- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 169
Has anybody successfully removed a non-compete/restrictive covenant from their contract? If so, how? This is the only thing I want out of my contract but everywhere has it and refuse to take it out
But other states do enforce them and they do mean something and can't be glossed over.
I'm hopeful about the FTC, but not gonna be surprised if unchanged or [jazz hands] physicians are exempted.
kaiser is a non-profit, but TPMG which employs physicians etc is for profit.I thought kaiser is still considered a non-profit?
Kaiser doesn't have a non-compete (at least not in california where they are illegal). They do however stop you doing any other work on the side without taking their cut if you work for them. Non-competes only pertain to what happens after you leave a job. That employer can stop you doing outside work if they want. My old employer didn't have a non-compete but if you were faculty you couldn't do outside work, it was regarded as a "conflict of commitment" to the university. Of course it was BS but nothing to do with "non-competes" as the law defines itSo Kaiser's non-competes will be nullified?
I think this is complicated. For a big box shop psych clinic, non-solicitation is not an issue because they can't deal with all those psych patients. My old employer introduced a non-solicitation clause my last yr which was ridiculous because they didn't have the bandwith to deal with it. Many psychiatrists left and took their patients with them. I was very careful not to solicit my patients but they are of course free to follow you and I told the ones who wanted to continue seeing me they could look me up if they wanted to (and they did). But if I was a small practice owner and I invested in someone and they just took all those patients with them and set up shop down the road, I might not be happy about it. But again, what do you do with those patients anyway, and patients still have the choice to continue seeing their doctor if they want and the doc is available.But is non-solicitation really reasonable?
kaiser is a non-profit, but TPMG which employs physicians etc is for profit.
Kaiser doesn't have a non-compete (at least not in california where they are illegal). They do however stop you doing any other work on the side without taking their cut if you work for them. Non-competes only pertain to what happens after you leave a job. That employer can stop you doing outside work if they want. My old employer didn't have a non-compete but if you were faculty you couldn't do outside work, it was regarded as a "conflict of commitment" to the university. Of course it was BS but nothing to do with "non-competes" as the law defines it
I think this is complicated. For a big box shop psych clinic, non-solicitation is not an issue because they can't deal with all those psych patients. My old employer introduced a non-solicitation clause my last yr which was ridiculous because they didn't have the bandwith to deal with it. Many psychiatrists left and took their patients with them. I was very careful not to solicit my patients but they are of course free to follow you and I told the ones who wanted to continue seeing me they could look me up if they wanted to (and they did). But if I was a small practice owner and I invested in someone and they just took all those patients with them and set up shop down the road, I might not be happy about it. But again, what do you do with those patients anyway, and patients still have the choice to continue seeing their doctor if they want and the doc is available.
It depends of how it is worded; but who is to say that the employee did not approach you about the employment opportunity first?But is non-solicitation really reasonable?
My amazing employee left from the Big Box shop I had been at years ago, because it was equally a horrible place to work for all people, regardless of job. She knew first hand I was 'one of the good docs' and was thrilled to have an opportunity to leave.
If a place is good place to work, employees won't want to leave. Its fundamentally easier to stay, and be with the 'devil you know' then risk something new. People are more inclined to default to their current employer, and similar to principles in chemistry there is an 'activation energy' to overcome to induce a change.
For instance I've openly talked with my assistant like heh, it's business. If you were to ever find something more beneficial for you, I won't be hurt, and will offer good letters, etc and not a barrier to your pursuit of a more positive employment. She's still here.
I would be careful about that approach.. I recently went through this. I would let patients know I am leaving.. and if they asked me where I am going, then I would tell them.Just give them your new business cards. It's still up to them if they want to jump ship. The whole non compete is nonsense and hopefully nationally rescinded. Patients should have the ability to follow their doctors and be given the information to do so. It shouldn't be hidden nonsense.
Non competes are very much state by state... some are flat out illegal (California); some list certain exceptions (physicians, etc.); and in some states they are straight up legal. https://beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20220721.pdfHas anybody successfully removed a non-compete/restrictive covenant from their contract? If so, how? This is the only thing I want out of my contract but everywhere has it and refuse to take it out
Which goes to show that it's just lawyers creating business for each otherNon competes are very much state by state... some are flat out illegal (California); some list certain exceptions (physicians, etc.); and in some states they are straight up legal. https://beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20220721.pdf
I did get one removed from a large for-profit hospital system contract. I had to hire a lawyer to get them to even to respond to the request. It took a couple months but finally they removed it because they needed someone. I was just about to sign... and then.... Covid.
They yanked the offer. Thank god because something way better opened up. But they can be enforceable in some states, so consult a lawyer if you need to.
Or just be willing to walk.
I actually think non-solicitations are fair and reasonable for MDs in some cases. If someone is shunting a bunch of patients to you at their expense for a year and then you leave and start your own practice or join a different one, that does materially hurt them and gives you a potentially unfair onramp to building a practice. I don't blame docs for signing those.I'm basically between two places. One which has a non-solicitation, and one which has a non-compete without a non-solicitation. I guess I'll make it clear I'm not willing to compromise on the non-compete. To me, I thought the non-solicitation was reasonable although I did ask for it to be removed too
Thanks guys
Funny hill to die on given the tea leaves are strongly betting on these being removed by the government.I'm walking away from a place in a very desirable area that was unwilling to negotiate on it. Thank you guys for the feedback and input on them
Funny hill to die on given the tea leaves are strongly betting on these being removed by the government.
Even obviously "unenforceable" non competes can require cost and money in a legal battle regardless, and an institution has deeper pockets than an individual.Funny hill to die on given the tea leaves are strongly betting on these being removed by the government.
Oh I completely agree, not sure if my last post was worded wrong, I just think it's odd employers are so into them. I have zero non-compete at my current job.Concur, very good hill to die on. Honestly, I would be very skeptical of any company that had them by default, full stop. You don't know what other trickery they are doing and they clearly aren't recognizing from the outset that this is completely an employee's market. However, I wouldn't necessarily say don't work for them if they were willing to remove it.
Ah you meant the company dying on the hill. Agreed! I read your post as implying it was the OP on the hill, probably bc so many people asked me why I felt the need to be so stubborn during my own negotiations....I now have a hair trigger to anyone mentioning hills.Oh I completely agree, not sure if my last post was worded wrong, I just think it's odd employers are so into them. I have zero non-compete at my current job.
I do see PE firms like to have them be as heavy as possible to try and limit docs leaving which hurts their multiplier. I am sure they will be using approximately 2875643973 dollars to lobby against these changes in congress and buy out our FTC.