They deliver those sandwiches so fast, and they do an Unwich, that lettuce wrap sandwich you eat with less guilt after eating that big bag of Doritos washed down with that bottle of wine the night before … but then read about how they make their employees sign a noncompete and think about that nice young man or woman who delivered your sandwich. No wonder they are so damn fast.
The non-competition agreement.
Can you imagine the nightmare if numerous companies started doing this and it was considered an acceptable practice? Unemployment would skyrocket, the economy would tank due to a lack of spending — we’d be completely hosed. While I’m pretty sure a non-compete like this is actually legal (especially considering the US’s repeated insistence on placing the needs of corporations above those of actual human beings), the amount of economic harm for which widespread use of this practice could theoretically be responsible could be catastrophic. What does Jimmy John’s care though, right? Moar profit for their dickhead founder who donates to human skidmark Sheriff Joe Arpaio, mandates that employees be fired for unionization, and hunts endangered species for sport!*
We can get mad at Chick-Fil-A all we want over their stupid, regressive stance on marriage equality, but at least that’s not an issue with the potential to poke a giant hole in the bottom of the shared boat of the US economy. I don’t just want Jimmy John’s non-compete agreement gone, I genuinely hope that whoever came up with it winds up in a federal penitentiary.
This article appears in Oct 16-22, 2014.
I’ve read the contract. It states that within “x” period of time – 2 years – former employee will not invest, partner with or own/operate a store which produces/sells submarine sandwiches. AND it stipulates that the non compete only applies within a three mile radius of a Jimmy Johns.
It says nothing about workers.
This has already been through the court systems…Palmer & Cay v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Can’t enforce it. You can not hinder someones right to gainful employment. You can be enjoined against stealing clients and/or trade secrets.
Looks like you are spreading misinformation. When 9.7% of our people are out of work we need to not be vilifying employers. We just had a friend who was put out of business by our oppressive inflexible state government and now she and her dozen employees are out of work.
No one is spreading misinformation. These are part of ongoing litigation. You’re right that the company may not be able to enforce it, but nonetheless it’s a tactic that makes no sense with low wage workers. Why do it in the first place if all it does is bring you headlines?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2…
Section 3 clearly states:
“…(whether as an owner, partner, investor, director, officer, representative, manager, employee, principal, agent, advisor, or consultant)…”
That pretty much includes anyone employed by a Jimmie Johns, whether corporately owned or a franchise, in any capacity, not just executives.
Here is some good info from The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/how-companies-kill-their-employees-job-searches/381437/
Legal briefs-Keep your hands off my buns.
I can understand the idea behind a non-comp clause, but this does seem over-the-top.
Again…yes, all employees sign it but it applies only as far as owning/operating a like establishment. NOT against working in one. The crux is that one might take processes and procedures learned at Jimmy John’s and use that information to financially harm Jimmy John’s by unfairly competing against them by utilizing direct knowledge of how they operate. It has nothing to do with workers. Should you choose to transition from worker to store owner in a similar environment; you have to wait two years to do so within a 3 mile radius. It’s not that limiting. But to slam a local employer w/o doing the homework is irresponsible. Christ, have The Weekly’s lawyers review the contract and advise!