I'd talk to a lawyer specialized in labor law about that.

My gut feeling tells me that clause should be unenforceable for hourly based at-will employees but that might also depend on your jurisdiction.

Non-compete clauses are designed to prevent the theft of intellectual property and/or customers. Imagine McDonald's suing a former employer for poaching their customers to their new job at Burger King.

Having to grunt and point at chips to get an exact count of an all-in is unfair? I'll be happy to debate that point.

Yeah that was my thought when I first heard about it. I always thought non-competes were for folks in the business world/CEOs, not for a lowly poker dealer. The issue is the other room that’s closest to us is relocating in 6-8 months to a closer/better location than the current spot. I’m sure it’ll take some of our business at least in the short term and it’s obvious this non-compete is designed to prevent them from poaching our dealers because they will definitely have to hire more .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the utility industry is trying this also. Linemen are leaving the utility for more lucrative contractor work and the utilities are trying to prevent them from coming back and working on their property as a contractor. Seems to be a purely punitive move.

It's all about power.

--klez

IANAL and THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE…

Those employees concerned about their PTO may wish or need to discuss with a lawyer. May even want to discuss with HR or mgmt. it is my understanding that if you are let go, already accrued time of is supposed to be paid out. In fact, iirc, all wages due and all accrued pto is supposed to be paid or available to the employee when they are terminated.

Years ago my wife was let go from a business that was failing but still going. Initially accrued vacation was not mentioned. When she asked about it they responded they would pay her half if she signed a confidentiality agreement (they were doing some shady things, legal but likely in violation to their franchise/league rules and as accountant she knew what was happening but had no access to the league by laws to KNOW if they were in the wrong). She said hell no and called me.

I went online look up something in the federal employment regs/rules stating accrued vacation had to be paid and called that mgr. after we talked he said he would get back to us next week. I informed him we would have a check today or the next call to him would be my lawyer. He said he needed to see the rule and talk to their lawyer. I said fine, do what you must and hung up. About 20 min. later wife got a call saying there was a check waiting for her at the office.

Might be different now. Maybe accrued pto is different than accrued vaca. But worth pushing back or even checking with a lawyer if needed. Also if gross misconduct is claimed, that might change things.

I am surprised if an organization of this size and number of employees doesn’t have people in place that knows this stuff. It was in our basic initial supervisor training (along with the guidance of always let HR handle terminations since a bunch can go bad if not correctly handled). That was why I knew what I did on the subject.

Tl;dr. First level supervisors and even low level HR folks often don’t know all the laws. I think accrued pto is supposed to be paid when terminated but specific details likely matter.

Post employment non-competes are I believe a state law issue. But they can be applied even to the lowest employee levels SOMETIMES. Definitely something to discuss with a lawyer or have union address if employees are represented/union.

Some states apply these agreements pretty broad and some quite narrow. Iirc In TX you could (but probably should not) sign almost any non compete because they are almost always ruled void there. Most there are not worth the paper they are written on. But other locales will be different.

And they’re not just added while you’re employed there. You either have one in your contract and know about that before starting the job or you negotiate one in your severance agreement.

Post employment non competes can be binding if they offer something in return for signing. If not they aren’t worth the paper the are written on. I am not a lawyer.

In Michigan I've heard that 'hourly' non-competes have pretty much been tossed in the past. The main reasoning being "How much can an employer really be 'harmed' by losing an hourly employee?"

Insurance, Asset Management and Banking is where the NC come into play where 'clients' may choose to follow a specific person rather than be loyal to an agency/organization.

The Employer needs to feel tangibly harmed to the point where they feel that it's worth sicing the lawyers (and their attached fees/time) after them.

As far as grounds for dismissal for 'moonlighting', that's a whole different part of labor law that is much more tangible. Unemployment agencies protect those funds as if they were their own but it's still up to an employer if they want to try and deny any post-employment claims. And then any attempt for wrongful dismissal is extremely hard to get into the court system.

'Harm' is the key to most legal spots followed up by breach of contract .. GL

Is an employee handbook really a 'contract'? Very well could be but it still comes down to whether it's there for a 'scare tactic' or something that either side really wants to vigorously apply.

Employee handbooks certainly can be and have been considered a contract as employees have or may have made decisions based upon it. Obviously can’t contravene employment law but where it exceeds law it could be a floor on benefits due. With the casino a) being generally more sophisticated and b) being the party who wrote the document, it is likely to be read to the benefit of the employee where conflicts arise.

One question is were the dismissed employees also employed by Live or were the only seeking employment with Live? If they were not already employed by Live, I cannot see unemployment benefits being denied unless there were other grounds to dismiss for cause. In an at will state, it is very likely a company can dismiss someone for seeking employment with a competitor but they should not be able to avoid the associated unemployment liabilities.

Sure, but the flipside is that it's also not unfair to announce the size of a bet, even if that bet is all-in. A player isn't "entitled" to not have opponents tipped off to the amount, just like it isn't unfair when a player tables 7 high at showdown for their hand to be announced.

I just ask for a count every time, even if someone else already asked for a count since that count wasn't for me.

Technically I should cover my ears.

Except that I already spelled out in exacting detail the logic behind the fairness of this.

That sounds messed up. This is easy for me to say because I have lots of other options outside of dealing, but I would not sign something like that, just on principle. Maybe if enough current dealer talk and agree not to sign it might make a difference?

It just seems strange and in this current employment environment employees do not have to put up with stuff like that.

I am not really sure the speed of game argument applies as much anymore as a reason not to count down and announce the amount of all ins. In my experience, so many all ins are for a trivial amount of chips that counting them down is quick and easy. Add in the fact that so many players have been trained to ask for the all in to be counted anyway, I think a vast majority of all ins are either quick and easy or are being counted anyway. Throw in those instances where a player stares at a stack for 30 seconds, then looks at his cards and thinks for 30 seconds and then looks back at the stack for 30 seconds and then finally asks to have it counted down, I really think that games might be sped up by dealers instantly counting down all ins anyway. Actually now there is a third case that would make it quick as well and that is when the all in bet obviously covers the potentially calling player (and there is no one else left in the hand). The dealer should be able to the potentially calling player that it is for more than you have sir.

I will admit that I am biased. Since I used to deal dice I am fairly quick at cutting down and counting a stack. I know that some dealers where this is a long and laborious process that would slow the game down more often than not. I just think there needs to be more flexibility there because it could occasionally speed up games and would generally provide more accuracy and clarity.

I do count down all in stacks without being prompted. The majority of players seem to prefer this and my room doesn't have a specific policy either way.

Before doing that I do take a moment to assess the situation to see if it's necessary. Sometimes the amount hugely covers the other player or is easy enough to count visually. Other times it seems obvious that the player has already made up their mind and just hasn't followed through yet.

I also try to glance back occasionally to see if the other player has already acted or looks like they're about to.

@JimL if I am asking for a count ‘more than you’ won’t cut it. I likely already know that and I won’t always ask. But knowing how much of his stack he is willing to risk matters for some V’s (though it really shouldn’t).

Wanting to know how much of a person's stack is at risk is more of a tournament thing. My go to phrase is "He's got you covered. Do you need a count?" and usually they say no.

I'm not sure if this is karma or what, but a neat little spot that came up this week in Vegas.

While sitting in a game the Dealer is clearly distracted by the TVs and discussing the potential evening bets with a Reg. We then find out he also has a large part of the orientation of each class of Dealers .. stressing consistency over speed and being diligent in keeping up with the action.

A 4-way hand gets to the Flop with 1, 2, 4, and 9 with 1 being the B. 2 & 4 check and then 1 checks OOT. Dealer burns and Seat 9 speaks up and says he hasn't acted yet. So he bets with 1 calling and 4 raising .. then 9 and 1 both call. Turn checks through and as the Dealer burns for the River I notice there are 3 cards already there. Dealer only briefly pauses and lays out a River card whilst sliding one of the burns into the muck with his deck-hand picky finger.

While he was pushing out I said, "Your secret is safe with me" as I hold out 4 fingers. He says "Thanks, better to keep any conflict to a minimum if possible"

1) Pretty slick or pretty poor?

2) What would your Floor's do with the Turn action already complete? GL

If the dealer realized the burn mistake before any action and the correct card is 100% identifiable, he should have corrected it. If it's lost or there has been any action (significant or not) then sweeping it under the rug might be ok.

It must have been What, because that wasn't me.

In this situation, if nobody notices, the dirty secret is that I would have done the same thing lmao

This. I know a dealer who once called the floor in a huge pot when he noticed there were 4 burn cards after he put the river out. I immediately wondered why he didn’t just kill the burn cards and stuff them in the muck..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not at all persuaded that it is necessary for fairness to allow someone to fold because they just hear "all in" instead of a specific amount. It's the exact same as the people who think it's unfair when dealers read tabled hands, and I've had many players argue that same thing too.

Clearly announcing the action a player faces (or a tabled hand at showdown) is never unfair.