|
Post by Soutpeel on Apr 9, 2018 6:40:36 GMT 7
These Americans are trapped in their jobs: they need to pay $10,000 to quit Dozens of news anchors robotically intoned “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy,” after reciting what turned out to be a script by Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner and operator of 193 local TV stations. Dan Rather called it Orwellian, and many have asked in amazement: why would local journalists across the nation allow themselves to be used in such a demeaning way? The answer is clear to me, as a lawyer with decades handling cases involving low-wage workers: people need jobs. But the anchors may have an even more specific concern: an employment contract that doesn’t just bind but entraps them. Among other things, Sinclair contracts contain a requirement that employees must pay their employers if they leave their jobs before their contract terms end. For example, an employee making $50,000 annually might have to pay in the ballpark of $10,000 if she wanted to leave after one year of a two-year term. While it’s plainly illegal to impose a penalty on employees for leaving a job, the contract describes this requirement as “liquidated damages”. But such damages are allowed only in very limited situations, such as when an employee leaves a job shortly after receiving, at the employer’s expense, costly, specific, and transportable training. This is hardly the situation for Sinclair employees www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/08/sinclair-broadcast-anchors-us-labor-contracts
|
|
|
Post by Soutpeel on Apr 9, 2018 6:56:39 GMT 7
Although this article talks about US labour law, the legal premise is the same in just about all employment contracts, in other words, non-compete/restraint of trade clauses in individual contracts where there are no liquidated damages are legally unenforceable and this would include Thailand labour contracts
Many years ago an engineering company tried to pull "restraint of trade" against me as an individual on the grounds of "poaching" one "their" clients when i left the company and went to another company, they cited liqudated damages to the tune of USD 2.5 million
Reality was, "their client" more specfically their engineering manager wanted to deal with me only, hence their work followed me
The case lasted about 5 minutes in front of the judge and was thrown out for following reasons
1. Restraint of trade clauses are not enforceable in the case of an individuals employment contract, even if such a clause exists in the signed contract 2. The engineering manager for client turned up in court and basically told the beak what a gang of lying, cheating,bar stewards my previous company were
|
|