[rankhornjp]

Received a list from my (old) REP. This one bugged me a little.

AMENDMENT 1: Allows contracts with non-compete clauses to be enforced in Georgia courts.

BALLOT QUESTION: Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?

Summary: Currently, the Constitution prohibits the General Assembly from authorizing any contract or agreement that may or intends to have the effect of defeating or lessening competition. Non-compete clauses in contracts may limit where a former employee works and the type of work they can perform. Moreover, these restrictions can be for brief periods or for years.

If passed, the amended would give the General Assembly the power to grant to courts the ability to "blue-pencil" contracts with non-compete language. This means a judge could limit the duration, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities provided in a contract or agreement with competition restrictions and thereby make such non-compete language reasonable.

Pro: For many companies, non-compete clauses are essential to guarantee that former employees with specialized knowledge are not able to simply leave the company and take that knowledge to the next highest bidder or to create their own companies using knowledge gained from trade secrets. Most states allow "blue penciling" by judges, which Georgia currently does not.

Con: Judges will have the unilateral ability to change the terms of a contract, either in favor of or against a former employee. This could lead to irregular decisions, depending on where the judge and the employer are based.

I love the bias of the question. :?

What business does a judge have in telling me where I can/can't work? Thats between me and my employer. If they want to be able to enforce contracts, AS SIGNED, I don't have a problem with that. That what civil court is for. But to give them the authority to change a contract even after I have left the company is BS! :help:

 

[commodore_dude]

Yep, 100% no on this one. My California-based company thinks their unenforceably broad non-compete is valid in GA, and I'm happy with them thinking that with nothing to back it up 8)

 

[seajay]

I would rather not have a judge determine on a case by case basis. It would be better to limit the terms across the board. The problem here in Georgia is many companies are totally blocking out people from EVER working in the same field once they leave the employer. But there has to be a better way...

 

[psrumors]

I would rather not have a judge determine on a case by case basis. It would be better to limit the terms across the board. The problem here in Georgia is many companies are totally blocking out people from EVER working in the same field once they leave the employer. But there has to be a better way...

This is what my company wants to do.....they don't want us to be able to work in this field for 3 years after "leaving". If we don't sign we give up $25k a year in commissions. We have been hurting in this economy and many of us think it is just a matter of time before they lay off. If we sign, then what?

I understand the need for non-compete clauses but I have been in this field since I was 18 years old I could not imagine being forced into a different career.

And the wording on this amendment......always have to trick the citizens instead of asking the questions point blank

 

[rmodel65]

right now iirc a non compete agreement if not filled to meet all requirements they are totally invalid...they must say specifically what you can or can not do, how long you're restrained and a specific mileage you're not allowed to compete in...

 

[davidstaples]

I voted no on this one.

 

[Adam5]

I voted no on this one.

I'm going to vote no on all of them.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The problem here in Georgia is many companies are totally blocking out people from EVER working in the same field once they leave the employer. But there has to be a better way...

That is unenforceably broad in scope and duration, and so under current Georgia law this would be an unenforceable restraint on competition and be struck down as violating public policy. In other words, your stupid employer would lose, and you would be free to compete with them.

If enough people vote in favor of amendment one, and the law changes, a judge could restructure the agreement to say what it does not say and enforce it with a reasonable scope and duration, say like three years, and you would be stuck.

Under current law, all employers need to do is craft a restriction that is reasonable, and the courts would uphold it.

If the law changes, then employers can craft a restriction that is unreasonable, and the courts will enforce it as reasonable.

This is not a good change.

 

[RevolverDan]

I work for a blue chip, and our state president has sent out 5-6 emails trying to get employees to vote for this. Even if I knew nothing else about this, that alone would be enough for me to vote against it.

 

[OrdinaryEverydayGuy]

MP's analysis is very good.

As the law stands, companies hesitate to write overly broad non-competes, knowing they would be thrown out wholesale. If Amendment 1 passes, they can write them as tightly as they wish, knowing that a judge would not throw out the entire agreement, but only 'blue pencil' or limit some of the terms.

In the meantime, the employee has spent many thousands on legal fees and the time window in which he/she could actually profitably work in the field may have passed.

I voted NO.

-OEG

 

[The Math Teacher]

I voted no.

 

[pyromaster]

voted no as well.

 

[krmbigmac]

I'm going to vote no on all of them.

+1

 

[Savvy Jack]

I voted No!

 

[Adam5]

I'm going to vote no on all of them.

+1

I did vote yes to #4.

 

[CoffeeMate]

H*ll no!

I do what I do. I did it long before I worked for my current employer. God willing, I'll be able do it long after I leave my current employer. My field is my field and it is what I do to earn a living.

If my current employer is concerned about me leaving to go do what I do for a competing company, then maybe my current employer should concern itself with trying to make sure I won't choose to leave them.

I agreed to do what I do for my current employer. I did not agree to "sign over" my life or control of the skills I've spent years developing. I agreed to use those skills for my current employer's benefit -- I did not "indenture" myself or give up "ownership" of my skills.


This is just yet another attempt to enslave, pure and simple.

 

[RIA45]

so far all amendments are passing

 

[smn]

so far all amendments are passing

:banghead:

 

[BG_Atl]

How in the name of Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich (yes... expletive REPLACED)
did this one pass... :screwy:

 

[seajay]

How in the name of Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich (yes... expletive REPLACED)
did this one pass... :screwy:

It passed because of the way it was presented on the ballot. AND-----Because far too many voters are just too lazy to research what is really going on.