Employment contract

[Stone Cold]

Not sure what one has to do with the other, but nice reach!

It's not a reach. I had to sign crappy training contracts to start in this industry. I kept my word but I can see in some cases the reasoning behind breaking them. Some contracts are near indentured servitude status. To give grief to the up and comers for signing a crappy contract, when you paid to bypass this section of the "dues process" is rather crappy.

Nowadays, I'm not sure how the market is but I'd think the up and comers have it much better than we did in the past.

Hell, the reason I ended up in the Navy was because in 1994-95, most companies were PFT and I wouldn't do it. There was more to it than that, but that is absolutely why I left aviation for a while.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Breaking a contract is essentially stealing from the company. I’d say that’s a lot worse than a little PFT, so we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Breaking a contract is essentially stealing from the company. I’d say that’s a lot worse than a little PFT, so we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

Whah? It isn't uncommon for employers in my field to demand that employees sign non-compete agreements, that are worldwide in scope and last years, and define competition as essentially any employment that may potentially ever compete with them (basically any job). As an employee, what choice do you have? Get fired for not signing it? (Getting fired usually involves some potential clawback of prior compensation). Or hold your nose and sign, and keep your job?

I have lawyers look at these agreements for me, and the advice I've been given is that they won't try to enforce it, because they know they won't win. Which is consistent with my experience.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I make people sign non-competes and non-disclosures, too. Hard for me to comment on the ones you’re talking about without being familiar with them and the history behind them, though.

 

[Stone Cold]

Breaking a contract is essentially stealing from the company. I’d say that’s a lot worse than a little PFT, so we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

Indentured servitude for low time pilots is worse than stealing from a company. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Breaking a contract is essentially stealing from the company. I’d say that’s a lot worse than a little PFT, so we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

Indentured servitude for low time pilots is worse than stealing from a company. We'll agree to disagree.

Both labor/management viewpoints are based on assumptions of relative bargaining power and good faith. The former can change with the economy. The latter is not always there and each side claiming a universal moral high ground is funny.

Yes, most states enforce training reimbursement contracts in some manner in recognition of the high cost to the company and the long-term value to the employee. But that hardly means some employers won't take advantage of that to try to unfairly pass their own basic cost of doing business onto their employees. You can see that dynamic at work in some of the decisions.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I make people sign non-competes and non-disclosures, too. Hard for me to comment on the ones you’re talking about without being familiar with them and the history behind them, though.

NDA, whatever.

Noncompete? Nope, nope, nope, nope. Thank goodness right thinking jurisdictions make them void.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

NDA, whatever.

Noncompete? Nope, nope, nope, nope. Thank goodness right thinking jurisdictions make them void.

And this mentality is why so many companies think they’re justified to treat employees like dirt.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

And this mentality is why so many companies think they’re justified to treat employees like dirt.

Oh yeah. Me saying your skills should be portable and the state should see to that is definitely why. To be clear I am fine with, and abide by, NDAs, and don’t see them contrary to public policy.

Are you sure you aren’t a Republican?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Oh yeah. Me saying your skills should be portable and the state should see to that is definitely why. To be clear I am fine with, and abide by, NDAs, and don’t see them contrary to public policy.

Are you sure you aren’t a Republican?

Believing in contracts is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a “my word means something” issue. Frankly, I hope Spirit decides that they were pressured into accepting your CBA and just pretends it doesn’t exist. Give you a dose of your own medicine.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Believing in contracts is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a “my word means something” issue. Frankly, I hope Spirit decides that they were pressured into accepting your CBA and just pretends it doesn’t exist. Give you a dose of your own medicine.

Do you really not see the distinction between the issues?

I think non-competes are contrary to the public interest and some states agree with me to various levels of enthusiasm (California, especially, renders them basically non-enforceable). Sure, write whatever you want in a contract, but a provision contrary to the law is not enforceable.

I don’t see an NDA—or even a training agreement, lousy though I think they are—in nearly the same light.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Do you really not see the distinction between the issues?

I think non-competes are contrary to the public interest and some states agree with me to various levels of enthusiasm (California, especially, renders them basically non-enforceable). Sure, write whatever you want in a contract, but a provision contrary to the law is not enforceable.

I don’t see an NDA—or even a training agreement, lousy though I think they are—in nearly the same light.

Non-competes are very important legal instruments to protect company IP. Although I know you don't understand the importance of IP or think it important, so that's probably part of the issue here.

P.S. Telling me that Commiefornia does something isn't a good way to convince me it's a good idea.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Non-competes are very important legal instruments to protect company IP. Although I know you don't understand the importance of IP or think it important, so that's probably part of the issue here.

Non Disclosure Agreements are important for protecting IP. Non Competes, from my personal experience, are used to keep wages down and scare employees from taking other jobs. Many of them are so broad in scope that they aren't enforceable anyway. In practice, the Non Compete forces employees to only go from one huge company to another huge company, that has the resources to deter threats of lawsuits.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Non Disclosure Agreements are important for protecting IP. Non Competes, from my personal experience, are used to keep wages down and scare employees from taking other jobs. Many of them are so broad in scope that they aren't enforceable anyway. In practice, the Non Compete forces employees to only go from one huge company to another huge company, that has the resources to deter threats of lawsuits.

An employee who leaves one company and goes to a competitor is a massive IP leak. Trying to prove that they've disclosed sensitive information in violation of their NDA is virtually impossible, and by the time it's happened, it's already too late. Keeping them from joining the competitior is the only way to protect sensitive trade secrets.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

An employee who leaves one company and goes to a competitor is a massive IP leak. Trying to prove that they've disclosed sensitive information in violation of their NDA is virtually impossible, and by the time it's happened, it's already too late. Keeping them from joining the competitior is the only way to protect sensitive trade secrets.

You can say the same thing about an employee that goes to a customer, or a vendor. Which is the language I usually see in these agreements. If it really matters so much to the employer, they should be willing to pay full salary and benefits for the duration of the agreement.

These things often get used on temp workers, who might be in a job for 2 weeks, and then have trouble for years getting another job.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You can say the same thing about an employee that goes to a customer, or a vendor. Which is the language I usually see in these agreements. If it really matters so much to the employer, they should be willing to pay full salary and benefits for the duration of the agreement.

These things often get used on temp workers, who might be in a job for 2 weeks, and then have trouble for years getting another job.

I'm not opposed to putting reasonable restrictions into law regarding how these agreements can be written. A temp worker who has no access to sensitive info and works somewhere for two weeks probably shouldn't be restricted in finding other employment. But if someone chooses to sign a contract, then they should abide by their word. Otherwise, they're not one bit better than the management team who signs the CBA with clear language and understanding of what it means, and then proceeds to ignore it and say "grieve it."

 

[Luke Froese]

It was not my intention to instigate any agrument/disagreement. although I do appreciate the discussion. I can see both sides. One would have every right to say that I knew what I was getting into with this contract. But it's difficult to foresee what quality of life looks like as you "move up" in the company. I didn't sign this contract with the intention of breaking it. That's not the kind of person I am, but in the end, I need to do whatever is right for my young and growing family. Otherwise, what I do isn't worth it.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

What, no discussion of the morality of breaking a contract that someone willfully entered into? Sad.

If you pay the penalty to break it I don't see the problem.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Non-competes are very important legal instruments to protect company IP. Although I know you don't understand the importance of IP or think it important, so that's probably part of the issue here.

Non-competes and IP protection covenants. Apples and oranges.

AFAIK, every state which bars an employer from preventing an employee from earning a living by working somewhere else enforces IP protection covenants. And, of course, one doesn't have to work for a competition to sell them another's trade secrets.

But I guess someone who wants to bar those employees from working is going to come up with rationales why it is reasonable.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Non-competes and IP protection covenants. Apples and oranges.

Agree. For what it is worth, places I have worked often treat non-competes as a revenue stream. You can bring in an employee for a week or two, and then spend the next year or two shaking down wherever else they may work for a percentage or a fee.