[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re:Re: Non-competes





On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:55:20 -0800 (PST) Dan Billings
<billingsdan@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com> wrote:
> > Is there more to the law than you posted or was that
> > the entire law
> > regarding non-competes in Maine?
> 
> I posted the entire law.
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine

Okay, take me through this then, I'm reposting your original language of
the law posting for easy reference:
first:
>599. Broadcasting industry contract 
 
>     1. Definition. As used in this section, unless
>the context otherwise indicates, "broadcasting
>industry contract" means an employment contract
>between a person and a legal entity that owns one or
>more television stations or networks or one or more
>radio stations or networks, excluding an employment
>contract with a sales representative. [1999, c. 406,
>1 (new).] 
 
Dave writes:
I think we can agree that this section just defines what a
contract is and who it is between.

>     2. Presumed unreasonable. A broadcasting industry
>contract provision that requires an employee or
>prospective employee to refrain from obtaining
>employment in a specified geographic area for a
>specified period of time following expiration of the
>contract or upon termination of employment without
>fault of the employee is presumed to be unreasonable.
>[1999, c. 406, 1 (new).] 
 
Dave writes:
Section 2.  I don't see where it says non-competes are still legal.  As
for your 
previous postings that being fired for cause can include reasons such as 
bad ratings or format changes I don't agree that is what being fired for
cause
means.  First of all, if talent is fired because of lack or ratings why
wouldn't the 
station welcome the talent moving to the competition?  I don't see where
being 
fired for lack of ratings would hold an employee to the length of his/her
contract or why a station would want to hold him/her to it.  
Regarding being terminated because of format change that is obviously not
termination for cause since it is an action the employee had no control
over and changes the 
work environment to which the employee was initally hired.
I don't think this law is as weak as you believe it is.
df