planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:32 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
http://www.planetf1.com/news/renault-ca ... en-bosses/

Have you seen this news? If true this is appalling. No one who works in this capacity for the FIA should have the ability to join a team so soon after leaving his post. Definitely a stroke of genius for Renault if they pull it off but it's truly unacceptable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1629
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20987
I can understand the teams being upset, but OTOH the guy has to make a living. What's he supposed to do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4545
Location: Michigan, USA
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

I certainly think he should be free to pursue future employment but there is no NDA that can cover this situation. The sport itself should have regulations regarding this (I agree that it should not be written into a nation's laws). He should have to wait at least a full season before working for an individual team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2186
Location: England
Eh, If Renault have offered him the earth, fair play. The rest will only gherkin and whine because they didn't get in there first. If the FIA dont have proper gardening leave or NDA's in place, then the big boys should have been waving some big cheques long before now.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1629
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.


On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
ReservoirDog wrote:
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.


On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!

There's no law that says that when the ball goes out of bounds, the other team takes possession. There's no law that says that a shot from behind a certain line is worth three points. All sports create their own rules...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
This is a special case as all the teams had to disclose 'secret' information to him in his official position. Horner says if he goes to Renault soon there will be a strike.

oops edit above he said take action, but it sounded like what he means


Last edited by moby on Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4545
Location: Michigan, USA
ReservoirDog wrote:
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.

On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!

You don't need to. The rule wouldn't be contradicting the law at all. The Swiss law (as I understand it from comments - I don't know anything about Swiss law, so if you can reference it that would be helpful!) seems to say that gardening leave cannot be longer than 3 months. But that's completely separate from the FIA putting a stipulation - into either their own employee contract or the contracts of the teams themselves - stating that an FIA employee working in the position of technical delegate (or whatever it's called) cannot work for a Formula 1 team before a certain period of time has run out. That would in no way contradict the Swiss law; they still couldn't keep him from working for more than 3 months, he just wouldn't be able to join an F1 team.

EDIT: And they can do that, because it's not about him joining a competitor. He's leaving the regulating body to join one of the teams they're regulating. They can regulate that the teams aren't allowed to hire their former employees if they want.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Last edited by Exediron on Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1582
Location: Miami, Florida
Seriously OP, you're comparing this to Stepneygate?

2 completely different scenarios and one was done covertly while this one is out in the open and legal. Here in Florida we don't have unions outside of a handful of private businesses and federal entities and as a result companies force you as an employee to sign NDA's and non-compete "contracts" but once you leave those companies you can go work for the competition and although they'll try and sue you, they don't have a leg to stand on because it's a right to work state and no company or organization can dictate in what industry or company you can seek work. All you need to do is show up to the hearing and present your case plainly and the former employers will be found guilty of forcing you to sign said contracts or face immediate termination and in such circumstances, very few people have the resources to tell the employer go fly a kite. And in the vast majority of said contracts, their is a section that you also have to sign featuring language that states you were not forced to sign the contract. In other cases such as the one that cost me a HUGE job with CBS and the Miami Dolphins for the Superbowl, the NDA/Non-Compete literally states that the document I was signing was not a legal and binding contract and is for meant informative purposes only, yet my former employer was upset that I landed such a profitable job and the prick decided since he had no chance of landing it for himself, he'd enjoy seeing me lose it and filed a lawsuit based solely on that very document. And while it cost me the job of my life, and a couple thousand dollars for legal representation I never even received, when I showed up to represent myself in court, I read that very stipulation and the judge looked at their attorney and asked why if the so called contract clearly states it was not a legal and binding document, would base his entire case on it and told his client he'd ask for his money back and dismissed the case. 20 Years ago a good friend of mine whom I work with now left the company we worked for to start her own large format printing company and the owner tried to sue her too and although her contract was iron clad, with no idiotic language stating anything other than he owned her for a full year after she left the company, the judge ruled that it was unfair because she was painted into a corner because if she didn't sign the document she would have been terminated immediately and her former employer bullied her into costing herself the opportunity to further provide for herself once she departed from the company. The same applies here, yet this guy is actually serving his 3 months gardening leave as agreed, so there is nothing anyone can do other than be upset about it.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.

On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!

You don't need to. The rule wouldn't be contradicting the law at all. The Swiss law (as I understand it from comments - I don't know anything about Swiss law, so if you can reference it that would be helpful!) seems to say that gardening leave cannot be longer than 3 months. But that's completely separate from the FIA putting a stipulation - into either their own employee contract or the contracts of the teams themselves - stating that an FIA employee working in the position of technical delegate (or whatever it's called) cannot work for a Formula 1 team before a certain period of time has run out. That would in no way contradict the Swiss law; they still couldn't keep him from working for more than 3 months, he just wouldn't be able to join an F1 team.



When you sign an employment contract it usually stipulates a 'notice period'. I would assume this over rides any national law. BTW Switzerland is not in EU but has some sort of affiliation that binds them to Euro laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4545
Location: Michigan, USA
moby wrote:
When you sign an employment contract it usually stipulates a 'notice period'. I would assume this over rides any national law. BTW Switzerland is not in EU but has some sort of affiliation that binds them to Euro laws.

I can't imagine anything in a private contract overrides national law. But the point I'm making is that it doesn't need to; they can't keep him from working somewhere else, but because he wants to join a team in a sport that the FIA writes the rules for, they can certainly make it illegal for an F1 team to hire him.

In short, they might not be able to stop him, but they can stop Renault.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
When you sign an employment contract it usually stipulates a 'notice period'. I would assume this over rides any national law. BTW Switzerland is not in EU but has some sort of affiliation that binds them to Euro laws.

I can't imagine anything in a private contract overrides national law. But the point I'm making is that it doesn't need to; they can't keep him from working somewhere else, but because he wants to join a team in a sport that the FIA writes the rules for, they can certainly make it illegal for an F1 team to hire him.

In short, they might not be able to stop him, but they can stop Renault.


https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0f0ddee6-1b90-4cc6-bb34-9d1f9d7d2954

Employment agreements can be terminated by observing the following termination periods:

one month during the first year of service;
two months between the second and ninth years of service; and
three months thereafter.
Employment agreements can provide for longer or shorter termination periods (although they will usually be no less than one month).

Though no specific form is required for a termination, for evidence purposes, it is advisable that termination notices be given in writing (which is sometimes required by the employment contract itself).

These are minimum requirements, I can not see a maximum, but it is just a quick google.


Edit

Ref some of the comments above. Gardening leave is usually paid, so it is not stopping some one working.


Last edited by moby on Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4545
Location: Michigan, USA
I'll also add that I think people comparing this to an ordinary corporate competition situation are looking at it wrong. This isn't about a guy who used to work for one F1 team leaving that team to work for another; this is a guy who works for a neutral body that has been entrusted with sensitive information from the teams choosing to take that information - which was given to him in trust, and is required by FIA rules to be given to him - and basically sell it to one of their competitors.

Someone should be able to be sued over this, I'm just not sure who. If it's allowed to happen, no team will ever trust the FIA with their information again.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1629
sandman1347 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.


On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!

There's no law that says that when the ball goes out of bounds, the other team takes possession. There's no law that says that a shot from behind a certain line is worth three points. All sports create their own rules...


WTF are you talking about? This is about hiring a person, which is governed by law. To further your dumb donkey analogy, you can't have sporting regulation saying I can shoot or rape other players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:01 am
Posts: 33
ReservoirDog wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.


On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!

There's no law that says that when the ball goes out of bounds, the other team takes possession. There's no law that says that a shot from behind a certain line is worth three points. All sports create their own rules...


WTF are you talking about? This is about hiring a person, which is governed by law. To further your dumb donkey analogy, you can't have sporting regulation saying I can shoot or rape other players.


That went 0-100 pretty quick.

Amazed his contract with the FIA didn't contain what would essentially amount to a 'non-compete' clause that would see him have to remain outside of Formula 1 for the remainder of this season (or any season he leaves whilst it is still in progress), and the next. Given what he knows pertains to next year's cars and technologies.

On the flip side, as we know most things design related to the 2018 cars is well and truly locked in for all teams, he won't be able to have an immediate impact. You could guarantee though, their R&D process and progress would be interesting to say the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
I'm not that fussed about this. Transfer of knowledge from your last job happens all the time and Renault haven't done anything the others weren't free to do so I can't agree it's anything like Spygate.

It's true his position is more unique because it's not knowledge from 1 team but several but it's not against the rules as far as I'm aware so I don't get the fuss.

The knowledge Cornebois took from Mercedes to Ferrari was far more valuable and game changing imo. No one had any idea Mercedes were running lean burn and exploiting a loophole to burn oil at that time and that signing allowed Ferrari to leapfrog Renault and give them over a year head start on Renault and Honda with lean burn technology/oil burn and they both had to find their own way rather than just copy Mercedes already proven techniques.

That effect of that is still felt today and will be until the next regulation change. No doubt this guy's knowledge is priceless but I don't think it's game changing for Renault and it just sounds like jealousy from Horner and Wolff that they got outmaneuvered by Renault on this one.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
Also I can't lie, I'm delighted it was Renault as this shows just how serious they are taking their comeback and I'm a little closer to the dream of 5 top teams with 10 top seats.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
ReservoirDog wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Exediron wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Switzerland allows it, so there's nothing any organization can do to stop this from happening. People leave and join other companies all the time taking vital info. Not sure what the big deal here is. It sucks, but there's no slavery in the modern world (and rightfully so). A person can move to any company he wishes. Suisse allows 3 months gardening leave and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

BS. The FIA absolutely could have their own rule forbidding a former employee from joining a team in an FIA sanctioned sport. There can be plenty of rules below the national government level; they'd just need to put it in the contract for the position that you can't join a team in the sport for X number of months, and anybody who won't agree to it doesn't get the job and the sensitive information it entails.


On which planet do you write rules that can override the law? Let's see how that goes in court!

There's no law that says that when the ball goes out of bounds, the other team takes possession. There's no law that says that a shot from behind a certain line is worth three points. All sports create their own rules...


WTF are you talking about? This is about hiring a person, which is governed by law. To further your dumb donkey analogy, you can't have sporting regulation saying I can shoot or rape other players.

Learn to speak to people with respect. You're insulting someone despite the fact that it is you who doesn't understand a very simple analogy. To make it less abstract; in football, basketball or baseball, for example, there are tampering rules for the different leagues; which govern when it is acceptable to negotiate with or sign players. The FIA has the capacity to make their own rules for their own series. Even non-sports can have non-compete clauses written into employment contracts. This is actually not a complicated concept. Now go take your medication like a good little boy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 549
Location: Far North of Scotland
The teams complaining wouldn't be doing so if they were the ones signing Budkowski.........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 549
Location: Far North of Scotland
The teams complaining wouldn't be doing so if they were the ones signing Budkowski.........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12365
I thin this is a lot more serious than a lot of people are making it seem. This is a guy who is trusted the plans, the secrets, the innovations and possible future plans and ideas for every team up and down the paddock. Him going to work for a team himself is an absolute betrayal of trust.

Really it's a situation the FIA should be prepared for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1629
sandman1347 wrote:
Learn to speak to people with respect. You're insulting someone despite the fact that it is you who doesn't understand a very simple analogy. To make it less abstract; in football, basketball or baseball, for example, there are tampering rules for the different leagues; which govern when it is acceptable to negotiate with or sign players. The FIA has the capacity to make their own rules for their own series. Even non-sports can have non-compete clauses written into employment contracts. This is actually not a complicated concept. Now go take your medication like a good little boy.


Can't respect stupidity. Non-competes have to be held up by courts. You are just making stuff up at this point. I can give you the example of California, for example. You can write all the non-competes you want, the court would simply throw them out. Happens on an every day basis on the tech. industry. Companies still put them in the hope a person wouldn't have the money or will to fight in courts.

This is how it works little boy - you write a contract, it is enforced by courts, and they can throw out illegal crap in there. Since you don't have the mental capacity, if company's could put in any arbitrary length of gardening leave in contracts, the Swiss wouldn't have a law in place since that'd be worthless. It's put a cap on them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20987
You can't make a non-compete too restrictive and it's not valid if it means an individual cannot continue in their chosen field. There are pretty strict rules governing these things. At least, there are in Europe. Can't speak for anywhere else


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
Surely a way to deal with it that wouldn't conflict with any law would be to have it written in the rules that a team cannot race if they employ people from certain FIA roles within a given time frame. That way it is simply a sporting regulation (like a super license) rather than anything that falls under contractual laws. i.e. You are free to employ them but you are not allowed to race in our series if you do.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12365
wolfticket wrote:
Surely a way to deal with it that wouldn't conflict with any law would be to have it written in the rules that a team cannot race if they employ people from certain FIA roles within a given time frame. That way it is simply a sporting regulation (like a super license) rather than anything that falls under contractual laws. i.e. You are free to employ them but you are not allowed to race in our series if you do.


Agree. It has to be on the teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
mikeyg123 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Surely a way to deal with it that wouldn't conflict with any law would be to have it written in the rules that a team cannot race if they employ people from certain FIA roles within a given time frame. That way it is simply a sporting regulation (like a super license) rather than anything that falls under contractual laws. i.e. You are free to employ them but you are not allowed to race in our series if you do.


Agree. It has to be on the teams.


But in this case, it is within the rules. The rules do not say someone in a privileged position can not go to a team in the same season.
FIA rules that is. It is not right to introduce a rule retrospectively, but it is also not right to allow this to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
moby wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Surely a way to deal with it that wouldn't conflict with any law would be to have it written in the rules that a team cannot race if they employ people from certain FIA roles within a given time frame. That way it is simply a sporting regulation (like a super license) rather than anything that falls under contractual laws. i.e. You are free to employ them but you are not allowed to race in our series if you do.


Agree. It has to be on the teams.


But in this case, it is within the rules. The rules do not say someone in a privileged position can not go to a team in the same season.
FIA rules that is. It is not right to introduce a rule retrospectively, but it is also not right to allow this to happen.

Indeed. I was just wondering why they didn't do it that way if their intention was to stop this happening. If it's actually legal as it stands then Renault don't (and shouldn't) have a problem. Finding loopholes and technicalities has always been a big part of F1, as has closing them after someone exploits them. I guess we can potentually just add this one to the list.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20987
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


But he is paid for his waiting time as part of the contract, as were other employees, and as are engineers and designers when they change teams. I think I remember Brawn having to take a year 'gardening leave'. It is not forbidding them working in F1, just not taking 'hot' information to a competitor, or in this case, every one else's secrets untill they are no longer relevant.

It is the same as when someone is about to leave a company with sensitive information, they are put in a separate office and not allowed to keep up with current knowledge. It is considered insider trading in the banking world if someone knows something and acts on it


Last edited by moby on Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12365
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


You just prohibit teams from hiring him in the rules. I think you could do that. Rather than put the rules on him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


You just prohibit teams from hiring him in the rules. I think you could do that. Rather than put the rules on him.


The rule should not be on him, but on FIA. He follows the rules, not his fault. He is also then not prohibited from working, just taking long notice while not learning anything. He could easily be switched to the road safety section or the education section for this period. He could do a lot of good work lecturing for 6 months ( while still being paid his rate )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20987
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


You just prohibit teams from hiring him in the rules. I think you could do that. Rather than put the rules on him.

Courts aren't stupid. They'd see straight through that. Point is an individual would face discrimination and that wouldn't be allowed. You couldn't have an organisation prohibiting the hiring of women, for example. I suspect the same would happen on an individual basis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20987
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


But he is paid for his waiting time as part of the contract, as were other employees, and as are engineers and designers when they change teams. I think I remember Brawn having to take a year 'gardening leave'. It is not forbidding them working in F1, just not taking 'hot' information to a competitor, or in this case, every one else's secrets untill they are no longer relevant.

It is the same as when someone is about to leave a company with sensitive information, they are put in a separate office and not allowed to keep up with current knowledge. It is considered insider trading in the banking world if someone knows something and acts on it

Gardening leave is quite different. An individual remains on the payroll but is not required to work. He is still employed by his former company, though, so suffers no loss. Perhaps I've misunderstood but I didn't think that was the case here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


But he is paid for his waiting time as part of the contract, as were other employees, and as are engineers and designers when they change teams. I think I remember Brawn having to take a year 'gardening leave'. It is not forbidding them working in F1, just not taking 'hot' information to a competitor, or in this case, every one else's secrets untill they are no longer relevant.

It is the same as when someone is about to leave a company with sensitive information, they are put in a separate office and not allowed to keep up with current knowledge. It is considered insider trading in the banking world if someone knows something and acts on it

Gardening leave is quite different. An individual remains on the payroll but is not required to work. He is still employed by his former company, though, so suffers no loss. Perhaps I've misunderstood but I didn't think that was the case here?


As you say, they are still an employee and under full (or agreed) pay, but sometimes still acts on behalf of the company. My former boss did what I said above and did lectures to motivate him to keep up to speed in new developments and be prepared for his next job.

If you take a full year or 6 months off without working in the field things sneak up on you so you are not on top of your game when you start your new job, or indeed attend the interview for it. I do not know if you can be requested to do this or if it is voluntary, after all, what are they going to do? fire you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
To put this in better perspective than some of the above, it is like the admin clerk of a doctors practice going to the local medical insurance company. They know not only what is, but what is not and what can be.

He knows who did what with the trick suspension and WHY it was disallowed, and what can be done to get it accepted.
So (say) Renault can know what Ferrari did with the tricks and make it slightly different so that it is accepted, even though the Ferrari version was rejected. He also knows what others are using and why it is accepted, and also how much room for improvement there is and still get it through

I see what you are trying to say but I don't think it's the same for the very important reason that not allowing him would effectively mean banning him from F1, where he's built up his work experience. I have my doubts a court would tolerate that


You just prohibit teams from hiring him in the rules. I think you could do that. Rather than put the rules on him.

Courts aren't stupid. They'd see straight through that. Point is an individual would face discrimination and that wouldn't be allowed. You couldn't have an organisation prohibiting the hiring of women, for example. I suspect the same would happen on an individual basis

Other than discrimination as described by law (race, gender, sexuality etc) running a private enterprise offers a lot of leeway when it comes to applying your own rules irrespective of whether a court would find them to be fair or not. This is especially clear when it comes to a sport run by a private company. Ultimately a competitor can be banned or excluded from competing for fairly arbitrary reasons that bare no relation to any actual law.

The team, and he as part of the team, are competitors. If there was a rule stating that it was forbidden to employ a former member of the FIA within a given time period I really don't think that would be a problem. As I said before, it wouldn't stop a any company employing them, it would just stop a team that did from competing, which would be the FIA's prerogative.

The problem (as far as I can tell) is that there is no such rule. Instead they relied on a contract to stop this from happening. As such (and unlike sporting rules and regulations) this is subject to contractual law, and this contractual obligation did not hold up in court.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Last edited by wolfticket on Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
ReservoirDog wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Learn to speak to people with respect. You're insulting someone despite the fact that it is you who doesn't understand a very simple analogy. To make it less abstract; in football, basketball or baseball, for example, there are tampering rules for the different leagues; which govern when it is acceptable to negotiate with or sign players. The FIA has the capacity to make their own rules for their own series. Even non-sports can have non-compete clauses written into employment contracts. This is actually not a complicated concept. Now go take your medication like a good little boy.


Can't respect stupidity. Non-competes have to be held up by courts. You are just making stuff up at this point. I can give you the example of California, for example. You can write all the non-competes you want, the court would simply throw them out. Happens on an every day basis on the tech. industry. Companies still put them in the hope a person wouldn't have the money or will to fight in courts.

This is how it works little boy - you write a contract, it is enforced by courts, and they can throw out illegal crap in there. Since you don't have the mental capacity, if company's could put in any arbitrary length of gardening leave in contracts, the Swiss wouldn't have a law in place since that'd be worthless. It's put a cap on them.

Lol wow, so now your argument is that they could make the rules but that (in your expert legal opinion) the rules wouldn't be upheld by a court? This despite the fact that there are already several sports with these types of rules in place and several other business entities with similar non-compete regulations in place? I'm sure you already know that's a pile of complete nonsense. Hence your unusually disrespectful and aggressive tone in your responses. You seem like the type of guy who likes to act tough on the internet but would curl up into the fetal position if I was to ever approach you in real life. Lots of guys like you these days...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1629
sandman1347 wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Learn to speak to people with respect. You're insulting someone despite the fact that it is you who doesn't understand a very simple analogy. To make it less abstract; in football, basketball or baseball, for example, there are tampering rules for the different leagues; which govern when it is acceptable to negotiate with or sign players. The FIA has the capacity to make their own rules for their own series. Even non-sports can have non-compete clauses written into employment contracts. This is actually not a complicated concept. Now go take your medication like a good little boy.


Can't respect stupidity. Non-competes have to be held up by courts. You are just making stuff up at this point. I can give you the example of California, for example. You can write all the non-competes you want, the court would simply throw them out. Happens on an every day basis on the tech. industry. Companies still put them in the hope a person wouldn't have the money or will to fight in courts.

This is how it works little boy - you write a contract, it is enforced by courts, and they can throw out illegal crap in there. Since you don't have the mental capacity, if company's could put in any arbitrary length of gardening leave in contracts, the Swiss wouldn't have a law in place since that'd be worthless. It's put a cap on them.

Lol wow, so now your argument is that they could make the rules but that (in your expert legal opinion) the rules wouldn't be upheld by a court? This despite the fact that there are already several sports with these types of rules in place and several other business entities with similar non-compete regulations in place? I'm sure you already know that's a pile of complete nonsense. Hence your unusually disrespectful and aggressive tone in your responses. You seem like the type of guy who likes to act tough on the internet but would curl up into the fetal position if I was to ever approach you in real life. Lots of guys like you these days...



LOL WOW? Is that the level of your argument? This is not twitter. Just because your arguments are at the same level of a child, doesn't mean you resort to LOL LOL LOL. At least pretend to be smarter. I didn't the rest of your drivel, so in a way it's good you started with something as puerile as LOL LOL.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, Google Adsense [Bot], mds and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group