Amendment 1 on the ballot for 2010

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by rankhornjp, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. rankhornjp

    rankhornjp Active Member

    4,543
    4
    36
    Received a list from my (old) REP. This one bugged me a little.

    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:
     
  2. commodore_dude

    commodore_dude Active Member

    2,568
    0
    36
    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)
     

  3. seajay

    seajay NRA Certified Instructor

    4,996
    0
    36
    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...
     
  4. psrumors

    psrumors Well-Known Member

    4,869
    47
    48
    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
     
  5. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,605
    39
    48
    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...
     
  6. davidstaples

    davidstaples New Member

    3
    0
    0
    I voted no on this one.
     
  7. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,598
    154
    63

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

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,417
    113
    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.
     
  9. RevolverDan

    RevolverDan Active Member

    1,686
    0
    36
    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.
     
  10. 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
     
  11. pyromaster

    pyromaster Member

    859
    0
    16
    voted no as well.
     
  12. krmbigmac

    krmbigmac Active Member

    1,623
    0
    36
    +1
     
  13. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,598
    154
    63

    I did vote yes to #4.
     
  14. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    8
    0
    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.
     
  15. RIA45

    RIA45 New Member

    1,038
    1
    0
    so far all amendments are passing
     
  16. smn

    smn Active Member

    4,105
    10
    38
    :banghead:
     
  17. BG_Atl

    BG_Atl Active Member

    2,161
    18
    38
    How in the name of Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich (yes... expletive REPLACED)
    did this one pass... :screwy:
     
  18. seajay

    seajay NRA Certified Instructor

    4,996
    0
    36
    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.