Georgia's Amendment One, Scary Stuff(blog.weatherby.net)
blog.weatherby.net
Georgia's Amendment One, Scary Stuff
http://blog.weatherby.net/2010/10/georgians-should-vote-no.html
3 comments
You clearly do understand what the words on the ballot mean. I doubt most people seeing this for the first time at the poll will get it. I doubt most will even connect its meaning to employee non-competes. Note the word 'employee' is nowhere to be found. This is sandbagging at the polls. Voters will just scratch their heads and think "sure, I'd love for Georgia to be more economically competitive" and check yes. As an added bonus, its more difficult to repeal a constitutional amendment in Georgia than to add one.
I would argue --- and I think I'll win this argument --- that these words written against the amendment are far more misleading. There is nothing "scary" about this proposal; it is in fact the way most other states handle noncompetes, and it makes sense.
If you want to oppose noncompetes, fine. I'm on the fence. But be honest about it.
If you want to oppose noncompetes, fine. I'm on the fence. But be honest about it.
I can easily separate the OP's opinion and leaning from the background he adds to what I will see at the poll on Tuesday. The OP does shed light on what the vote is about, whereas what voters will see at the poll is, I believe, worded so that most voters will not understand what they are voting on. You may feel there is nothing scary about the proposal. What I find scary is the method and wording that is placed in front of the unsuspecting voter. This is sandbagging, plain and simple. You don't get to do a bit of googling once the curtain is pulled to find out what you're voting on. The OP says he has received robo-calls on the subject. I read the local news almost daily and have assisted in two Georgia campaigns this year and this is the first I've heard of this proposed amendment.
The only place where the word scary is involved is the title on HN. It's not in the post that it links to.
This post was written by an attorney as I pointed out at the beginning of the article. Personally I am not opposed to non-competes in all forms. We have a law in Georgia already and it is fine. The amendment would create a strong non compete environment in Georgia and strong non-competes have been shown to stifle innovation. We have enough challenges down here already without this new law coming into effect.
Many legal scholars believe it is the reason Silicon Valley surpassed Route 128 as the technology capital of the world.
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/francomitchell.pdf
Many legal scholars believe it is the reason Silicon Valley surpassed Route 128 as the technology capital of the world.
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/francomitchell.pdf
What's the other hub of technical innovation in the US? That's right, Boston. What's the rule they have there? Blue pencil.
You need to read the link I provided.
Thanks for posting. I try to stay up on the news yet had not heard of this. I do consider this HN appropriate.
The policy this post is talking about appears to be the so-called "blue pencil" rule. What it says is, if there's a bad clause in your noncompete, a judge can say "that clause is broken and irrelevant" without invalidating the whole contract. It's the norm in most other states.
The author of this post clearly opposes noncompetes in all forms. That's a position I can respect (but don't agree with). But he's being disingenuous by implying that Georgia is playing with some radical new subversion of noncompete law.