Can Employer Tell You to Cease Independent Agency

[moonlightandmargaritas]

...whether you did or did not tell them I can appreciate your honesty in telling your employer.

Problem is an "honest" fool...is still a fool. Some people just can't keep their mouth shut.

 

[Guest]

Personally if I were your employer I'd say the same thing. Shut it down, or you're fired.

I have one employee in my agency. And if she were to start selling on the side there are too many conflicts.

One... She should be spending that time on our agency to build it, that is why I'm paying her.

Two... Any client she signs under her own I'd be suspicious where she got the lead.

It is completely reasonable for your employer to tell you to choose. You have to consider that they are investing in you, they expect you to invest in them.

 

[NCAgent]

I also believe that legally you probably signed paperwork saying you wouldn't be in a competing business at the same time. Personally, I believe ethically you shouldn't do it. But legally, you might be required not to.

If legally you are not required, well then you can try to put ethics aside. However, this business is very small and you would be amazed at how often people talk. I hear things all the time about people going through bankruptcy, affairs, etc. all from people I know about others I know, whether I wanted to know or not. So keep that in mind as well, you don't want to be blacklisted in your area with the local agencies.

 

[Cory]

NCAgent has a valid point... better to error on the side of caution, but now you need to do some damage control.

 

[rousemark]

I also believe that legally you probably signed paperwork saying you wouldn't be in a competing business at the same time. Personally, I believe ethically you shouldn't do it. But legally, you might be required not to.

If legally you are not required, well then you can try to put ethics aside. However, this business is very small and you would be amazed at how often people talk. I hear things all the time about people going through bankruptcy, affairs, etc. all from people I know about others I know, whether I wanted to know or not. So keep that in mind as well, you don't want to be blacklisted in your area with the local agencies.

Don't know where the OP lives but Tennessee is an "at will state" meaning an employer can terminate you at will for any reason or even no reason. So, here at least, he hasn't a legal leg to stand on. It is shut down the outside agency or do without the captive paycheck. His choice.

 

[NCAgent]

Don't know where the OP lives but Tennessee is an "at will state" meaning an employer can terminate you at will for any reason or even no reason. So, here at least, he hasn't a legal leg to stand on. It is shut down the outside agency or do without the captive paycheck. His choice.

The argument isn't "will OP stay employed" but more "will OP get unemployment after termination?"

A lot of states say for unemployment it has to be for misconduct of some kind, like avoiding calls in a call center, not showing up for work, etc. Some states even say that a lack of production isn't misconduct, so you can get unemployment for being terminated for not selling. I know that people are awarded unemployment for reasons that typical people believe shouldn't be awarded for, which boggles me.

By signing the paperwork, even in an at-will state, the employer has a stronger leg to stand on when challenging unemployment for at-will states, or for right-to-work states (I think that's what they are called?) or union businesses the employer probably has justification to terminate.

There is more to it than at-will to worry about.

 

[rousemark]

The argument isn't "will OP stay employed" but more "will OP get unemployment after termination?"

A lot of states say for unemployment it has to be for misconduct of some kind, like avoiding calls in a call center, not showing up for work, etc. Some states even say that a lack of production isn't misconduct, so you can get unemployment for being terminated for not selling. I know that people are awarded unemployment for reasons that typical people believe shouldn't be awarded for, which boggles me.

By signing the paperwork, even in an at-will state, the employer has a stronger leg to stand on when challenging unemployment for at-will states, or for right-to-work states (I think that's what they are called?) or union businesses the employer probably has justification to terminate.

There is more to it than at-will to worry about.

If he is a self employed insurance agency owner, why would he be eligible for unemployment?

At Will and Right to Work are two separate issues.. At will involves the right to hire and fire.. Right to Work involves whether a union shop can be a closed shop and require union membership to be employed.

 

[NCAgent]

If he is a self employed insurance agency owner, why would he be eligible for unemployment?

At Will and Right to Work are two separate issues.. At will involves the right to hire and fire.. Right to Work involves whether a union shop can be a closed shop and require union membership to be employed.

I knew I was screwing up the terminology.

My fulltime job consists of assisting a broker to sell health ins to our clients. I wasn't allowed to sell because we have a broker. I went on my own and set up my own independent agency to sell Medicare products part time. I felt the need to tell my employer and I am now receiving negative feedback and was told its a conflict of interest and that I may have to cease the agency I just set up. I need the extra money and was curious if an employer can tell you to cease agency. Any advice would be great.

Kimber says that he (she?) works for a company fulltime and assists a broker (and can't sell on his own), and started an agency on the side. This leads me to believe that Kimber is w2 since he works for an employer that has a broker, meaning Kimber isn't the broker and typically assistants are W2 rather than 1099. I can't know for certain but that is the impression I got.

Being a w2 who is terminated for a conflict of interest may or may not be sufficient for unemployment in his state, but having paperwork can definitely help.

 

[rousemark]

I knew I was screwing up the terminology.





Kimber says that he (she?) works for a company fulltime and assists a broker (and can't sell on his own), and started an agency on the side. This leads me to believe that Kimber is w2 since he works for an employer that has a broker, meaning Kimber isn't the broker and typically assistants are W2 rather than 1099. I can't know for certain but that is the impression I got.

Being a w2 who is terminated for a conflict of interest may or may not be sufficient for unemployment in his state, but having paperwork can definitely help.

He may be W2 and entitled to Unemployment if he were laid off and not working. However, that would not be the case. He would still be working as a self employed agent selling Med Supp. Of course he could lie and say he wasn't self employed but if he continues to sell, it would be very possible that he would be caught as the companies he represents will furnish him a 1099 at the end of the year. The other option, if he wants to draw would be to shut the agency down at the same time he is terminated.

 

[VolAgent]

He may be W2 and entitled to Unemployment if he were laid off and not working. However, that would not be the case. He would still be working as a self employed agent selling Med Supp. Of course he could lie and say he wasn't self employed but if he continues to sell, it would be very possible that he would be caught as the companies he represents will furnish him a 1099 at the end of the year. The other option, if he wants to draw would be to shut the agency down at the same time he is terminated.

He can still file and just report the self-employment earnings on the weekly filing. In TN, unemployment also steps in in case of underemployment. So he would still be eligible for the difference between what he earned and for what he was eligible.