Unfair Practices

[Fortes in Fide]

I just learn something that disturbs me while talking to my nephew in the Philippines. ( I hope he was telling me the truth.)

If somebody has worked in a franchise or a business establishment, he is forbidden to get another job with one which can be considered a competitor or rival business. Say for example you used to be with Mcdonald's you can't be hired by Jolibees.
Former Cocacola people can't be hired by Pepsi Co.

Don't you think this practice should be declared illegal because not only is it detrimental to the person's economic potential for better pay, it also violates the individual's Freedom of Choice under the Constitution?
(or is there such a thing in the Philippines?)

Why would somebody be tagged with a stigma or economic limitations in the choice of jobs just because he was from another camp?

[Kaboom!]

Most companies have a time period before this prohibition is lifted. I worked for LaTondena and after resigning, I couldn't work for rival Tanduay for a year after resignation. To a certain extent, it limits your choices but an employee should already know that coming into a company and this knowledge in turn should be part of his/her "choosing" process.

I think it's only fair for the company to put this clause in a contract at least for a period of time after leaving the company. I know some things (plans, budgets, etc.) that can be very valuable to Tanduay. After some time, my knowledge becomes outdated so puwede na.

Peace.

[batang uliran]

FiF:

This is common practice in many industries for the reasons Kaboom mentioned. It's known as a restrictive covenant.

[blue babe]

i don't think its patently illegal or anything. i don't think its entirely unfair either. especially if you were employed in a very delicate official capacity and was privy to highly confidential matters.

[green grin]

i dunno about the burger joints but i've friends who've transferred from coke to pepsi and vice versa with nary a hoot from their former employers. i'm not saying your nephew is lying, it might be a new condition in employment contracts.

but blue babe is right. it's not patently illegal to have a proviso in your employment contract that restricts subsequent employment with a competitor (usually a one- or two-year restriction). it may not be unconstitutional but it is pretty unfair for the employee (reasonable for the employer, of course).

[RicoSuave]

I think the restraint of livelihood in the Philippines is too extreme. If I was a cook at Jollibee, I can't cook for MacDonalds? what trade secrets are there to take to the other side?

The prohibition should be at the corporate level and key officers. If I clean toilets at one hotel, I should be able to clean toilets at another hotel if that would pay me more money.

[Fortes in Fide]

RS,

That's the same thing I'm concerned about! What's the big deal about a lowly employee going the a rival company to find work? For those in the management level I could understand because there are business secrets and strategies that need to be zealously protected for the business's survival in competitivenes. But for a laborer like a delivery man, a janitor,or a cashier, what are the corporate thinkers so afraid about?
Besides, most trade secrets and practices are only as secretive as they want to believe they are anyway. There are various effective ways to get them other than from old empleyees if the need is really that compelling and profitable.

The Philippines need to find better rules to protect businesses and employees at the same time for the good of the many. Unnecessary restrictions should be lifted to help minimize the unemployment problems.
( That includes age discrimination but this is another topic. )

[angstboy]

yeah tama 'yon. its in the law i know. u can't work for something in the same line of business, competition, etc.
wow! i guess may silbi rin pala 'yong law on partnerships & corporations course namin. so this is where my tuition goes. :)