Summertime is vacation time. And vacation time means headaches for employers who engage in vacation float. Vacation “float” is the practice of advancing vacation to employees before they actually accrue it under an employer’s vacation policy. So the question becomes, if you allow an employee to take vacation time the employee hasn’t actually earned, how do you get the value of that time back if the employee leaves before “repaying” it?
Blended families may be more common than organic ones these days and perhaps the same can be said about employees in corporate America.
The trend may emanate in part from the “acqui-hire” approach to building a business. An “acqui-hire” happens when one business acquires another for its workforce, not for its products or services. This is a particularly popular approach in the technology sector where buying a team of tech-savvy individuals who have a track record of creating value is a better business bet than money spent on beta testing a product or service that may or may not succeed in the marketplace. In other words, don’t buy the product — buy the brains that make the product.
On Wednesday, June 29th, the House passed H. 4434: An Act relative to the judicial enforcement of noncompetition agreements, which includes a number of provisions that have long been discussed as the necessary components of non-compete reform.
The “employee choice” doctrine is one of those employment terms that is as misunderstood as “right to work,” “employment at will” and my personal favorite, “labor lawyer”. But a recent New York Federal court in IBM v Smadi, spelled it out pretty clearly: the employee choice doctrine is alive and well and has just a few simple components.
Those of you reading our Employee Mobility blog posts are familiar with California’s unique approach to non-compete agreements: they are, except in a few limited circumstances, unenforceable in the Golden State. And that unenforceability extends to post-employment non-solicitation provisions restricting individuals from soliciting business from former customers — a “warm market” to those in the know in the sales community.
But a recent decision highlights an exception to this (infamous) California ban on post-employment solicitation.
For those of you following the saga our Employee Mobility Practice Group has been documenting about the many ways in which social media appears to be impacting the non-compete world, I present to you yet another case that highlights the treasure trove of evidence that LinkedIn may provide.