Non-competes could be nixed in Oregon
Don Day July 3rd, 2007
Oregon Senate Bill 248 would largely end the practice of non-compete agreements in employment contracts across the state. The measure passed the full house and senate - even after an attempt by broadcasting companies to exempt their employees from the proposed law. That attempt was blocked in large part by the efforts of Sen. Rick Metsger, a former broadcaster himself. “Management has required non-competes for even low level radio announcers
and that is unacceptable. To say to someone ‘we don’t want you to work for us anymore and we don’t want you to work for anyone else either’ is totally wrong”, Metsger said in a prepared statement. If an employer still feels they need to have a non-compete agreement — they can, but must pay the employee a minimum 50% of their salary for up to two years after termination. The bill is now on Oregon Governor’s Ted Kulongoski’s desk for final consideration.
6 Comments Add your own
1. pbrown | July 3rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
When I worked as a humble production person in Medford, I was prohibited from working at any other stations in Meford OR Eugene for two years! Glad to see they’re maybe making non-competes go away.
2. tvnewser | July 3rd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Actually, in the final minutes, the broadcast lobby got their way. Non-competes could go up to two years. (6-months is the norm.) If a station enforced it, they’d have to pay the worker half their salary over that two years. Well, for a $40k reporter in Portland, can anyone survive on $20k for two years?
The final bill is terrible for on air talent, but much better for non-competes in other industries. The gov has to decide who he’ll tick off more: on air broadcasters if he signs it or the rest of labor if he vetoes it.
3. Don Day | July 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Hey \’tvnewser\’ — you are partially right, that\’s why I included this: \”If an employer still feels they need to have a non-compete agreement — they can, but must pay the employee a minimum 50% of their salary for up to two years after termination\”
The central thesis is that that provision makes it hard to have a no-compete — and the broadcast lobby did not get its way — they wanted an EXEMPTION for broadcast employees. Compromise makes for good politics — which is what this appears to be.
A $20,000 per year penalty is a stiff price for a broadcaster to pay - and makes the idea of the no compete clause much harder to swallow.
I don\’t think saying it is \”terrible for on air talent\” is a fair assessment (and its also a bit short-sighted, since many folks in TV with non compete agreements aren\’t talent). Is it perfect? No. Is it better than status quo? Yes — for employees at least.
4. Anonymous | July 4th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Why are the words “minimum” and “up to” used in this bill? Do you think any broadcaster is going to pay more than they have to? It would have been better to say “Fifty percent of the employee’s salary *every* year for two years”. The way it’s worded now would appear to allow 25% per year to be paid out, assuming an employer would want to drag it out for the full term. With a popular on-air talent, forcing them to go stale for that long just might be worth it fiscally.
5. tdc | July 4th, 2007 at 7:27 am
it’s laughable actually.
take any of your purported “talent”, shift them to the neighboring dma, put them on-air.
they’ll be a NOBODY.
legends in their own mind… and maybe their hometown dma, but that’s it.
6. Jeff Bailey | July 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
In Connecticut, the general assembly passed Public Act No. 07-237, AN ACT CONCERNING NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS. It essentially ends non-competes for broadcasters and security guards at ESPN. Awaiting governor’s signature or veto, last I heard.
Google ‘Terzi’s Lobbying Raises Eyebrows'’ from courant.com for another angle. [History: Mr. Terzi used to work for my employer, and was off the air for about a year when switching stations.]
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed