I need to know....

[Booney]

Anyone interested in two tickets to see the Zep Boys at Morphetville tonight?

$50 each...make me an offer.

[Footy Chick]

Anyone interested in two tickets to see the Zep Boys at Morphetville tonight?

$50 each...make me an offer.

so you're not going or is someone else not going with you?

[Booney]

Anyone interested in two tickets to see the Zep Boys at Morphetville tonight?

$50 each...make me an offer.

so you're not going or is someone else not going with you?

Both of us fading fast after a big week back at work, Mrs Boon not finishing until 6, wouldn't get there until 7:30-8....they come on at 7:30....

[Lightning McQueen]

Both of us fading fast after a big week back at work, Mrs Boon not finishing until 6, wouldn't get there until 7:30-8....they come on at 7:30....

Drats, we stayed in Glenelg for the whole weekend a fortnight ago for one of my work shows, we're only staying there tomorrow night for Mrs Mc's, the horse was running at Morphy both Saturdays, I got it arse about face.

[Jase]

I need to know why Mrs Jase allowed me to have 1 to many beers at the school's Christmas show and now I have found myself agreeing to do a half ironman triathlon in 2020...

Of course I agreed to this in front of the entire PE department...

This is going to hurt me, a lot...


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[DOC]

What was she thinking?

Probably hehehehe.

[Smashed Crab]

Could possibly in the Sad thread as well.

Younger peoples mentalities....

I managed a young couple who have an 8 month old. They informed me yesterday of their resignation (not a complete shock to me as I've heard whispers). Now, my industry is pretty small Australia wide so I know what jobs are on the market etc. They've told me they couldn't refuse another job offer, it was a good offer (I'd seen the job advert). Now, I'd been negotiating hard over the last 3 months to get them a pretty big salary increase, one was 17%. Which put them still lower than the other job, but had other perks like free rent, very flexi time for the mum (take paper work home and do it when she has spare time type stuff). So all in all they come out about even, except the other job is on the other side of Australia, so moving/relocating costs. But we have a non-compete in our contracts which stipulates they cannot work for a competitor doing the same produce. The job he got is directly that. I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances. What makes me sad is how stupid they are knowing that lawyers will get involved and put an injunction in that they cant work for the competitor for 12 months, and then they will be with no job? It does my head in, it's not like they hated the job here. Younger people these days seem to think they can do anything and have no consequences. I'm friends with this couple, I understand some of their reasoning, but when I tried telling them it is out of my hands now, and explained what will most likely happen they just shrugged and said it s a good opportunity and we're doing it for our child. There going to potentially be jobless. It makes me sad, frustrated and wondering, what the F are they thinking

[MW]

Money talks. Were your salary increases guaranteed?

[Smashed Crab]

Money talks. Were your salary increases guaranteed?

Yep, we were rolling the new salaries out this fortnight before Christmas across the board. Understandably higher up will refuse to increase their salary now because they resigned and will finish up in Mid Jan.

[Lightning McQueen]

Could possibly in the Sad thread as well.

Younger peoples mentalities....

I managed a young couple who have an 8 month old. They informed me yesterday of their resignation (not a complete shock to me as I've heard whispers). Now, my industry is pretty small Australia wide so I know what jobs are on the market etc. They've told me they couldn't refuse another job offer, it was a good offer (I'd seen the job advert). Now, I'd been negotiating hard over the last 3 months to get them a pretty big salary increase, one was 17%. Which put them still lower than the other job, but had other perks like free rent, very flexi time for the mum (take paper work home and do it when she has spare time type stuff). So all in all they come out about even, except the other job is on the other side of Australia, so moving/relocating costs. But we have a non-compete in our contracts which stipulates they cannot work for a competitor doing the same produce. The job he got is directly that. I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances. What makes me sad is how stupid they are knowing that lawyers will get involved and put an injunction in that they cant work for the competitor for 12 months, and then they will be with no job? It does my head in, it's not like they hated the job here. Younger people these days seem to think they can do anything and have no consequences. I'm friends with this couple, I understand some of their reasoning, but when I tried telling them it is out of my hands now, and explained what will most likely happen they just shrugged and said it s a good opportunity and we're doing it for our child. There going to potentially be jobless. It makes me sad, frustrated and wondering, what the F are they thinking

Pretty shellfish

[Booney]

I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances.

You might be surprised by the outcome of this then.

[Smashed Crab]

Could possibly in the Sad thread as well.

Younger peoples mentalities....

I managed a young couple who have an 8 month old. They informed me yesterday of their resignation (not a complete shock to me as I've heard whispers). Now, my industry is pretty small Australia wide so I know what jobs are on the market etc. They've told me they couldn't refuse another job offer, it was a good offer (I'd seen the job advert). Now, I'd been negotiating hard over the last 3 months to get them a pretty big salary increase, one was 17%. Which put them still lower than the other job, but had other perks like free rent, very flexi time for the mum (take paper work home and do it when she has spare time type stuff). So all in all they come out about even, except the other job is on the other side of Australia, so moving/relocating costs. But we have a non-compete in our contracts which stipulates they cannot work for a competitor doing the same produce. The job he got is directly that. I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances. What makes me sad is how stupid they are knowing that lawyers will get involved and put an injunction in that they cant work for the competitor for 12 months, and then they will be with no job? It does my head in, it's not like they hated the job here. Younger people these days seem to think they can do anything and have no consequences. I'm friends with this couple, I understand some of their reasoning, but when I tried telling them it is out of my hands now, and explained what will most likely happen they just shrugged and said it s a good opportunity and we're doing it for our child. There going to potentially be jobless. It makes me sad, frustrated and wondering, what the F are they thinking

Pretty shellfish

Lol

[Jim05]

I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances.

You might be surprised by the outcome of this then.

Yep, about 20 years ago I went through something similar and was taken to court. The Judge basically laughed at it and threw it out straight away.

[Pseudo]

I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances.

You might be surprised by the outcome of this then.

Yep, about 20 years ago I went through something similar and was taken to court. The Judge basically laughed at it and threw it out straight away.

Almost 2 decades ago I took a job with a startup company which insisted on a similar clause in the work contract. I sought advice and was told that the clause was basically not enforceable. So I happily signed up.

Got the arse in less than 12 months but that is another story...

[Smashed Crab]

I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances.

You might be surprised by the outcome of this then.

Yep, about 20 years ago I went through something similar and was taken to court. The Judge basically laughed at it and threw it out straight away.

Thanks Jim. For their sake I hope it turns out like this. One of my other employees who I'm close too told me that they had seen a lawyer who looked at the contract and told them it's pretty water tight and would most likely hold up in court if it got there. Either he's right or he's not a good lawyer. Might be leaning to the not a good lawyer after Jim and Pseudo's comments.

My CEO is a prick who will make it his personal vendetta unfortunately.

[Booney]

Basically it's Restraint of trade v's Non Compete.

From something I've used previously :

When assessing whether a restrictive employment contract is reasonable and valid, the court will take into account the duration of the restraints, the geographic area in which they apply, and the activities of the employee the restraints seek to control.

Post-employment restraints are presumed to be invalid and unenforceable unless it can be shown that they are genuinely necessary to protect commercial interests. The onus is on the employer to demonstrate that a clause imposes no greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect these interests.

Employers can’t use a restraint clause to protect themselves against the usual processes of competition in a sector or market. Generally, broad restrictions on competition won’t be deemed to be reasonable or enforceable.Legitimate interests that are commonly recognised as supporting a valid restraint include the employer’s confidential information or trade secrets, customers and clients of the business (business goodwill) and the employer’s staff. It should be noted that an employee’s knowledge of confidential information and trade secrets is, in the eyes of a court, different from the more general know-how and expertise they use to do their job.

A restraint clause typically upheld by an Australian court is one of between three and 12 months’ duration, restricted to a specific geographical area and reliant on a special need to restrain conduct (e.g. solicitation of clients the employee had contact with).

Restrictive clauses aren’t essential in employment contracts because there is an inherent protection regarding confidential information. That is, if a contract doesn’t have restrictive provisions, an employee can simply take and misuse confidential information.

If an employer needs restrictions beyond that – for example, against the solicitation of clients or employees – carefully worded and reasonable restrictive provisions are required.

[JK]

I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances.

You might be surprised by the outcome of this then.

Dont many get around it by classifying their new employee as being in a completely different role? (Ie, a Salesperson being listed as a Janitor with his/her new company)

[Booney]

I asked them, you guys do remember and understand the non-compete clauses in your contract? They replied yes, but they'll take their chances.

You might be surprised by the outcome of this then.

Dont many get around it by classifying their new employee as being in a completely different role? (Ie, a Salesperson being listed as a Janitor with his/her new company)

Beyond trade secrets (unique to your business) and confidential items like line pricing (probably close to most competitors so not really a secret) or tender pricing awaiting acceptance (covered under business law) you really can't stop someone from working because you don't want them too. It's pretty simple, the only way around it is with very well worded contracts and in an environment requiring such sensitivity the employee would be taking those clauses into consideration.

[Booney]

I'll be interested in this one Drunk Bluey, keep us updated, please.

[Lightning McQueen]

Almost 2 decades ago I took a job with a startup company which insisted on a similar clause in the work contract. I sought advice and was told that the clause was basically not enforceable. So I happily signed up.

Got the arse in less than 12 months but that is another story...

Escorting?