of its revenue from selling submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches and which is located with three (3) miles of either [the Jimmy John's location in question] or any such other Jimmy John's Sandwich Shop."
"any business which derives more than ten percent (10%) of its revenue from selling submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches and which is located with three (3) miles of either [the Jimmy John's location in question] or any such other Jimmy John's Sandwich Shop."
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:02 pm to Asgard Device
It's an interesting issue of contract law. It seems obviously ridiculous for a sandwich artist to have to sign one, but what about an engineer with trade secrets?
If it came to a lawsuit, I have my doubts whether the Jimmy John's non compete agreement as a condition of employment would even hold up in Louisiana courts.
If it came to a lawsuit, I have my doubts whether the Jimmy John's non compete agreement as a condition of employment would even hold up in Louisiana courts.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:07 pm to Asgard Device
I don't see the need nor the legal issue.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:10 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Louisiana courts
have been very pro business in deciding non competes
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:25 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
So, how do Republicans feel about this? Do you think private contracts between employee and employer are none of the government's business? Or, do you think government should step in to protect the worker?
Libertarian here, people should be able to enter any contract they please. One person gets employment the company gets a non-compete. Seems fair. If the person doesn't like it then go to one of the many other sandwich shops. Seems simple.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:34 pm to lsuroadie
quote:
very pro business
La. R.S. 23:921 begs to differ.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:38 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
There are serious limits in the La. Revised Statutes when it comes to non-compete clauses. I've been on both sides.
I have to say that if Jimmy John's tries to apply that clause to some poor schmuck putting a sandwich together, I'd take the schmuck's case and win.
I have to say that if Jimmy John's tries to apply that clause to some poor schmuck putting a sandwich together, I'd take the schmuck's case and win.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:39 pm to lsu13lsu
.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:44 pm to Asgard Device
It seems like Jimmy Johns would just be happy to have employees who don't have a record of felonies. Jimmy Johns sounds like their sandwiches suck as well as their management practices.
Generally not opposed to non-compete, but this is the type of shite that will cause liberal legislators to shut it down.
Generally not opposed to non-compete, but this is the type of shite that will cause liberal legislators to shut it down.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:45 pm to Asgard Device
You negotiate your contract. If you're dumb enough to sign a no compete, it's your fault. I've been asked to sign one 5 times and I have always refused. I simply tell the company I have a family to provide for and I can't sign anything that could endanger my ability to do so. They've dropped the issue every time.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:46 pm to lsuroadie
Since when?? LA courts were always touted as right to work which made non competes irrelevant. Only question was did you have $$ to fight
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:49 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
I saw a post on Facebook about Jimmy Johns requiring their employees to sign a non-compete contract as a condition of employment.
This surely cannot be true, and if it is, this surely cannot be a corporate wide policy.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:13 pm to Asgard Device
that is going to be completely non-enforceable.
What a bunch of dicks.
What a bunch of dicks.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:14 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
You negotiate your contract. If you're dumb enough to sign a no compete, it's your fault. I've been asked to sign one 5 times and I have always refused. I simply tell the company I have a family to provide for and I can't sign anything that could endanger my ability to do so. They've dropped the issue every time.
How about if you work for company A, company B comes around and purchases company A. Included in the paperwork they send out as part of the "acquisition", is a No compete clause for employees to sign. You are required to sign or your forfeit your employment.
I like the right to work state, but I don't get the no Compete clause. If you have a trade or skill and your employer is wayyyyyyy lower than the competition on all levels of the trade, how can a piece of paper prevent you for doing better for yourself. I guess you could always resign and go was cars right?
I get that employers want to protect themselves and not pump money and time into an employee in the form of training and certifications all to have the employee jump next door for a dollar more an hr, but you would think it would make the job market In Those fields more level and competitive
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:23 pm to coonass27
quote:doesn't have anything to do with the job, only with not joining a union.
right to work state
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:27 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
only with not joining a union
In LA, your job is a privilege and not a right It can be terminated at anytime with or without Reason.
I always thought it was somehow looped in to the right to work law but after having to deal with those shite head union reps, I may have gotten confused
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:29 pm to Tigah in the ATL
This sounds like a reasonable condition for a franchise owner. However, would you really want a sandwich maker that cannot find a job at another sandwich shop 3 miles from the location you worked at?
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 9:30 pm
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News