[Molon Labe]

Heard about this on the radio. It's a proposed amendment to the GA constitution that reads,
The ballot question reads as follows:[2]

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

(__) Yes
(__) No

I have to do more research but according to the below, it's not good.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/G ... %282010%29

 

[seajay]

The correct response is NO.

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

Why does my spidey sense tingle when I read the title for a law that's made to be as confusing as that?

Gun Owner's Protection Act (that Didn't), anyone?

 

[smn]

Click here for the full amendment text.

 

[68908]

That's a BIG, HUGE NO! Who comes up with these screwy amendments? Furthermore, just vote NO on all of them.

 

[BirdMan]

Oh for crying out loud. Somebody just summarize that nonsense for me, will you? I don't feel like reading it today (later, I will).

 

[Priest]

Oh for crying out loud. Somebody just summarize that nonsense for me, will you? I don't feel like reading it today (later, I will).

The basic point of it is to allow non-compete contracts or clauses to be fully enforceable in this state. This means your employer could say "sign this non-compete with me or you are fired" so you do since the economy sucks and you need your job. 3 years from now you have the opportunity to start your own business so you give it a go. You don't steal any of his technology or try to take away his clients, but he sues you anyway because your company is in the same field you worked for him in and you promised to never ever be a competitor to him. he wins because the law is on his side if this goes through. Right now it can be argued that the terms were of an unreasonable time period, scope of distance, etc... so you would at least have more wiggle room.

MP... did I get it right? Did I learn from my mistake?

 

[BirdMan]

Thank you. That makes sense.

 

[OrdinaryEverydayGuy]

There is more than what was so well described above. There is a process called 'blue lining' where the company can write the non-competes as broadly as they choose. If you fight it and go to court, the judge can strike certain portions of the agreement down, while leaving others intact. It is a method that encourages companies to lock you down six ways from Sunday, you would then have to outlay many thousands in the court system to try to get any portion of it disallowed. By then your new job or business opportunity is long gone.

Basically, it puts power more firmly in the hands of business and limits the individual.

In my opinion, it is 'solving' a problem that does not exist. I haven't heard of any companies refusing to relocate to Georgia because of this issue. The phrasing is deceptive and I suspect that many people will vote 'yes' out of ignorance.

I'm voting 'No'.

-OEG

 

[Adam5]

Oh for crying out loud. Somebody just summarize that nonsense for me, will you? I don't feel like reading it today (later, I will).

The basic point of it is to allow non-compete contracts or clauses to be fully enforceable in this state. This means your employer could say "sign this non-compete with me or you are fired" so you do since the economy sucks and you need your job. 3 years from now you have the opportunity to start your own business so you give it a go. You don't steal any of his technology or try to take away his clients, but he sues you anyway because your company is in the same field you worked for him in and you promised to never ever be a competitor to him. he wins because the law is on his side if this goes through. Right now it can be argued that the terms were of an unreasonable time period, scope of distance, etc... so you would at least have more wiggle room.

MP... did I get it right? Did I learn from my mistake?

It sounds to me like you did, but IANAL.