http://www.dailydot.com/politics/donald-trump-volunteer-contract-nda-non-disparagement-clause/
Not to mention his disdain for the authority of the Constitution.
Not to mention his disdain for the authority of the Constitution.
-
Features
Trump shows his colors
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
The "prevent[ing] employees" clause is interesting. If signed by a volunteer manager, it could reasonably be interpreted that should that manager encounter a volunteer disparaging Trump, then the manager is authorized to fire that person. And that's probably okay. It doesn't seem any different than say, an employee of Hilton Hotels being fired for publicly disparaging Hilton. Both managers and employees have a duty of loyalty to the company they work for. And although those duties differ in several respects, they both include not dragging the company's name through the mud. And just because a person is a volunteer, they would be expected at minimum to not cause harm to the cause they're ostensibly working to support.
As for the rest, once a person ceases working for a given entity, their duty of loyalty also ends, although slander and libel remain illegal. There is also the nondisclosure clause(s), which aren't included in the article. Nondisclosure clauses are perfectly legitimate, but it's what's in those clauses that may or may not be enforceable.
The article also doesn't include the "Restricted Means and Contexts" clause, and without it, there's no way to fully understand what any other clause containing the reference means.
Overall, the article is kind of meh. I'd bet other candidate's volunteer contracts don't look much different.
As for the rest, once a person ceases working for a given entity, their duty of loyalty also ends, although slander and libel remain illegal. There is also the nondisclosure clause(s), which aren't included in the article. Nondisclosure clauses are perfectly legitimate, but it's what's in those clauses that may or may not be enforceable.
The article also doesn't include the "Restricted Means and Contexts" clause, and without it, there's no way to fully understand what any other clause containing the reference means.
Overall, the article is kind of meh. I'd bet other candidate's volunteer contracts don't look much different.
article said:
How do you get this as being meh??
How do you get this as being meh??
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
Because most of the contract is legitimate under the circumstances I referenced and not enforceable under the others. I don't know that I'd call it "boilerplate" but it's pretty close to it. That is, the drafters of the contract knew how most courts would interpret a given provision or clause, and even though the drafters knew most courts wouldn't buy it, they still threw it in, in the unlikely case it could be used to their advantage down the road.
It probably took about 8 minutes to do, if not less (by copying and pasting it from a different contract and substituting the appropriate terms, e.g. "Trump") and is standard fare when drafting contracts.
And if it makes you feel better, you can't contract away your fundamental rights. In this case, the right to say what you want, provided the absence of slander and/or libel isn't present, once the duty of loyalty to the entity you're providing services for has ceased to be affected.
It really is meh.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
When were his true colors not on display?
So what if most of it is standard? So long as there is one crazy thing in it it's crazy. Being unenforceable doesn't make it not crazy.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
You know this, but what of the average Trump volunteer? I say again, Trump volunteer? What conclusions might they come to if and when they read it? Legal or not, the contract likely has a far more reaching affect than the courts might allow.
So, might as well throw it in, eh?
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
You make the daring assumption that Trump volunteers know how to read (ba-da-bum).
Seriously though, here comes the excitement: on your marks, get ready, sleep.
An agent's duty of loyalty embraces several subsidiary obligations, including duty to refrain from competing with the principal and from taking action on behalf of or otherwise assisting the principal's competitors, the duty not to acquire material benefit from a third party in connection with actions taken through agent's use of the agent's position, and a duty not to use or communicate confidential information of principal for agent's own purposes or those of third party. Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.02, 8.04, 8.05.
In this case, the principal-agent relationship is established once the volunteer comes on board to work for Trump. The volunteer is the agent, Trump's organization and immediate managers are the principals to which the volunteer "...assumes a duty of loyalty, by acting or assenting to act for another, even if no consideration is furnished... Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01.
So what we have is an agent, in this case a volunteer, whose duty of loyalty was outline in the contract pretty neatly, and who is not being paid. That's the underlined part. "Consideration" in contract law usually means "money" but it can be anything of value that induces the parties to form a contract. So it's fine.
And then there's this:
An employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement, which contains an unenforceable covenant ... a condition of continued employment. Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, 44 Cal.4th 937, in conjunction with:
An employer's termination of an employee who refuses to sign an agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant ... constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy, for purposes of tort of interference with prospective economic advantage. West's Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 16600.
So, say that this Trump volunteer quits and goes to work volunteering for another organization. The volunteer must honor confidentiality agreements, doesn't have to honor the non-compete clause (just trust me on this one), nor does the former Trump volunteer have to adhere to ay other unenforceable covenants, and if pursued by Trumpco (or whatever the entity is called), then the volunteer may have the opportunity to sue. But in this case I would guess it would be more of a harassment suit than an economic advantage issue because the volunteer isn't getting paid. However, the volunteer has all the rights of an employee.
That being the case, the hypothetical former Trump volunteer who now works for Bernie Sanders, but is being followed by men in black suits and toupee's could very well have a case in tort against Trump if the harassment gets bad enough, but would likely have to have an attorney file an injunction preventing the harassment.
As to Trump volunteers not knowing all of this, everyone is presumed to have notice of their basic rights, and everyone is presumed competent. That is, if one wants to claim incompetency, the burden is on them to prove it.
All that said, believe it or not, I'm leaving a lot out of this. But suffice it to say that the contract really isn't out of the ordinary and it doesn't represent much of a threat to anyone who signs it.
I agree they're unenforceable but that's irrelevant--the point is that the clause shows Trump's true colors.
Malintent
Veteran Member
There is nothing unusual about this contract.
a very nice technique for disparagement is to take a complex set of highly specialized things (like legal contractual terms) and point out something that the layperson might find confusing as "surprising and strange", when it is completely standard.
NDAs survive employment, however non-compete (which this is most similar to), does not, as consideration ends.
If you didn't understand the above statement, then your opinion on this contract is based on hype alone.
a very nice technique for disparagement is to take a complex set of highly specialized things (like legal contractual terms) and point out something that the layperson might find confusing as "surprising and strange", when it is completely standard.
NDAs survive employment, however non-compete (which this is most similar to), does not, as consideration ends.
If you didn't understand the above statement, then your opinion on this contract is based on hype alone.
Did you miss the part where it doesn't only apply to you but to your employees? Your employees protest Trump and you broke the agreement.
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
Dude, give it up. It's been explained to you in both technical and layman's terms. There's nothing wrong with the contract.
laughing dog
Contributor
Except much of it is completely unenforceable.
Volunteering for Trump's campaign isn't a prima facie argument (ba-da-bum)?
Malintent
Veteran Member
This is also true. I just read an industry article about how a particular case of exfiltration of data from amanufacturing company was not a breach of a non-compete agreement because of very similar issues. It all comes down to consideration within the contract. At the time of separation, consideration ends.. .so it gets complicated as to how other terms are enforceable. Basically, you can't make someone not do something.. but you can yourself not do something (like pay severance, issue stock options, etc..). but you can't make someone not work somewhere or not tell someone else something that as an employee would have been prohibited. NDAs are the right way to go, not employee contracts with non-compete clauses.
Elixir
Made in America
As a recent party to a number of NDAs, the striking difference here is that there is no negotiating the terms of non-disclosure. Where they are useful, there is back-and-forth about the need for and effects of every clause of an NDA. I can't see a Trump volunteer requesting modification to the document based on some reasonable, understandable set of conditions effecting the volunteer. Well... strike that - I could see it being requested, then laughed at.