- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 4,551
- Attending Physician
Who has one?
I have a contract with a proposed 30 mile diameter non-compete clause. I have concerns as to how non-compete clauses could make me pack up and move my family if things go poorly at some point down the road.
What are your thoughts?
My contract has a non-compete clause. However, there's legal precedent that it's essentially non-enforcable, and I'm told that (before I came) someone bought out of this clause for $1. Yeah, it is sort of an F you to the docs, but I don't loose sleep over it.
I've never heard of a physician contract not having a non-compete in some form. The one in my contract is so restrictive that the attorney I had look at it, said it was so flagrantly un-enforceable that it was better to leave as is and ignore, as opposed to negotiating it to a weaker, and potentially more enforceable one.Who has one?
I have a contract with a proposed 30 mile diameter non-compete clause. I have concerns as to how non-compete clauses could make me pack up and move my family if things go poorly at some point down the road.
What are your thoughts?
Can other folks comment as to whether this actually helps secure a contract? Seems clever, but I'm curious if it's really effective.My SDG has a limited non compete that simply states if our hospital terminates our contract I cannot work at this particular hospital for a period of 12 months. I am allowed to work anywhere else. I'm fine with this as it (at least theoretically) disincentives the hospital replacing us b/c the new group would need to bring in 100% new docs.
Not very effective. Once a group is booted out, all of a sudden you've got 5, 10, 20 or however many ER doctors with no jobs. They may have all signed a piece of paper stating they promise not to go with a new contract group, but what's to stop them?Can other folks comment as to whether this actually helps secure a contract? Seems clever, but I'm curious if it's really effective.
If it's not enforceable, they should be willing to wave it. If they're not willing to wave it, it's because their lawyers think they have a shot at it holding up. If their lawyers think they have a shot at it being upheld, they may be willing to litigate it. If the complaint isn't summarily dismissed, this may result in an injunction against working until the matter is settled. So I wouldn't just ignore the clause.
Agree with Arcan. It's either in there because they gain something from having it (ie they think they have a shot at enforcing it or they think it'll keep you from leaving) and/or WE haven't created enough market pressure to have them removed.
If we all insisted tomorrow to have these clauses removed, it would be done. Unfortunately, we don't talk about this type of stuff nearly enough and we all suffer collectively.
There are some things that are harder to fight (SDG vs CMG, open vs closed books, due process), but this isn't really one of them. We should all at least ask to have these removed.
Ideally, we could all get together and start to create some market pressure to fix some of the other problems as well. I think non-compete and asking for due process are the 2 lowest lying fruit that we could fix if we all gave the same message (ie - you won't get a BC doc without taking these 2 out of contracts).
Due process clauses are not low hanging fruit. Non-enforceable noncompetes should be a relatively easy fix in that nobody really has a strong incentive to keep them. C-suite expects to be able to get rid of problem physicians with a minimum of fuss and CMGs aren't terribly interested in losing a contract because one doc is pissing off admin. So they have a lot more skin in the game.
Smaller community setting with a 14 bed ER. 25000 volume.Just out of curiosity, in how large of a BC/BE EM area are you located? I know some recent grads who took positions 45-60 miles away for 3x12 hr positions, so they could probably take jobs closer to the city without violating that type of noncompete if needed.