Non-Compete clauses for sandwich makers

[Nexus]

Like I said you simply support corporate power. If a corporation restricts the free market you're ok with that. If other employers started doing this they would hamstring the labor market with less choices and less competition.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Coloradoatheist all your posts in this thread have shown that you simply support more corporate power not the free market. This is usually the case with free market evangelists and libertarian types.

In a free market, I as an individual decide if the conditions for employment are worth it. The skill level for the jobs at Jimmy Johns are not that hard to find in other jobs, that don't involve sandwiches.

ie "So fuck 'em".

If the skill level is applicable to all sorts of minimum wage jobs, why in the heck is there a non-compete clause?

 

[ksen]

If they're skillful enough to need a non-compete clause they should be making more than minimum wage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If they're skillful enough to need a non-compete clause they should be making more than minimum wage.

By the way, TalkFreethought changed its user policy and posters are not allowed to post in other web boards for two years.

This is no way prohibits your freedom to post on the Internet. You had the choice to not join.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If they're skillful enough to need a non-compete clause they should be making more than minimum wage.

And if it's only minimum wage you shouldn't be taking a job with a non-compete clause. Maybe we'll find out if any workers were ever threatened with it. I'm curious when it became a policy.

 

[arkirk]

Not if you're the CEO of Jimmy John's.

Non compete clauses are more normal on higher management positions. Its the moving this down to all workers that's more of an issue in this case. I'm curious what percentage of the workers even knew they had a non-compete clause.

So then, Colorado, you think the non-compete clause is okay? I think it is exactly as Ksen calls it...a bag of dicks shoved down the worker's throat. My dad originated a lot of fancy engineering in places he worked. All the rights to them ended up being held by the companies he worked for. He died penniless, while many of HIS ideas were out there making money for the companies for which he had worked. Intellectual property should NEVER be the property of a corporation.

 

[ksen]

If they're skillful enough to need a non-compete clause they should be making more than minimum wage.

And if it's only minimum wage you shouldn't be taking a job with a non-compete clause.

Sure, because MW workers have the leisure to take their time to find that perfect MW job and still be able to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves. Due diligence is the hallmark of the MW worker.

Maybe we'll find out if any workers were ever threatened with it.

Maybe that doesn't matter.

I'm curious when it became a policy.

Who cares? What matters is that it is policy now.

Fun fact:

Jimmy John sued his cousin for violation of a non-compete clause back in 2000. If he was willing to use a non-compete clause to take a member of his family to court what makes you think he wouldn't use one to take a complete stranger to court?

http://www.nndb.com/people/673/000205058/

In 2000, Liautaud sued his cousin, Michael Liautaud, owner of another midwest chain called Milio's Sandwiches. Jimmy John claimed that that he had shared his "secrets of success" with his cousin Michael, under the stipulation that Michael would never expand his Milio's chain beyond Madison, Wisconsin, but that Milio's had indeed opened numerous sandwich shops far from Madison. Jimmy John lost the lawsuit and lost again in the US Court of Appeals, as the non-compete clause was deemed illegal and unenforceable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If they're skillful enough to need a non-compete clause they should be making more than minimum wage.

And if it's only minimum wage you shouldn't be taking a job with a non-compete clause. Maybe we'll find out if any workers were ever threatened with it. I'm curious when it became a policy.

See! It is the worker's fault!

JJ trains a person to make their sandwich, then that person leaves and goes to Subway. Subway doesn't have to train that worker because now the worker knows the cut bun in two, bottom of bun -> meat -> toppings -> top of bun setup. It is like the employee is stealing that life changing training that JJ just gave them for free. You know, maybe JJ should charge their employees a fee for teaching them how to make a sandwich.

In 2000, Liautaud sued his cousin, Michael Liautaud, owner of another midwest chain called Milio's Sandwiches. Jimmy John claimed that that he had shared his "secrets of success" with his cousin Michael, under the stipulation that Michael would never expand his Milio's chain beyond Madison, Wisconsin, but that Milio's had indeed opened numerous sandwich shops far from Madison. Jimmy John lost the lawsuit and lost again in the US Court of Appeals, as the non-compete clause was deemed illegal and unenforceable.

Secrets of success? Get supplies as low cost as possible, pay workers shit wages, sell your product like it is quality but actually isn't? Tell your workers they can't go anywhere else that sells sandwiches.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Going after another chain that opened up certainly would be something that a company would go after. Going after a sub maker going to Subway wouldn't. They would spend thousands in legal costs to get a judge to say yep they did, but what harm did you receive from it. Good luck with that one JJ.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I just want to make sure. It is it okay for the military to require X number of years of service? Or that they can throw you in prison for treason since it would be violating free speech?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just want to make sure. It is it okay for the military to require X number of years of service? Or that they can throw you in prison for treason since it would be violating free speech?

 

[Bronzeage]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sandwich-makers-have-non-compete-clauses-now/

Capital has been stealing labor's lunch money the past 15 years, and, in related news, sandwich-makers at Jimmy John's sub chain now have to sign non-compete agreements.

That's right: Jimmy John's workers have to promise not to take any of the trade secrets they learned assembling subs to any nearby sandwich shop for at least two years, according to Huffington Post. This is what happens when workers have zero bargaining power.

No no no Wonkblog, this is what happens when you leave the free market alone to work its magic.

Non-compete clauses for entry-level sandwichmakers (and yoga instructors and pesticide sprayers and event planners and summer camp counselors) is a sign of a healthy, robust economy.

A Jimmy John's sandwich maker works at a prep table that is in plain view of the public. There are no trade secrets when everything is done in plain sight. This kind of suit would be laughed out of a Louisiana court because Jimmy John would have to demonstrate the sandwich maker was privy to a true secret.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I just want to make sure. It is it okay for the military to require X number of years of service? Or that they can throw you in prison for treason since it would be violating free speech?

So we let 18 years olds make the decision on whether or not they might be killed or have to kill someone, but god it's horrible if we let them make the decision of whether a non-compete clause is good or bad.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So we let 18 years olds make the decision on whether or not they might be killed or have to kill someone, but god it's horrible if we let them make the decision of whether a non-compete clause is good or bad.

Actually, new recruits don't make those kinds of decisions. They have officers make them for them. So, you'd probably have to be in your early twenties at least before needing to decide who gets killed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So we let 18 years olds make the decision on whether or not they might be killed or have to kill someone, but god it's horrible if we let them make the decision of whether a non-compete clause is good or bad.

Actually, new recruits don't make those kinds of decisions. They have officers make them for them. So, you'd probably have to be in your early twenties at least before needing to decide who gets killed.

Only people over 20 are firing weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Nexus]

There are numerous problems with you military analogy. First the military is gov run for society's protection not to make a profit. Next, a non-compete is not a service contract, there is no guarantee of employment only penalties should the worker quit.

Or that they can throw you in prison for treason since it would be violating free speech?

This final sentence isn't even logically coherent in anyway. Free speech has zero to do with fulfilling obligations. One could still be held accountable to duty and complain about it using their free speech.

Going after another chain that opened up certainly would be something that a company would go after. Going after a sub maker going to Subway wouldn't.

So now you're back to the "they're probably not going to enforce it" defense. The fact they could go after business that hire their ex employees means the companies are discouraged in hiring those people. So we're back to fewer options for employers and employees ie you don't really care about the glorious free market just corporate empowerment.

 

[ksen]

So we let 18 years olds make the decision on whether or not they might be killed or have to kill someone, but god it's horrible if we let them make the decision of whether a non-compete clause is good or bad.

coloradoatheist is honing in on the real issues with laser-like intensity.

eta: lol, no he isn't

- - - Updated - - -

Anybody want to guess Jimmy John's political affiliation?

- - - Updated - - -

good god I really hate that append feature

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Actually, new recruits don't make those kinds of decisions. They have officers make them for them. So, you'd probably have to be in your early twenties at least before needing to decide who gets killed.

Only people over 20 are firing weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The younger ones are being told who to fire them at. You see, the way that armies work is that there's an organizational structure involved in them which determines who gets deployed where and what missions they undertake. Soldiers don't just sort of wander around by themselves shooting whomever they choose to. Granted, the clusterfuck that is the US Army does make it seem that way at times, but they are actually a group of people and not just a collection of individuals.

 

[Nexus]

The fact he somehow connected free speech with fulfilling military service means we should expect any type of rambling nonsense down that rabbit hole of an analogy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So we let 18 years olds make the decision on whether or not they might be killed or have to kill someone, but god it's horrible if we let them make the decision of whether a non-compete clause is good or bad.

coloradoatheist is honing in on the real issues with laser-like intensity.

eta: lol, no he isn't

- - - Updated - - -

Anybody want to guess Jimmy John's political affiliation?

- - - Updated - - -

good god I really hate that append feature

We let 18 years olds guns and 16 year olds the ability to drive cars which can kill other people but we don't want them deciding whether or not a non-compete clause is okay or not. We are certainly getting away from letting people make their own decisions. And corporations do raid people from other businesses all the time. So why is it only JJs that is doing this?