[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

thank you.................you used my word in the definition. Dah

You can try to make it sound the way you want to, however, you left out the most important part "...direct only the result of the work, not what will be done and how it will be done." I'll let you argue with others. Enjoy your evening.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

You can try to make it sound the way you want to, however, you left out the most important part "...direct only the result of the work, not what will be done and how it will be done." I'll let you argue with others. Enjoy your evening.

Nope, didn't leave it out...................nice try.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Rich IS a bad word when the "rich" make laws to help themselves stay in power. When they stack the deck. Then they become a bad word. In Japan around 1980 (not sure about today) Japanese CEOs refused to take salaries that were more than 10 times their company's average worker's wages. They would be ashamed to have done so. Today in the US, CEOs make 100 to 200 times their average workers - they have no shame!

The US is today in GREAT danger of social instability because the wealth gap is the greatest in US history and the highest in the 1st world (or developed countries) !!!!!! Look that up and see why "RICH" really is a BAD word. Maybe it was NOT in OUR day, but times have changed for the MUCH worse. Sorry! Please be aware!

Gracy Girl stated that "RICH" is not a bad word. I merely pointed out that it depends on whether it is 1960 or 2017. I added to the thread. That is the purpose of a forum. Maybe my comment got Gracy Girl or someone else thinking about another viewpoint. Your comment on the other hand was productive in ZERO way. It was just personal bullying and vindictiveness.

[ithos]

There are Florida Statutes that cover independent contractors and non compete agreements. Any one know why this ended up in Federal Court?

A little trivia, according to Wikipedia he is the father of our State Attorney General. But he was appointed by Clinton.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by ithos

There are Florida Statutes that cover independent contractors and non compete agreements. Any one know why this ended up in Federal Court?

A little trivia, according to Wikipedia he is the father of our State Attorney General. But he was appointed by Clinton.

Possibly because of the theft of the customers list, a trade secret, was a primary issue and the plaintiff's attorneys thought the federal court offered a better forum for the trade secret theft issue for them. Too, the breach of covenant not to compete might be better treated by the federal court from their perspective. I really do not know, though.

Defend Trade Secrets Act - Wikipedia

Trade Secrets Law in Florida | Digital Media Law Project

Federal Standard for Enjoining Breach of Non-Compete Agreement Differs from Florida’s, Eleventh Circuit Rules | Jackson Lewis

[ithos]

That would make sense.

[flflowers]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I think anyone who sincerely wants to be a real estate agent, will think twice about being an agent/sales person for The Villages from now on. They're forewarned now. If you choose to leave, and try to succeed on your own, they'll make sure neither you, nor anyone associated with you, is permitted to even try. And you'll have to pay for the privilege.

The Morse Family essentially just blackballed an entire real estate company, including employees who never worked for the Villages in the first place.

You can all applaud it but I'm disgusted.

I am sure that anyone that comes for employment know the "rules" ahead of accepting employment...they understand and agree before signing on the dotted line.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by flflowers

I am sure that anyone that comes for employment know the "rules" ahead of accepting employment...they understand and agree before signing on the dotted line.

They certainly should know what they are signing but many people do not.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

According to the testimony, the agents were treated like salaried employees, even though they were officially sub-contractors. They were expected to work overtime, on their own dime. They were expected to attend mandatory meetings every week outside normal work hours. They were expected to pick up potential clients - sometimes from the airport - using their own personal vehicle. They were expected to be on call 24/7. But they weren't paid for all of that. These were things they were actually ordered to do. It wasn't merely an expectation that they "would" do it, they were "required" to do it.

Eventually they burned out.

And made hundreds of thousands (and in at least one case over a million) doing that. Obvious you have never run a sales or marketing company or had employees under contract. If they burn out they have the option to leave but there are conditions. These were supposedly intelligent people so they knew the risk and they knew what they signed......I applaud the Developer for their actions and am disgusted by those that believe it's ok to do anything illegal as long as it's against the Developer.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by JoMar

And made hundreds of thousands (and in at least one case over a million) doing that. Obvious you have never run a sales or marketing company or had employees under contract. If they burn out they have the option to leave but there are conditions. These were supposedly intelligent people so they knew the risk and they knew what they signed......I applaud the Developer for their actions and am disgusted by those that believe it's ok to do anything illegal as long as it's against the Developer.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by flflowers

I am sure that anyone that comes for employment know the "rules" ahead of accepting employment...they understand and agree before signing on the dotted line.

These people weren't employees. They were contractors. That's part of the problem.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

These people weren't employees. They were contractors. That's part of the problem.

Contractors are hired by contract which details the terms and expectations. If they agreed, they agreed, if they didn't they shouldn't have signed the contract.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

The developer apparently makes a lot of money by having his salesmen sell resales.

As a result he apparently decided to make a point when these two guys violated the non compete. Bet they wish they consulted a good lawyer before violating it.

Should have consulted with a real corporate atty before bolting. Should not have violated provisions of a legal contract that they agreed to in advance. Simple stuff .

[manaboutown]

Just read in the online news the rogue agents filed notice they are appealing the verdict. lol.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Just read in the online news the rogue agents filed notice they are appealing the verdict. lol.

They are violating the "First Rule of Holes"...

"When in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"