As many on here have said, the non-compete is likely a non-issue.
I received the surprise of my life this morning.
- Thread starter McNutt76
- Start date
Thank you, Steve. I feel challenged to accept a job with a competitor and take tons of business from them. However, I also am worry they might take legal action against me if I violate the non-compete and call on accounts I acquired for the previous owners.
Talk to Pete - you were going to do this anyway, right? - then maybe to Vrana. V does appellate work now, but I'd guess that he's well-versed in discrimination law, and probably knows a thing or two about non-competes in Indiana.
A real friend would drop everything, go back home, and take up the righteous fight for the home town hero.
Yeah, that sucks. I've spent a few decades in banking and finance, been on both sides of this and never have felt good about it. Usually when a larger company makes a play for a smaller one, they really don't want anything other than the good parts of your company (receivables portfolio, client/customer base, beneficial contracts/contacts/vendor relationships, local and state licensure or other bonafides/assets/reputation). They don't view employees, especially positions they consider unnecessary or redundant, or anything/anyone they have to pay for on a recurring basis as anything other than a liability or an expense. It's a damned shame.
My wife retired this past January and until covid I was going to retire this January (we're 59 & 60). When to take social security is an interesting crap shoot since you're playing life span against cash. If I wait till I'm 67 I get a 30% bump vs 62 but I don't break even in total dollars till I'm roughly 78, wait till 70 and it's bump and I'm looking at 82.
I'm thinking my time is worth more than the extra cash.
The idea that they can say: "You can't work here or anywhere else" would be something I'd like a judge to hear.
That's a valid consideration SI . . . I guess it depends on your anticipated longevity and what you think inflation might do to/for your retirement income streams over that length of time. I have grandparents who died at 52 (cancer), 76 (emphysema), 90 and 91. My dad lived to almost 90 and my mother still lives independently at age 96. So I'm hedging my bets in case I met John Coffey along the way . . . .
Last edited:
Well, come on down . . . to Georgia.
When I moved here 35 years ago non-competes were hard to enforce. Most who required them thought of them as psychological liens - enough leverage to put the average joe into a quandary about whether they want to challenge an employer in court.
But the word got out that they were scrutinized heavily, and employees got all uppity . . . so Georgia passed a constitutional amendment that basically said non-competes are enforceable with certain provisions being presumptively reasonable: https://www.huntonlaborblog.com/201...compete-agreements-and-restrictive-covenants/. Mind you, Hunton's blogpost is written from an employer's perspective . . . at the time they represented only management (and still might).
BTW, it also extended enforceability for confidentiality obligations from about 2 years to an indefinite time, so long as corporate interests need to be protected.
I always thought constitutions were there to protect an individual's personal and property rights from the government, not to make individuals more beholden to business. People voted for this restriction, but I guess I'm no longer amazed by the power of stupid people voting in large blocks.
Constitutions are to set the basic rules of how people, governments and businesses interact with each other. There's nothing that says a constitution has to protect an individual's personal and property rights . . .
. . . the US constitution has the bill of rights because the framers thought it prudent to include it . . . I agree with them. But the US constitution provides a federalism framework in which states get to decide how those interactions will be governed with respect to lesser issues . . . and non-competetion agreements represent just one of many, many state-based issues. That's why state and local level elections are important . . . often as, if not more, important than national elections.
If you leave a company I could see a non-compete being enforceable to a point. But to fire you and then restrict your ability to earn a living seems a bit over the top.
I appreciate the response, but can't really say I agree. This is why I stay off the cooler.
Sorry for taking the thread there.Here's my penance
Oh, I agree . . . I'm just trying to give y'all a lay of the land down here.
OK. You must not like the America you've lived in all your life because that's the way that it is and has been for my entire lifetime . . . and I'm old.I appreciate the response, but can't really say I agree. This is why I stay off the cooler.
Here's my penance
The crux of the issue is what issues are so universal that they need to be country-wide and constitutionally protected, and what issues are specific to the locale. We're finding more and more issues that require minimum standards - water safety issues, for example, in the face of contamination from fracking or other soil contamination - so there's a tension between national/local that is growing.
LOL...That's exactly the reason I stay off the cooler. If you don't agree with someone on everything you're obviously a commie, nazi, racist, xenophobe, homophobe, anarchist, purdue fan, etc...
A non-compete signed under duress might also be less enforceable.
McNutt said that during the change of ownership, it was clear that he must sign the non-compete clause or be fired.
It is (or ought to be) one thing to accept a job that requires signing a non-compete, and entirely another to be required to sign a non-compete to avoid being kicked to the curb in a job that you already have, where responsibilities are not changing with the change in ownership.
But... IANAL...
McNutt said that during the change of ownership, it was clear that he must sign the non-compete clause or be fired.
It is (or ought to be) one thing to accept a job that requires signing a non-compete, and entirely another to be required to sign a non-compete to avoid being kicked to the curb in a job that you already have, where responsibilities are not changing with the change in ownership.
But... IANAL...
Good luck in whatever you choose to do McNutt. I'm competitive as hell and would go after them with everything I had to take business from them, but if there's something else you'd rather do for income that makes you happy, that's a pretty good option too.
I do a drive-by on the AOTF and the Cooler is now taken control.
What the hell is going on around here?
with things being as they are in today's economy, perhaps the decision on who to keep on and who not to, was made on the basis of who really needed the job and who didn't.
that said, putting the revenue thing aside, how much do you enjoy working a regular job?
or put another way, if you weren't laid off and won the lottery tomorrow, would you continue to work your job, or would you see the win as a way to spend that huge chunk of your time on other things?
in the mean time, sign up for unemployment benefits and try and enjoy the extra time while staying safe.
Last edited:
other than in a limited few exceptions, non competes should absolutely be illegal, as an anti competitive business practice.
Last edited:
Would that have been the dealership on 11th St? Had a ‘80 Cutlass and then an ‘86 Century that I’d take there for service. Always liked the service manager.
There's a difference?
I've been on the AOTF for decades . . . sometimes I forget which persona goes where.
I'm a lawyer...although not in employment law. Everyone is right, you should consult with an attorney.
Yep . . . but I'm no longer active in Indiana. And it's a long commute for hearings . . . so I'll have to leave it to the guys I've suggested to pick up where I can't help.
