It’s in the contract
Learn something new every day. Today-I-learned that Sinclair has employment contracts that say employees have to pay Sinclair MUCH MONEY if they quit or are fired. That sounds illegal to me, but apparently it’s not.
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112
If you can’t read the screenshot – it basically just says “employees have to pay Sinclair MUCH MONEY if they quit or are fired” in more legalese and detail.
That helps explain why they can’t just say “No” when Sinclair tells them to read lying canned bullshit on camera.
Why am I not surprised? I was sort of surprised when I learned that a restaurant owner can claim a percentage of employee tips, assuming a 15% tip at every table, even if the tips do not equal 15%, and even if they get no tips. They can reclaim that money! Money the employee (one of the harder working jobs in any field, mind you) may not even have received, and certainly needs more than the company. And this was upheld in court…courts packed by the Republican presidents since Reagan, and with a large percentage of Democratic nominees held up in process and not approved.
So I guess I’m past surprise at something like this. And I guess it makes me appreciate my boss a bit, not having something like this, even though they also invest a great deal in training, in benefits, etc. They eat that if I leave. (Of course, I’ve been here more than a decade now, I imagine that has more than made up for itself).
I am confused how such a contract can be legal in any society that has overcome feudalism.
Yeah Alex. A contract like that in NZ would be declared onerous and unenforceable., if not downright illegal.
#2
Of course. But this is a society determined to restore feudalism.
To me too, but apparently attempts to nullify them tend to fail. I guess this is partly because of the lure of tv careers – people will put up with a lot to get one. (Not entirely a guess, that seemed to be implied in the article.)
Folks in the Twitter feed note that it is quite likely that if a person signed the contract, then went to court over that clause, they’d probably win. But of course, this requires that they have a pile of cash on-hand to pay an attorney (note that winning just means that they don’t pay, not that they get a massive payoff, so contingency fees aren’t going to be part of it) up-front, before the case can be tried.
Ten to one says that occasionally, when an employee is quitting/fired and IS in a position to sue, the company sits down with them with a new contract–for an NDA and a settlement that says, “Sure, we’ll release this clause of the contract”. And the attorney, who is going to get paid the same regardless, tells their client to sign the NDA.
Further to my post @3, this was in the local news today. The story is poorly presented, but basically we have labour laws that require minimum standards from employers (and employees). The provisions this guy tried to impose were not as onerous as Sinclairs, yet in NZ he has been fined and banned from employing people for a period.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/102828640/christchurch-business-owner-stood-down-from-hiring-staff-over-employment-breaches