Labour govt 2020-23

[Bjauck]

I certainly do. It's despicable behaviour to agree to something that binds another party and then turning against them. If there is an imbalance of power that prevents a satisfactory deal - walk away. It's not compulsory to deal.
Bash out the terms first. If you agree then sign the agreement. If not - forget it. Be a man, not a wimpy little twit.

LOL. It sounds like that is from the era of Victorian sweatshops. Those sweatshop owners fought tooth and nail against workers co-operating to try to address the power imbalance. They also relied on desperation, imbalance of information and stand-over tactics to get workers to agree to their terms of labour.

[moka]

These draconian awful Restraint of Trade clauses which were introduced by National's Bill Birch if I remember correctly, are an impediment to general productivity.
People become stuck in jobs, stagnating when they have outgrown the positions they hold & want to move on.
By preventing them from earning a living for several months, they reduce the natural competition between potential employers to get the best employee possible, & allowing talent to continually rise.
While there may be a few justifiable cases, the broad brush law captured everyone, even lowly paid workers.
Just as competition between employees for the best jobs is a good thing, competition between employers for the best employees is a good thing and impediments or hurdles reduce productivity in the economy.

“Restraints are anti-competitive,” says Hamish Kynaston, an employment law partner at Buddle Findlay. “Which is why they are considered as unlawful as a starting point – uncompetitive and against public policy.”

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/tova-obrien-a-public-face-to-the-restraint-of-trade-debate

“To justify a restraint of trade it must be reasonably necessary to protect a proprietary interest of the employer. Commonly, an employer may have a legitimate proprietary interest in things such as its confidential information, its business strategy, and its customer relationships.

“Even with such a proprietary interest, a restraint of trade must be no wider than is reasonably necessary to protect that interest. If it is wider than is reasonably necessary it will again be unenforceable.”

[moka]

I simply cannot fathom how somebody who is obviously not completely stupid, can willingly enter an agreement - then try and get the rules changed. It's ridiclous.

The starting position is restraints of trade are prima facie unlawful because they go against the public policy of free market and free movement of labour.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/127540439/how-enforceable-are-restraints-of-trade

An employer had to show it had a proprietary interest to protect, such as confidential information, and that the restraint it was trying to enforce was reasonable.

Buddle Findlay partner Hamish Kynaston​ said the restraints were common in hairdressing, along with other industries, stopping a departing hairdresser working for at a nearby salon for a period of time.

The businesses would argue the hairdresser had developed client relationships during work, and those clients were an investment for the business which was entitled to protect its property. But, clients might still decide to follow their hairdresser regardless of the legalities.

[BDL]

The point is, why the heck did she sign/agree to it at the start?

[Balance]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertain...E5WWGJUTQYRJI/

Tova has lost her case against Discovery and must pay costs.

[fungus pudding]

LOL. It sounds like that is from the era of Victorian sweatshops. Those sweatshop owners fought tooth and nail against workers co-operating to try to address the power imbalance. They also relied on desperation, imbalance of information and stand-over tactics to get workers to agree to their terms of labour.

That's irrelevant to Tova O'Whatsit's situation in 2022. She's a grown woman, who should be well able to take care of herself, behaving in a cowardly sleazy manner and then engaging a lawyer to fight her battlles.

Would you sign a contract and then engage a solicitor to overturn it? Think about it.

[fungus pudding]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertain...E5WWGJUTQYRJI/

Tova has lost her case against Discovery and must pay costs.

Excellent news. She has obviously built a following at her employers' expense. The restraint of trade clause recognises the value in that. That's what those clauses are for.

[Bjauck]

That's irrelevant to Tova O'Whatsit's situation in 2022. She's a grown woman, who should be well able to take care of herself, behaving in a cowardly sleazy manner and then engaging a lawyer to fight her battlles.

I did not realise that your post I was replying was related specifically to Tova O'Brien as you mentioned "Be a man, not a wimpy little twit." Perhaps you mis-wrote and really meant "Be a woman?" She is probably working in a field in which the employers call the shots and not to accept their terms means no work in her field of expertise.

(I think that O'Brien was the person to whom you were referring, although her Irish surname seemed to give you some trouble, perhaps you need a Te Reo transliteration? )

[Bjauck]

...
Would you sign a contract and then engage a solicitor to overturn it? Think about it.

It depends on circumstances. How desperate at the time I signed the contract - how much unemployment in that field, likelihood of finding similar employment - any undisclosed information etc.

[dobby41]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...-shattered-arm

Hey dobby41, here is an update of that storey you said was probably just another beat up on this poor government. "nothing to see here", no facts you said.

BE KIND....

Thanks - turned out fine as I suggested (she was given space - 5 days is probably pretty good for the bureaucracy (it isn't the 'Govt' per se which grants this (ie not the Ministers) - not as fast as I'd like but it did happen).

"nothing to see here" - I didn't say. You're the one that was asking the question and I answered with a view.

There is a cult that believes in magic glasses and underpants, heard of it?

No I haven't - are you a member?