[NBA Gossip] Donald Sterling Hates the Blacks, Including Magic

I somewhat agree. OK, sucks for those fans. But what about fans of other teams? I believed there were talks about players from other teams threatening something similar.

It's just like that "Occupying Wall Street" thing. I know it was supposed to directed at that 1%, but it really only affected 99% who happened to work on and near Wall Street, with commute etc.

 

Generally, it's not going to be worth it for the employer to try to enforce those clauses. For lower-level people, the cost is too much to bother. But non-compete clauses certainly can be and are enforced for higher level employees that could cause damage to your business by going to a competitor.

 

I don't know anything about those laws. But my feeling is, shouldn't you be able to prove that guy jumped ship use Information he gathered in your firm, to benefit your competitor and his career, rather than his knowledge, experience, or new ideas, coz those all belong to him? It's still Employment at Will, right?

 

This.

No one required Sterling or any owner to buy an NBA team. You do so subject to bylaws. If that's what these bylaws say, then that's the deal you signed up for. These are big boys..sophisticated business people with attorneys who are well compensated.

 

What about them? It sucks for them as well. Oh well. The only leverage the players have is not to play. Our rights don't trump theirs. If McDonald's workers feel like the company is disrespecting them and decide to strike, I can't be like "what about my sweet tea". My desire for their product is not more important than them having a work environment they feel comfy in. They are the ones that have to do the job. Fans aren't first on the list and we shouldn't expect to be.

 

The most important provision is 13(a)

In other words, technically they can use ANY violation by Sterling as sufficient reason to terminate the agreement. In practice they would set the bar very high, in this case, they can boot him on a technicality.

If the Owners Really want to oust Sterling, then they have sufficient legal grounds to do so.

 

It's the equivalent of a union action. The NBAPA is a union. Unions do company wide strikes to force changes for specific groups of workers all the time. It's why unions exist.

GSW-Clippers boycotting might force their hand, but ALL the teams boycotting would definitely force their hand. It's all about the leverage of labor.

 

For other teams, the owner, the organization, other coaches, other players, and fans, and all the employees involved around that arena/game, they didn't do anything wrong.

If a few star players decide to show support for their friends at Clippers, they can just throw a game.

So it's not about fairness, but rather power in hand, right?

 

No, but they are still in the league. The players have a union. It's no different than other strikes that happen because something happened at a particular location and employees at other locations choose to be supportive.

Yes. They are in a union. How is this any different from any other union situation aside from the fact that we prioritize and put a lot of extra attention on sports?

It is fair. It's fair to them. Being fair to the fans is not what's #1 on the list. What's unfair is to hold players to a different standard then you would hold any other unionized worker.

 

Not if you signed a contract that said you wouldn't go to a competitor within x days. If the guy with the secret Coke formula quits and goes to Pepsi, you can be sure Coke will go after him (assuming they have a non-compete clause).

 

Of the stuff I am involved with in my practice, this is the body of law that has changed the most in Texas since I got out of school. Used to be perceived that these clauses were nearly unenforceable here...now they're routinely enforced, and when I walk into the courtroom I get the sense from most judges that it's really the employee's burden now to show that it shouldn't be enforced.

Again, that's just TX. Not sure about other states, though traditionally most states were far more likely to enforce non-compete clauses than Texas was.

 

They were going to boycott if the Commissioner (and thus the owners) didn't take strong action against Sterling. At that point, it would have been based on the fact that the players did feel the owners and Commish did something wrong.

 

On a much smaller scale, it's like when people get upset about their Homeowner's Association enforcing their bylaws. You agreed to follow the rules or face the stipulated penalties when you bought the property. Either get enough support to change the rules or don't buy property subject to rules you don't wish to follow.

 

Non-compete or not, if the guy steals some secret information and gives it to competitors, this guy will be chased down on court. Information vs Experience. That Coke formula is Coke's property, while the guy's 20 years of management experience belongs to him. That's my argument, not sure how it would play out in real life. Top guns jump ship all the time, I would guess that they all sign some sort of non-compete.

 

But the Coke guy doesn't have to use the specific formula to benefit Pepsi. He has knowledge of internal workings of Coke and the like that's harmful to Coke. Again, if you don't want to be bound by a non-compete clause, you don't sign a contract that has it. You don't get to just sign something and say "oh, I'm not bound by this".

 

Fair enough. What about whistle blowers? Just curious, assuming they signed something about information disclosure, if they leak anything to the media, sure the media will make use of it. The organization may go after them. But if they use those information in front of law, violating their contracts in the first place, can those information still be used by the court?

 

Of course, I agree. That's why I would not propose banning a player and fining him $2.5M for the revelation of racist/bigoted comments on a tape (or in an arena). But I would definitely have some sort of substantial fine.

Maybe this is a stretch, but if you say "we expect a lot less of you", that sends its own interesting message. The NBA could out-brand the NFL in this way, at least. "We're proud of all our players" sort of thing. I am rambling now though.

Basically, I agree with your point.

 

There are specific laws that protect whistle blowers, however it is specifically defined when and how that protection applies.

http://www.whistleblowers.gov/

As for signing away your rights in general, you are legally entitled to sign away certain rights (like the right to sue in certain types of disputes), however other rights can not be abrogated through contract (like the right to not have a hostile or dangerous workplace).

 

I think some folks are confusing legality and business image. This case is 100% the latter. Sterling has the legal right to say his racist comments all he wants. If it didn't affect the public image of the NBA, I doubt that Silver would do anything about it.

 

I am not sure about that 100% in the latter. You are right he has the right to say racist comments in somewhere, but not in the public area. Even for a non NBA owner, you can not say racist thing in the public place, for example, in your working office etc. If you do so, you likely get fired. Sterling is a racist, but also a stupid too.