Contract questions

[biomom]

I was just offered a new job as a counselor. The contract seems iffy: No pay for the first two months until insurance reimbursement happens; Having to pay back $2000 in credentialing fees if I leave in the first two years; if I quit, I lose up to 60 days of billed sessions; if I leave and clients follow me I would owe the company $5000/client. Is it even worth it to discuss this further with them? The $5000 really bothers me. I would never solicit a client, but if someone found me on Google? Also, weekly mandatory meetings and initial 4 day training are unpaid.

sorry this is disjointed. Posting from my phone.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDuck90]

.....you had me at "no pay for the first two months." This contract sounds incredibly predatory.

 

[biomom]

I agree. The only reason I considered it is because I live in a rural community with few opportunities. It is predatory. I agree.

 

[MAClinician]

Run.

 

[WisNeuro]

Big fat nope.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, this isn’t worth it. Run.

 

[biomom]

I talked with them further and I would also have to pay for all mandatory trainings and workshops as well as develop CEU’s to deliver with no compensation. Run is right.

 

[Danagirl]

Is there a reason why you can’t get on insurance as an individual instead?

 

[Danagirl]

Also with the whole “if clients follow you”, you should really have a legal professional comb through that because non-compete clauses can often be circumvented if you do no solicit but it depends on your local government.

If Pepsi can’t sue Coca Cola because customers choose to order Cola at a restaurant that only has Coca Cola, then agencies and bigger companies shouldn’t be able to sue the people who actually labour with the clients. But that my opinion.

 

[WisNeuro]

Also with the whole “if clients follow you”, you should really have a legal professional comb through that because non-compete clauses can often be circumvented if you do no solicit but it depends on your local government.

If Pepsi can’t sue Coca Cola because customers choose to order Cola at a restaurant that only has Coca Cola, then agencies and bigger companies shouldn’t be able to sue the people who actually labour with the clients. But that my opinion.

Most of these clauses are not enforceable, but you still have to legally fight it if the agency pursues it, which is expensive and time-consuming, which is the point of the clauses in the first place. Not fair, but just how things work.