The Wookie says:
I have been on both sides, being both a Young Jedi in a Galactic Kiosk and now as a Master Jedi. This is not a critique, but I find it interesting that both Master PADPM and Master Feli seem to have difficulty seeing the Young Jedi's point of view in these matters.
As far as the Laws of your Galaxy and Non-Compete clauses, as I have previously mentioned, new contracts enacted after these new Galactic Law were came into being a little over two years ago, it is much easier for a Young Jedi to prove that his previous Master Jedi is preventing him or her from making a living, then it is for a Master Jedi to prove financial hardship. Also if the Master Jedi did any kind of interviewing or advertising for said position, all a Young Jedi has to due is show that he or she was "recruited" in order for said Law to be enacted and protect the Young Jedi. Most Galactic Councillors will not even approach this topic anymore as it is a losing proposition for the Master Jedi. I have very intimate and personal experience with this, and as previously mentioned, this is not a point of argument. It is fact. Ask your Contract Associate if you care to spend the money to find out. I don't "know a guy, who knows a guy", or "had a friend who told me so". These Laws are not quadrant specific, but pertain to the Galaxy known as the United States of America in it's entirety. I would suggest to the Young Jedi who lost his case to Appeal to the Grand Court of the Galaxy and attempt to have the ruling reversed if he or she is so inclined. It seems to me that the Grand Court can override the Quadrant Courts.
Master PADPM, I thought we had agreed to disagree?
I did agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean that I can't voice my opinion when a new matter is discussed, such as restrictive covenants. And you may not intend on insulting, but you have a tendency to to this anyway. For example, you stated that "this is not a point of argument, it is fact". Is that an attempt at being politically correct and another way of saying "you're wrong, I'm right". That does not seem consistent with agreeing to disagree.
You then add insult when you state your experience is first hand, not "knowing a guy who knew a guy" etc. I must believe that's in reference to the fact that I stated a childhood friend won his case enforcing the convenant. I assure you it wasn't hearsay......I personally reviewed and read the final decision and have a copy in my possession.
And no, I do not agree that these laws are consistent across the galaxy.
As of 11/3/11......
"contractural agreements that restrict the post employment activities of employees are GENERALLY subject to enforcement under New Jersey law provided established criteria are satisfied. In the employment context restrictive convenants have been utilized to prohibit employees from revealing confidential, propriety information and/or trade secrets of the employer after the termination of employment; to prohibit the former employee from competing with the employer and barring individuals from soliciting the clients or other employees of a former employer".
Restrictive convenants are enforceable to the extent they are "reasonable under the circumstance of the case". In New Jesey there is a three prong test under which a convenant will be found to be reasonable if it is established that;
1) the convenant protects a legitimate interest of the employer
2) the convenant imposes no undue hardship on the employee and
3) the convenant is not injurious to the public.
This goes on to further detail, but simply confirms my comment that these ARE sometimes enforceable and the rulings do differ from state to state. It is not a "fact" that these convenants are never enforceable.
In addition there is additional information regarding this manner. During the decision regarding enforcement, the question "under what circumstances will employment terminate" is important. If the employment terminates because of a breach by the employer, or because the employee leaves because the employer's actions were detrimental to the public interest, the restrictive convenant will be more characterized as undue hardship to the employee.
Conversely, if the employee decided to terminate or discontinue the relationship independently and not because of the employer's wrongdoing, a court will be less likely to find undue hardship on the employee.
If the physician can easily establish a practice or join an existing practice outside of the restrictive area, the convenant will generally be enforceable.
This goes on and on, but I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that these convenants are NOT always unenforceable, despite what you claim is "fact".
There are many variables and it will depend on the actual state, circumstances, etc. There is not a one size fits all answer.
Yes, the courts have taken a harder stance on these convenants and the AMA actually frowns against them, but the fact remains that each convenant will be evaluated on a case to case basis and winning a decision that the contract is not enforceable is not a slam dunk.
This is not a reflection of how I personally feel about these convenants, but is a reflection of information I have researched.
Regarding the matter of the rights and privileges of the young doctor vs the employer. I am sympathetic to both sides since I have worn the shoes of both sides. Once again my opinion is case dependent. Some time the employee is the victim and sometimes the employer. My sympathy goes to the victim, whichever side that happens to be.
who float from associate job to associate job to nursing home service to associate job, and they are generally unable to pass boards, lazy, poorly trained, negligent, just a volatile personality that does not work well with anyone... or all of the those things. That's a fact, and most hiring practices know to avoid those hirings since they will lose money, local practice reputation, patient satisfaction, and valuable time by creating a relationship with those people.
