Posted by Guaranteed Not To Be Trey on April 10, 2009 at 11:25:44:
In Reply to: Steve Harvey says V103 change that bumped Tom Joyner was Clear Channel's doing, not his posted by todd rawlings on April 10, 2009 at 09:36:33:
"For one thing, nobody in a position to actually make that happen will confirm it, although obviously it's possible. One potential snag is that for Joyner to land on another Chicago station before the end of this year, Clear Channel must OK it."
Please explain this part to me. CC made the choice to take Joyner off the air and replace him with Harvey because of it being "strategically" the right thing to do. If that's the case, then Joyner should be able to head off wherever he wants without their consent. He didn't leave of his own doing. They took him off and shouldn't be allowed to determine a future job option.
I say this knowing that a "no-compete" clause must be involved. I can't figure out why a no-compete can be enforced if the company removed you for reasons other than insubordination. If they chose to take you off-and you did nothing wrong to warrant removal-then the clause should be deemed void. They opted to make a change, not the employee. If the employee decided to walk, then I can see the enforcement of the clause. This was not the case, however.
I would guess that Joyner is still being paid by CC as a result of his contract. Still, he should be able to shop himself around without any strings attached.
I could be wrong on this whole thing, but I had to question it after reading that section of Rosenthal's story. It didn't make sense to me.