3 ms·
It doesn't need to be mandated by the state. If the employer states that you cannot work for their competitor during your shift, then that is an enforceable ter
by lhorie 6y ago
It doesn't need to be mandated by the state. If the employer states that you cannot work for their competitor during your shift, then that is an enforceable term of employment (and FWIW, a very reasonable one that no one would bat an eyelid for in virtually any field of employment).
For example, if you were employed by Lyft as a driver, then presumably you would be neglecting your job duties if you refused to pick up a customer on the grounds that you happen to be driving a Uber customer at the time.
- mcguire 6y agoYes, and? The only way this industry can operate is if all of the drivers have to be searching for rides on all of the networks?
- lhorie 6y agoHuh? I just said that would largely not be considered tolerable. Imagine working at a food court as a flex hours worker and jumping between the KFC counter and the McDonalds counter during the same shift. That might maybe sort of work if only one person does it, but that scheme is going to fall apart on the first lunch hour if all your employees are flex. What employer would allow that? Of course an employee can work at KFC and McD simultaneously if they can make arrangements to not have shift conflicts, and likewise one could hypothetically be a Uber employee in the morning and a Lyft employee at night, but why go through the trouble of working effectively full time but only getting redundant part timer benefit packages?