[ale] VOTING ALERT: Protect Your Freedom to Work!

[Mark Wright]

I see your point.  In this instance I was trying to go against my  
normal conservative feelings.

I have been trying to see this from my brothers perspective.  He is  
in government and he is honest.  There are many problems that they  
have and so they try and use the system to fix them but they don't  
see the problems they create.  My brother thinks this is to allow the  
government from having to do business with underfunded startups  
filled with disgruntled ex employees.  He has had first hand  
experience with this problem.  But it looks like this amendment is  
not the way to fix that problem.


Mark Wright
m.perry.wright at gmail.com



On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Jerald Sheets wrote:

> Thing is, Mark, the proposition is too broad.
>
> It can also be applied to you.
>
> Let's say you work for CNN.  Let's say you're a rank-and-file UNIX  
> guy.  Now let's say that CNN's color of blue is too blue for you,  
> and you'd rather work for NBC (Weather Channel), so you want to  
> move across town.
>
> You >>may<< be prevented from doing so.
>
> OR, you instead wish to start a company providing UNIX solutions to  
> media companies in the form of XML news feeds from a bank of  
> servers you provide.
>
> You >>may<< be prevented from doing so.
>
> There are laws already in place to prevent the theft of company  
> secrets.  It is my belief that those are the laws that should be  
> leveraged rather than introducing a broad new law that has a high  
> potential of being misapplied.
>
> The entire process and introduction of the proposal stinks from the  
> beginning.  From the ballot wording:
>
> "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia  
> more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold  
> reasonable competitive agreements?"
>
> How can the average voter determine what is or is not "reasonable"  
> in the world of big business?  Are you willing to put the future of  
> your employability in the hands of someone else who is trying to  
> define "reasonable"?
>
> Further, if you're employed in the area in some mid-level sort of  
> gig, you >may< be prevented from being employed similarly in  
> another company solely on the grounds of "trade secrets".  Are you  
> willing to place your employability in the state of Georgia in the  
> hands of someone else who is trying to define "reasonable"?
>
> What would this do to contracting?  How about just general employment?
>
> Take the Tech startup.  If this passes, it is possible that no mid- 
> level employee would be able to do a tech startup, as their  
> employment nearly >anywhere< in the field would give their employer  
> the bite necessary to prevent them from leaving a tech position to  
> do a tech startup venture.  Are you willing to place your future in  
> the hands of someone else who is trying to define "reasonable"?
>
> After this would pass, any employer could come to you with a new  
> non-compete to sign.  If you don't, this at-will state could see to  
> it that it could be grounds for termination if you do not sign the  
> new agreement.
>
> I guess I'm more concerned that the wording of the provision is  
> deceptive in its nature, and can deceive the rank-and-file voter  
> who hasn't done their homework.  Who wouldn't say "Of course I want  
> Georgia to be economically competitive"?
>
> If there isn't something to hide in the provision, why the efforts  
> to mask the true intent of the measure, or take steps to mask its  
> potential effects in the market?
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Mark Wright wrote:
>
>>
>> 2.  I think it may be a good thing.  This amendment fixes a  
>> problem that the government has encountered doing business.   It  
>> may sound like they just want the power to over pay companies  
>> owned by relatives but that really is pretty hard to get away with  
>> unless you are the mayor.  What they want is the freedom to  
>> continue to do business with companies that are giving us good  
>> service. This amendment will allow the government to do business  
>> with companies that have non compete clauses in their contracts.
>> "Businesses desire non compete clauses in contracts to guarantee  
>> that former employees, and business associates with specialized  
>> knowledge of trade secrets are not able to leave and create their  
>> own companies using their intellectual property.  This proposal  
>> gives a judge the unilateral ability to “blue-pencil” or limit the  
>> duration, geographic area and scope of prohibited activities  
>> provided in a contract or agreement restricting or regulating  
>> competitive activities."
>> It does not limit other oversight.
>>
>
> #!/jerald
> Linux User #183003
> Ubuntu User #32648
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GIT/MU d-@ s++(++)>+++:> a+ C++++(+++)$>++ UBLAVHSC++(on)$>++++ P++ 
> (+++)$>++++ L++(++++)$>+++ !E---(---)>--- W+(++)$>+++ N(+)$>++ !o ! 
> K-- w(--)>--- O()@> M++(++)$>++ V()>- PS+++()@>-- PE(++)@>+ Y+(+)@> 
> + PGP++(++)$>+++ t+(++)@>+++ 5(+)@>+ X+(++)@>+++ R+(+)@>++ tv-(+)$>+ 
> + b+++(++)$>++ DI++++(++)>+++ D++(++)@>++ G++(++)@>++ e++(++)$>++ h 
> (-)$>- r+++(+++)@>+++ y+(+++)>++++@
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20101102/46910940/attachment.html