“If an employment contract contains a contingent clause allowing the employer a right of first refusal and/or the right to match an external offer, why isn’t the employee free to accept or reject such an offer at will?
This makes utterly no sense to me.”
I think Fybush’s question about what it means to match the offer should be considered more. While WRKO could surely match the financial part of the offer if they so desired, WOULD they match the working conditions? The preferred shift, the removal of the threat of pre-emptions for sports, and other concerns that made for all-around unpleasant working conditions for Howie. So even if they offered him the same MONEY, they’re still not matching the OFFER.
>>The preferred shift, the removal of the threat of pre-emptions for sports, and other concerns that made for all-around unpleasant working conditions for Howie. So even if they offered him the same MONEY, theyre still not matching the OFFER.
That’s what I think, too; WRKO couldn’t match THOSE conditions.
As far as Howie being out of his contract, while Howie’s
lawyers are saying his contract ended last Wed., WRKO is
saying that since they met the offer (again: salary-wise,
not incentive-wise, and not “working conditions”) that he
is now under contract to them until 9/30/12.
And Howie is not showing up for work, and not getting a paycheck. The Herald columns and the book receipts
are probably pretty good but eventually I’m sure he’d
love to return to radio...and collect a big fat paycheck
from greater media.
I think you make a good point, in that WTKK has offered Howie Carr something very different from what RKO has in mind. WTKK is offering a morning drive-time slot without the threat of sports preemption that
benefited ONLY Entercom by enhancing its advertising revenue while diminishing Carr’s audience. But what I’m questioning is the right of one party to a terminated contract to prevent the other party from contracting freely with a third party.