Howie belongs to WRKO
Tue Oct 16 13:00:00 EDT 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Vahey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Howie belongs to WRKO
> Howie loses the case bigtime
> "Carr is not, as he argues in his brief, 'in essence [subject to] a
> lifetime employment agreement' with Entercom," the Judge wrote. "And
> wherever he legally finds himself, it is of his own conscious doing.
> He has not, as he publicly claims, been placed into some form of
> high-paid indentured servitude by this Court."
> This is going to get good
unlike a non-compete, this type of "right to match/first refusal" does
indeed equate a potential lifetime of indentured servitude. granted, very
well paid indentured servitude, but an uncomfortable working situation for a
professional, none the less.
if the employee does not WISH or DESIRE to remain employed by an employer,
regardless of a "right to match" clause, when the contract ends after a
productive, professional term of employment, the relationship is over. i
wonder if the "judge for life" who has ruled on this case would be as
willing to rule as such if the life-time bench tenure came with a
right-to-match. an offer to practice law in the "dreaded private sector"
most often comes with a fairly nice compensation package, and by the time a
judge has determined to test the open-market waters, he/she is most likely
pretty burned out by sitting on the bench, day in, day out, and are very
ready for a change of scenery. but there would nothing stopping a state,
county or municipality from keeping someone on, just to let them know "that
they can." (not unlike the crude "why does a dog....?")
and again, i'd wonder if Entercom is ready to not only give Howie the money,
but the airshift - mornings, too. unless the tendered offer from Greater
Media stipulates the generic "as needed by the company," which i would
highly doubt it does, then WRKO's new morning guy would be H.L.C.
i would like to see this make its way through the upper levels of the
courts. the right-to-match is basically far more restrictive, at this
point, than any non-compete. then again, not every company is as apparently
short-sighted and vindictive as the one in question. and to be honest,
vindictive is the only word to use for a company that would spend an
extremely large sum of money to keep a very unhappy employee "in the nest."
- -Chuck Igo
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest