One of the commentators on Jeff Hullinger’s report puts it pretty plainly.
StillAlert comments, “Is there a school that teaches how to write amendments so that their application is abundantly vague? For the life of me, I thought the amendment had to do with bidding for jobs. Thanks, Atty Buckley for the clarification.”
Jeff Hullinger is a reporter for 11ALIVE Atlanta News.
The first amendment is beginning to raise eyebrows and tempers as well. For the layman to read this amendment with the task of voting it up or down; it seems there was/is a lot of confusion as to just what the heck it says; and what it is asking Georgians to vote for. But even more important is how will it affect their jobs in the future?
Most people, including this writer, got the impression this was about the state bidding for jobs; but as people in the know begin to speak up it seems it is more about controlling employees on the job; and preventing them from leaving one job and taking one with a competitor doing the same work. In this situation, they are asked to sign an agreement that they will not take a job with a competitor for at least two years after leaving their present employer.
Also, employers can ask new applicants to sign a competition agreement that if they are hired, and they leave the employment of that employer, then they will be restricted from taking another job doing the same thing for another company.
The state’s position is that it will increase companies coming to Georgia; as they feel they are not competing very well with Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, and Florida. Apparently employers do not want to spend a lot of money hiring a person, training them, and them have them leave for better pay or other reasons to another company.
The employee seems to become a pawn in that should they get laid off, fired, or just no longer wish to remain with a certain company, they could not pursue their current occupation with someone else. Once an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, it is near to impossible to rescind it.
Ed Buckley who is a well known labor attorney is up in arms about this amendment and has expressed his discontent with it boldly.
What does the amendment say; but more so what does it mean?
Amendment One "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements? ( ) YES ( ) NO"
Who would determine what is reasonable?
Mr. Buckley says the wording on the ballot is deceptive and completely misleading.
"The referendum says nothing about non-competitive agreements and says nothing about the impact on workers who will not be able to pursue their occupations if they quit or are laid off by their employer because they signed a form in order to get a job," Buckley said.
Brett Grayson who is the director Jobs of Tomorrow which is funded in part by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and he has been touring the state garnering support for the amendment in tandem with an A & T executive, Courtney Brinson.
Buckley said. "You can be forced to sign an agreement to keep your job then fired the next day and not be able to work."
You can read, “the rest of the story,” as reported by Jeff Hullinger at 11ALIVE news. Also, of great interest are the comments made by his readers. http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=155312&catid=40
Your comments welcomed – especially if you can shed any more light on this amendment to help others in their Yes or No decision.
Previous article on amendment – gives actual Georgia version http://www.examiner.com/fayette-county-elections-2010-in-atlanta/five-amendments-on-november-ballot-for-georgia-say-what-amendment-1-contracts-monopoly
Comments
Should a small business owner be allowed to protect the fruits of his/her labor within clearly defined and reasonable limits? Most Georgians say yes.
Unfortunately, it is not currently possible for business owners to do so in Georgia when it comes to non-competition agreements (a tool used regularly in the vast majority of other American states). This is because Georgia law is uncertain and confusing when it comes to drafting and enforcing such agreements (See the December 2009 issue of the Georgia Bar Journal for a more in-depth look at this issue). This type of uncertainty, whether we are talking about the tax code or business law, is bad for businesses of all sizes in Georgia. One of the reasons that uncertainty in the law acts as a drag on business is because it breeds litigation. Litigation favors attorneys (some of whom might have a financial interest in preserving the status quo) not Georgia's economic growth. This is precisely why Amendment 1 garnered overwhelming support from both political parties during the 2010 legislative session. The passage of Amendment 1 will clarify existing law, bring it in line with that of those states against whom we are competing for tomorrow's jobs, and allow business owners to protect the fruits of their labor within very reasonable limits.
Brett Grayson
Executive Director,
Jobs of Tomorrow
www.jobsoftomorrow.org
Very interesting. From the table of changes, it appears that the legislators kept working with this language to make it increasingly deceptive. The first version, as you note, is pretty accurate:
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide for contracts that limit competition during or after the term of employment or of a commercial relationship and to authorize the courts to cure legal defects in such contracts in order to protect legitimate interests and achieve the intent of the parties
The House Judiciary Committee then softened it a bit with this language:
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that authorize contract provisions restricting or regulating competitive activities and enable courts to ensure the reasonableness of such contracts?
"Restricting" would be a giveaway, so the next version from the committee said:
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that authorize contract provisions regulating competitive activities and to enable courts to ensure the reasonableness of such contracts?
"Regulating" was too much for the Senate, which then wrote:
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that authorize contract provisions regarding competitive agreements to enable courts to uphold the agreements and to enable courts to ensure the reasonableness of such contracts?
The conference committee apparently decided that even this was too negative, and therefore decided to turn it into Mom and Apple Pie:
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?
And this version passed.
The authors of this evil proposal are well aware that the constitutional amendment process, as construed by our Supreme Court, gives the legislature an open invitation to commit election fraud, as they propose to do here.
In Donaldson v. Dep't of Transp., 262 Ga. 49 (Ga. 1992), Justice Weltner's dissent points out how affirmatively deceptive the ballot was. In his typical concise prose:
(b) It is difficult to imagine a plainer case of affirmative misstatement than this case. Consider:
(i) The voters were asked whether they wanted the right to sue the state.
(ii) The voters answered "yes."
(iii) Because they answered "yes," their existing rights to sue the state have been terminated!
The majority did not disagree; they stated the rule for framing amendment ballots thus:
The only limitation on the General Assembly in drafting ballot language is that the language be adequate to enable the voters to ascertain which amendment they are voting on.
So, as long as the voters can determine that they are voting on something having to do with competition, and not with highways or public office, it doesn't matter what the Yes-No question says. A concurring Justice put the matter very clearly:
The proper focus of this court's inquiry is whether the ballot language, even if deceptive as to the purpose of the amendment, prevented the voter from knowing which amendment he was voting for or against.
There it is. If the legislature wants to commit fraud on the public, this is how they can do it. Legally.
And do it they did. The current constitution has for over a century contained a provision prohibiting the legislature from passing any law that would permit a contract that defeats or lessens competition. Ga. Const. Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. V(c). This has been held to prohibit enforcement of non-competition agreements, except for very narrow and extremely justifiable reasons. It has enabled professionals and other skilled workers to compete, unshackled by anti-competition agreements imposed upon them by their employers. There is a large body of clear and coherent case law on this.
The proposed constitutional amendment will reverse this. It will enable the legislature to pass statutes that will allow employers to shackle employees, to keep them subservient, by requiring them to sign anti-competition agreements on pain of unemployment.
So, to take Justice Weltner's format:
(i) The voters will be asked whether they want reasonable competition upheld
(ii) The voters may answer "yes."
(iii) If they answer "yes," their existing rights to compete reasonably will be lost.
I don't know which is worse, this attempt to reinstate indentured servitude or this outright lie to the entire people. In either case, vote NO and tell everybody else to do likewise.
Charles M. Cork, III
Charles M. Cork, III
Open the Yellow Pages, now imagine it being reduced by 80%. If this amendment passes we will revert to an employment condition as close to slavery as one can get. Every employer will require noncompete agreements and if you are an auto technician, a communication worker, or any type of skilled worker you ability to change jobs or start your own business is going to be severely impeded. We live in a right to work state and this will effectively give employers the power of unions. If we think congress is bad, it doesn't hold a light to the stupidity of the Georgia general assembly.
As a small buisness owner I can see the reasoning behind this bill. We are not looking at hiring computer techs and auto technicians, they are school trained and abundent in any market. This bill is aimed at expertise postions, where employers spend thousands of dollors in training, Where the employee has inside knowledge of procedures and production process that are company secrets. Having that knowledge and then leaving for a competior is detrimental to the company that invested it's time and energy, it is tantermount to industrial espionage.
Of course, as a business owner you can see the reasoning behind it.
It lets you enslave your employees.
Experts are not created because employers train them to become experts. One becomes expert by working their butt of day and night.
Have you not heard of NDAs? They are already their to protect employer's "trade secrets" and prevent "industrial espionage".
This amendment will encourage employers to write 20 page non-compete agreements without any cost to them. Employees will have no way of knowing what portion of the agreement will be upheld and what will not be upheld.
Which high tech company will company will venture into Georgia when they wont be able to find anyone to work for them because everyone who is useful won't be allowed to work for them?
I came here not having an opinion on the amendment. In my general experience, the side with no facts to back up their argument resorts to hyperbole like "indentured servitude" & "enslave".
Thanks for helping me resolve the issue. I think I'll be voting for the amendment.
Hi: dits-01 Thank you for your comment. That is what elections are all about - voting for the people and issues you want to support.
Many people have already been victims of this practice. Say a skilled plumber works for a company and is required to sign a contract to keep their job. The company goes into a slump or wants to fire him for another reason, then this plumber cannot go out and seek the same type of employment with a competitor of his former employer. What is this man supposed to do? Work at McDonalds until the terms of the contract has expired. How will he support his family?
This example can be carried over into any type of job. I certainly hope you or none of those you love or depend on will become victims of this law in the future should it pass. Most people were upset about the wording of these amendments because the way they are worded is misleading.
If you are a skilled worker amendment one will lower your job mobility and earnings capability. It will lower employee turnover. There is evidence to back this up on my personal blog with links and specific examples. http://bit.ly/ddWZF1
The passage of amendment one would be the worst thing to happen in Georgia in a long long time. Perhaps ever. The empirical evidence shows that such laws lower turnover, new company creation, and innovation.
Jobs of Tomorrow should be ashamed of the content of their robo-calls claiming that this will protect jobs. It will do nothing of the sort. It will protect big business. Don't believe me. Follow the money. Who is funding Jobs for Tomorrow and their million dollar budget?
Even if this amendment turned into law was intended for professional people, it open to be applied to any job. An employer could use this against a former employee as punishment or for personal reasons. We are not dealing with perfect people in a perfect world. People will always try to use laws for their own personal agendas. This could also be used to force employees to stay with employers that did not pay them right, on time, or whatever because if the employee quit, they could not get a similar job somewhere else. There is an updated article which explains all five of the amendments, you might like to check it out as well.
http://www.examiner.com/fayette-county-elections-2010-in-atlanta/georgia...
Patricia, you need to read the bill before condemning it. Current law DOES allow the plumber to be signed to a noncompete, the new that would be be put into effect by passage of Amendment 1 would specifically EXCLUDE workers like the plumber for being signed to a noncompete agreement. In addition, the new law allows the court to refuse to enforce an agreement if it imposes and undue hardship. Current law does not.
Bottom line is that these agreements are going to be around regardless of whether Amendment 1 passes. Amendment 1, however, provides important employee benefits that do not exist in the law now, and it makes these agreements fair to both employers and employees. It also helps us bring businesses to Georgia and keep them here. Georgia needs Amendment 1.
There are differences of opinions here and that is why it is on the ballot to get the voice of the people.
Those I have spoken to and articles that I have read (including the explanation of the amendments) would indicate that this law, if passed, could be used in any instance where an employer required an employee to sign a contract which would be legal and binding no matter what.
While this was probably intended for huge corporations protecting their investments in training people only to have them move to another company, it could conceivably be used in smaller companies as well.
The law is too vague for most people to feel comfortable voting for it. But come Tuesday, the will of the people will have to be law.
Check up a follow up article by this author which explains each amendment in simple English. http://www.examiner.com/fayette-county-elections-2010-in-atlanta/georgia...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!