danw74
08-01-2008, 12:11 AM
I've been doing research on my own but I trust you guys here so I want to get your opinion too.
I have been working for a company for almost two years. Three times within the first eight months I was asked if I would be interested in moving into management for the company, I was hourly, at a different store out of state. I accepted the promotion and after training I moved to the other store in Iowa with another coworker. We were both promoted and moved out to the other store together as roomates. We were both required to sign a very vague non-compete clause stating that if we left the company we could not work for a competitor for two years within 50 miles of our current company. Four weeks ago my roomate gave notice and last week moved back to Rapid City to be closer to his father who was in poor health. initially it was expected for both of us to work at this store for two years to help out. This put me in a financial bind with two months left on my lease, and now on my own, even if I move into another place, my monthly living expenses will increase easily by $2-300 dollars a month. I also have school loans that will be coming due in December and I will be unable to cover my monthly expenses even at half that amount. I talked to a few people and with some of the research I have done I am under the impression that if I fall under financial hardship and am unable to pay my bills, that in South Dakota, at least, a court is likely to uphold my right to make a living. I have expressed my desire to stay here and continue working for them but I am unable to pay my bills on my current salary. Since they are unwilling to compensate for even my cost of living increase, nor allow me to pick up any other form of part time work, I would like to pursue options that will pay me enought to afford gas and rent.
I have read on other sites that South Dakota will usually support the employee if the reason for leaving is reasonable and it helps them to make a living. My plan would be to move back to Rapid City where I already lined up roomates and would be close to family for any other support I needed. I have been in restaurants for over 20 years with ten years management experience, this is what I do. So when I do go back, it's about a 99% chance that I will be taking a job managing for a restaurant. Now the clause is vary vague and states that they may choose to pursue compensation for any financial loss they incur by me leaving. My question is, with all my experience, it's not like they had to train me to be a manager. Not to mention, before I came to Iowa at this store, they had been running it with only three managers, without me now, they would still have four, so they are still ahead. Additionally, since my arrival, we have consistantly beat last years sales for each week all but two times. Anyways, the main question is, if I can show that in my current situation I am unable to make a living and pay my financial obligations, can the non-com[ete prevent me from doing so? I know it can, but what is the likelyhood.
I have been working for a company for almost two years. Three times within the first eight months I was asked if I would be interested in moving into management for the company, I was hourly, at a different store out of state. I accepted the promotion and after training I moved to the other store in Iowa with another coworker. We were both promoted and moved out to the other store together as roomates. We were both required to sign a very vague non-compete clause stating that if we left the company we could not work for a competitor for two years within 50 miles of our current company. Four weeks ago my roomate gave notice and last week moved back to Rapid City to be closer to his father who was in poor health. initially it was expected for both of us to work at this store for two years to help out. This put me in a financial bind with two months left on my lease, and now on my own, even if I move into another place, my monthly living expenses will increase easily by $2-300 dollars a month. I also have school loans that will be coming due in December and I will be unable to cover my monthly expenses even at half that amount. I talked to a few people and with some of the research I have done I am under the impression that if I fall under financial hardship and am unable to pay my bills, that in South Dakota, at least, a court is likely to uphold my right to make a living. I have expressed my desire to stay here and continue working for them but I am unable to pay my bills on my current salary. Since they are unwilling to compensate for even my cost of living increase, nor allow me to pick up any other form of part time work, I would like to pursue options that will pay me enought to afford gas and rent.
I have read on other sites that South Dakota will usually support the employee if the reason for leaving is reasonable and it helps them to make a living. My plan would be to move back to Rapid City where I already lined up roomates and would be close to family for any other support I needed. I have been in restaurants for over 20 years with ten years management experience, this is what I do. So when I do go back, it's about a 99% chance that I will be taking a job managing for a restaurant. Now the clause is vary vague and states that they may choose to pursue compensation for any financial loss they incur by me leaving. My question is, with all my experience, it's not like they had to train me to be a manager. Not to mention, before I came to Iowa at this store, they had been running it with only three managers, without me now, they would still have four, so they are still ahead. Additionally, since my arrival, we have consistantly beat last years sales for each week all but two times. Anyways, the main question is, if I can show that in my current situation I am unable to make a living and pay my financial obligations, can the non-com[ete prevent me from doing so? I know it can, but what is the likelyhood.
