Howie belongs to WRKO

[Chuck Igo]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Vahey" <kvahey@gmail.com>
Subject: Howie belongs to WRKO


> Howie loses the case bigtime
>
> http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2007/10/judge_rules_aga_2.html
>
> "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