Add to the fact that insurance companies are in on it too. Docs are pawns now, and the hospitals trap them knowing theyre graduating with tons of debt and need to pay that off, and private practices are struggling with reimbursements so many aren't looking for new docs. So now docs only option is to sign that non-compete for 3 years, and now the hospital has worker bees that they can use to charge $80 for Tylenol and jack up prices as well as colluding with insurance to milk patients dry. This practice is fundamentally anti-capitalist.Ags4DaWin said:Help_needed said:
Doctor didn't have to choose to work at that practice. Everything is choices and consequences.
Your example reminds me of the poster who got a worthless degree, worked in a field that didn't provide health insurance and then cried that he should be able to continue to work where he wants and how dare us tell him to find another field.
Except that the industry has pretty much conspired to make them standard and you cannot find an employment contract without one.
It's just another example of how grossly hospitals have corporatized Healthcare.
Biden FTC looks to end non-competition agreements
5,644 Views |
95 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Panama Red
Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
In some jurisdictions (like Oklahoma), that's true. But, it's not in Texas. Non-compete means just what it says: not competing with your prior employer. Now, it is supposed to only apply where the employer has either paid your for the non-compete, or provided you with specialized training, or access to confidential information, but once you check one of those boxes, then yes, it will bar you from working for a competitor, or setting up your own competing business within the time and place restrictions.agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
This is incorrect. They geographically restrict you and claim that by going to competitors or starting your own practice (as a doc for example) you are going to potentially take their "clients", in this case, patients, with you. If you as a worker have a certain reputation if you switch companies your clients will follow, then by all means that should be allowed and gives employees more leverage for negotiations and the ability to leave undervalued work environments.agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
A non-compete is a collectivism ideology used by business executives under the guise of capitalism, when it inherently is anti-capitalistic.
And yet engineers I know, who signed "non-competes", switch companies all the time in Texas.twk said:In some jurisdictions (like Oklahoma), that's true. But, it's not in Texas. Non-compete means just what it says: not competing with your prior employer. Now, it is supposed to only apply where the employer has either paid your for the non-compete, or provided you with specialized training, or access to confidential information, but once you check one of those boxes, then yes, it will bar you from working for a competitor, or setting up your own competing business within the time and place restrictions.agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
I know exactly what the employment agreement said. It said I cannot work for a competitor of my employer for up to one year after my employment with the employer ends. It did not clarify if that meant 1 year after layoff/termination or if it meant only competitors in my product line or any competitor of the giant company that just bought my previous employer. All HR said was "we don't know either but you have to sign it, and don't be so upset because you can still go work for one of customers so you still have options."agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
As I understood it I cannot contact a client, but if they call me then it's OK.whytho987654 said:This is incorrect. They geographically restrict you and claim that by going to competitors or starting your own practice (as a doc for example) you are going to potentially take their "clients", in this case, patients, with you. If you as a worker have a certain reputation if you switch companies your clients will follow, then by all means that should be allowed and gives employees more leverage for negotiations and the ability to leave undervalued work environments.agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
A non-compete is a collectivism ideology used by business executives under the guise of capitalism, when it inherently is anti-capitalistic.
But this seems like it would be unenforceable as it restricts your ability to make a wage.
agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
My non-compete (medical field) says that I cannot practice within a certain mileage radius of where I currently practice.
You know nothing about Healthcare non-competes.
And yes, that is standard in the industry.
If I want to practice for a different employer I have to work outside that radius.
Furthermore, if i change employers twice when the time periods overlap it pretty much means I have to move to a new city because of the radius of the noncompete. And no, no matter how good u are the employers do not negotiate it.
I would have left and see what happens. Unless your an executive, or steal clients (or processes or technology) I doubt they'd care if you left say Boeing and went to Lockheed.cajunaggie08 said:I know exactly what the employment agreement said. It said I cannot work for a competitor of my employer for up to one year after my employment with the employer ends. It did not clarify if that meant 1 year after layoff/termination or if it meant only competitors in my product line or any competitor of the giant company that just bought my previous employer. All HR said was "we don't know either but you have to sign it, and don't be so upset because you can still go work for one of customers so you still have options."agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
You're right, I do not. They are obviously very different from the ones I've seen.Ags4DaWin said:agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
My non-compete (medical field) says that I cannot practice within a certain mileage radius of where I currently practice.
You know nothing about Healthcare non-competes.
And yes, that is standard in the industry.
If I want to practice for a different employer I have to work outside that radius.
Furthermore, if i change employers twice when the time periods overlap it pretty much means I have to move to a new city because of the radius of the noncompete. And no, no matter how good u are the employers do not negotiate it.
It still seems like it's unenforceable. How can they restrict your ability to make a living? And would a practice really come after you went to another practice 20-miles away?
I would have if it wasnt for the fact I was being honest and told the potential new competitor employer about the non-compete which scared them off and caused them to rescind the offer.agracer said:I would have left and see what happens. Unless your an executive, or steal clients (or processes or technology) I doubt they'd care if you left say Boeing and went to Lockheed.cajunaggie08 said:I know exactly what the employment agreement said. It said I cannot work for a competitor of my employer for up to one year after my employment with the employer ends. It did not clarify if that meant 1 year after layoff/termination or if it meant only competitors in my product line or any competitor of the giant company that just bought my previous employer. All HR said was "we don't know either but you have to sign it, and don't be so upset because you can still go work for one of customers so you still have options."agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
Interesting topic.
I had a long discussion about this very subject with a couple of industry muckity-mucks a few years back (industry I've left but was in at the time).
They essentially told me that non-competes really aren't worth the paper they're written on. If pressed, taken to a court of law, and you can PROVE that there's no other way for you to make a living and provide for your family other than staying in that industry, the court will side with you.
Didn't ask them how they came up with that line of thought, but makes sense.
I had a long discussion about this very subject with a couple of industry muckity-mucks a few years back (industry I've left but was in at the time).
They essentially told me that non-competes really aren't worth the paper they're written on. If pressed, taken to a court of law, and you can PROVE that there's no other way for you to make a living and provide for your family other than staying in that industry, the court will side with you.
Didn't ask them how they came up with that line of thought, but makes sense.
That's about like the abortion issue being it's your choice to have the child or not. It's your choice to have sex, which has been proven over the last few million years to lead to being pregnant. You don't have to go into that industry. Many industries cannot reasonably function without non-competes. Otherwise, corporate raiding goes completely haywire.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
The thing is these hospitals and private equities will tie you up in court, they have tons of money to throw around and they don't wanna lose theiragracer said:As I understood it I cannot contact a client, but if they call me then it's OK.whytho987654 said:This is incorrect. They geographically restrict you and claim that by going to competitors or starting your own practice (as a doc for example) you are going to potentially take their "clients", in this case, patients, with you. If you as a worker have a certain reputation if you switch companies your clients will follow, then by all means that should be allowed and gives employees more leverage for negotiations and the ability to leave undervalued work environments.agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
A non-compete is a collectivism ideology used by business executives under the guise of capitalism, when it inherently is anti-capitalistic.
But this seems like it would be unenforceable as it restricts your ability to make a wage.
So a buyer is going to acquire a business for $500MM lets say with the hope that they can negotiate a fair retention plan with all of its key employees?Ags4DaWin said:Goose06 said:If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).whytho987654 said:If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.Goose06 said:
This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.
Why should a company be able to restrict an employee's services outside of poaching clients? You claim that the contract is voluntary but when an industry conspires to force all employees to do so it's basically the same enforced duress that a company puts on consumers when they have a monopoly.
The best thing to do would be for the seller and buyer to work out an employee retention bonus after the sale
Identify critical employees and offer them retention bonuses to stay on for X amount of time after the sale. Split the cost between buyer and seller.
Other than poaching clients and selling business secrets, non-compete clauses are not necessary to protect a company, hurt an employee's ability to negotiate for raises, promotions, etc, and should be illegal.
Alternatively, if they try to negotiate a retention plan right before closing a sale an employee has insane leverage.
My non-compete doesn't prevent me from getting another job in my industry. It does prevent me from getting a job that will directly compete with my current company in the geographic market that they currently compete.
Even with a non-compete agreement, it doesn't mean that the agreement would ever be held up in court.JW said:
some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.
If they didn't give you equity as consideration for the non-compete, they had to give you some other meaningful consideration for it to be enforceable in Texas.whytho987654 said:On the flip side if you have no equity in a company as an employee, a non compete is nothing short of a restrictionGoose06 said:If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).whytho987654 said:If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.Goose06 said:
This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.
And this is a big reason why more and more smart med students are choosing radiologyAgs4DaWin said:agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
My non-compete (medical field) says that I cannot practice within a certain mileage radius of where I currently practice.
You know nothing about Healthcare non-competes.
And yes, that is standard in the industry.
If I want to practice for a different employer I have to work outside that radius.
Furthermore, if i change employers twice when the time periods overlap it pretty much means I have to move to a new city because of the radius of the noncompete. And no, no matter how good u are the employers do not negotiate it.
I am a bit surprised to see so many "freedom loving conservatives" on here in favor of big business being able to restrict/limit an individual from being able to work in their chosen field.
agracer said:You're right, I do not. They are obviously very different from the ones I've seen.Ags4DaWin said:agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
My non-compete (medical field) says that I cannot practice within a certain mileage radius of where I currently practice.
You know nothing about Healthcare non-competes.
And yes, that is standard in the industry.
If I want to practice for a different employer I have to work outside that radius.
Furthermore, if i change employers twice when the time periods overlap it pretty much means I have to move to a new city because of the radius of the noncompete. And no, no matter how good u are the employers do not negotiate it.
It still seems like it's unenforceable. How can they restrict your ability to make a living? And would a practice really come after you went to another practice 20-miles away?
Ummm they can and they do sue doctors and the standard language is "because placing a monetary value on how you violating this noncompete will harm the company and damages will be impossible to assess we will take our case before an arbitrator and take you for everything ur worth".
^^paraphrasing^^
A doctor does not have the means to fight a wall street private equity or a major healthcare corporation in court, they will bleed you dry and draw it outeric76 said:Even with a non-compete agreement, it doesn't mean that the agreement would ever be held up in court.JW said:
some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.
To go off of this, the leeches (MBAs running the show at this place) also claim that they helped give you your medical knowledge and that they have a right to it, which is an absolute joke.Ags4DaWin said:agracer said:You're right, I do not. They are obviously very different from the ones I've seen.Ags4DaWin said:agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
My non-compete (medical field) says that I cannot practice within a certain mileage radius of where I currently practice.
You know nothing about Healthcare non-competes.
And yes, that is standard in the industry.
If I want to practice for a different employer I have to work outside that radius.
Furthermore, if i change employers twice when the time periods overlap it pretty much means I have to move to a new city because of the radius of the noncompete. And no, no matter how good u are the employers do not negotiate it.
It still seems like it's unenforceable. How can they restrict your ability to make a living? And would a practice really come after you went to another practice 20-miles away?
Ummm they can and they do sue doctors and the standard language is "because placing a monetary value on how you violating this noncompete will harm the company and damages will be impossible to assess we will take our case before an arbitrator and take you for everything ur worth".
^^paraphrasing^^
There are limitations. Some companies have tried to enforce non-compete agreements that would effectively keep the person from ever working again in that industry or in that job.MouthBQ98 said:
Aren't those effectively voluntary contracts between workers and employers? Why should they not hold up in civil court?
Suppose that you were worked in HR. Would you think that a non-compete agreement limiting you from ever working in HR for anyone else would ever be enforced?
Goose06 said:So a buyer is going to acquire a business for $500MM lets say with the hope that they can negotiate a fair retention plan with all of its key employees?Ags4DaWin said:Goose06 said:If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).whytho987654 said:If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.Goose06 said:
This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.
Why should a company be able to restrict an employee's services outside of poaching clients? You claim that the contract is voluntary but when an industry conspires to force all employees to do so it's basically the same enforced duress that a company puts on consumers when they have a monopoly.
The best thing to do would be for the seller and buyer to work out an employee retention bonus after the sale
Identify critical employees and offer them retention bonuses to stay on for X amount of time after the sale. Split the cost between buyer and seller.
Other than poaching clients and selling business secrets, non-compete clauses are not necessary to protect a company, hurt an employee's ability to negotiate for raises, promotions, etc, and should be illegal.
Alternatively, if they try to negotiate a retention plan right before closing a sale an employee has insane leverage.
My non-compete doesn't prevent me from getting another job in my industry. It does prevent me from getting a job that will directly compete with my current company in the geographic market that they currently compete.
Sorry but when u buy a company u are not buying employees.
Buying of people has been illegal in our country try for over 150 years.
People should have a right to leave a job and work for another company as long as they do not directly solicit previous clients or use proprietary information and sell it to the competition.
If companies don't like it they should work harder to retain good employees.
Employers treat employees like disposable objects (fair enough) then they don't have the right to restrict an employee's ability to treat their employer as disposable either.
If it's good for the goose....
It seems unenforceable on the surface, but then you realize that big healthcare, insurance, and the gov have colluded together in an effort to consolidate the system and make these giant centers and insurance companies richer. Need proof? Go read the Stark lawagracer said:You're right, I do not. They are obviously very different from the ones I've seen.Ags4DaWin said:agracer said:Non competes cannot prevent you from going to a competitor. They can only prevent you from stealing clients or other technology from your current employer.cajunaggie08 said:I was forced to sign one. My employer was bought by a larger company that gave us 5-days to sign it or be forcibly terminated. Seeing how I had a 1-year old and a wife that just became a stay-at-home parent, i didn't really feel I had the choice to say no and go hit the open job market during a period where layoffs were happening all over my industry. I later lost out on job opportunities from other companies in my industry as my employer is essentially a competitor to everyone in the industry and they didn't want to deal with the risk of a lawsuit.Help_needed said:
Nobody is forcing the employee to sign a non compete clause. It's their choice. Why would that be outlawed? Do people not believe in choice?
No offense, but you either didn't understand the non-compete, or what your company forced you to sign was actually illegal if it prevented you from switching jobs.
EDIT: This is how it was explained to me but it was a long time ago for the average worker bee. Executives however could be stopped from switching to a competitor b/c of their knowledge level.
Maybe it's changed a lot.
My wife signed one and she is in sales and sells XYZ brand Equipment. She kept thinking she could not go to a competitor until I read it and explained the non-compete only says she cannot sell XYX brand equipment for 18-months after, but she can however sell QRS equipment.
My non-compete (medical field) says that I cannot practice within a certain mileage radius of where I currently practice.
You know nothing about Healthcare non-competes.
And yes, that is standard in the industry.
If I want to practice for a different employer I have to work outside that radius.
Furthermore, if i change employers twice when the time periods overlap it pretty much means I have to move to a new city because of the radius of the noncompete. And no, no matter how good u are the employers do not negotiate it.
It still seems like it's unenforceable. How can they restrict your ability to make a living? And would a practice really come after you went to another practice 20-miles away?
The company isn't buying the people. Have you ever read an enforeceable non compete agreement? I can leave my job and work in my field any damn minute I want. The restrictions are exactly what you are talking about. I can't go steal clients or otherwise directly compete with my current employer for a year in a very specific geography.Ags4DaWin said:Goose06 said:So a buyer is going to acquire a business for $500MM lets say with the hope that they can negotiate a fair retention plan with all of its key employees?Ags4DaWin said:Goose06 said:If you feel that way, then I guess watch your equity be worth less as the employee. I am not saying all cases for non competes favor employees, but I am currently under a non compete and I view it as valuable to my equity (because other key employees at my company who have equity are also under the same non compete).whytho987654 said:If a company gets bought and employees want out they should be able to do so with no repercussions.Goose06 said:
This would harm many workers who have non competes. For example, if I sign a non compete because I am a critical employee of a private company and lets say I have meaningful equity upside in that company. When its time to sell the company, the buyer of the company would no longer have any guarantee that the critical employees will stay with the new owner for a transition period. Therefore, they may pay less to purchase the company and the employees who have equity upside get a smaller pay day because of this uncertainty. Non competes can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer in these types of cases.
Why should a company be able to restrict an employee's services outside of poaching clients? You claim that the contract is voluntary but when an industry conspires to force all employees to do so it's basically the same enforced duress that a company puts on consumers when they have a monopoly.
The best thing to do would be for the seller and buyer to work out an employee retention bonus after the sale
Identify critical employees and offer them retention bonuses to stay on for X amount of time after the sale. Split the cost between buyer and seller.
Other than poaching clients and selling business secrets, non-compete clauses are not necessary to protect a company, hurt an employee's ability to negotiate for raises, promotions, etc, and should be illegal.
Alternatively, if they try to negotiate a retention plan right before closing a sale an employee has insane leverage.
My non-compete doesn't prevent me from getting another job in my industry. It does prevent me from getting a job that will directly compete with my current company in the geographic market that they currently compete.
Sorry but when u buy a company u are not buying employees.
Buying of people has been illegal in our country try for over 150 years.
People should have a right to leave a job and work for another company as long as they do not directly solicit previous clients or use proprietary information and sell it to the competition.
If companies don't like it they should work harder to retain good employees.
Employers treat employees like disposable objects (fair enough) then they don't have the right to restrict an employee's ability to treat their employer as disposable either.
If it's good for the goose....
I've been told that a non-compete agreement, like any contract, requires consideration for both sides. If you sign it to get the job, then you received consideration. If it is imposed after you got the job, then what consideration did you get for signing it?Agfencer98 said:
I don't mind non-competes normally, but I do when it was not mentioned during any pre-employment conversations.
My current position has a non-compete that I was informed of, and made to sign, several months after I started. That type of act is predatory and if there isn't already outlawed, should be. It also should have been a red flag for me, but I ignored it.
Lesson kiddos, always pay attention to the red flags.
AF98
I used to work at one company which had a VP who had graduated from law school but had never been able to pass the bar. He kept threatening to require me to sign one and I told him he was crazy.
As long as its a deal where the employee goes in eyes wide open and signs on the dotted line and gets paid for doing so, why not? Are you suggesting I shouldn't have been able to get paid extra money for agreeing to sign a non compete?Artorias said:
I am a bit surprised to see so many "freedom loving conservatives" on here in favor of big business being able to restrict/limit an individual from being able to work in their chosen field.
Those of you comparing a non compete to slavery are gaslighting (either because you are ignorant or just because you want to gaslight). You get paid for signing the non compete or its not enforceable (again, I am talking in Texas, I am not familiar with the laws in other states). Slaves don't get paid. Non competes do not prevent you from changing jobs, just put some restrictions on what you can do for some period of time if you elect to do so. That is the cost of accepting the job that pays you more because it has a non compete...
Likewise, are you saying we should allow monopolies, who do not pay any extra for a non-compete, such as giant healthcare corporations to restrict physician practice?Goose06 said:As long as its a deal where the employee goes in eyes wide open and signs on the dotted line and gets paid for doing so, why not? Are you suggesting I shouldn't have been able to get paid extra money for agreeing to sign a non compete?Artorias said:
I am a bit surprised to see so many "freedom loving conservatives" on here in favor of big business being able to restrict/limit an individual from being able to work in their chosen field.
Of course I am not saying that. A non-compete should be accompanied with adequate consideration and it should not come with a threat of being fired if you refuse.
That's an excellent point.whytho987654 said:A doctor does not have the means to fight a wall street private equity or a major healthcare corporation in court, they will bleed you dry and draw it outeric76 said:Even with a non-compete agreement, it doesn't mean that the agreement would ever be held up in court.JW said:
some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.
Like one very expensive lawyer told me about one issue years ago (not a non-compete) -- that if I ever went to court, I would almost surely win, but it would be very expensive. My thought was that it would equally expensive for the other side. In the end, I paid the lawyer for the work he did and never did give in and the other side never went after me for it.
Well here's the thing, let's say you are looking to set up shop as a new doc. You just graduated and have 250k debt. Gov has slashed reimbursements so joining a private practice out of the gate is difficult, and you don't have the capital to start your own and you have debt to pay down. So the only jobs are at big healthcare corporations and private equity firms, and there are not many of them and they control almost all medical resources in your city/town. Further, many of them in a way work together to set very similar non-competes and won't budge. So the doc has no choice but to sign on the dotted line, and this is why healthcare is the way it is right now.Goose06 said:
Of course I am not saying that. A non-compete should be accompanied with adequate consideration and it should not come with a threat of being fired if you refuse.
The thing is they will and do go after docs. An internal medicine doc will get paid roughly 250k from a hospital, but the hospital will bring in over 3 million in revenue from that one doc, They're not gonna let their revenue generator leave because how else are they going to charge a patient a grand for breathing hospital oxygen? Non competes are a tool used by monopolies to underpay and trap employeeseric76 said:That's an excellent point.whytho987654 said:A doctor does not have the means to fight a wall street private equity or a major healthcare corporation in court, they will bleed you dry and draw it outeric76 said:Even with a non-compete agreement, it doesn't mean that the agreement would ever be held up in court.JW said:
some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.
Like one very expensive lawyer told me about one issue years ago (not a non-compete) -- that if I ever went to court, I would almost surely win, but it would be very expensive. My thought was that it would equally expensive for the other side. In the end, I paid the lawyer for the work he did and never did give in and the other side never went after me for it.
That may explain why medical specialists I have known who switched jobs took jobs in other cities.whytho987654 said:The thing is they will and do go after docs. An internal medicine doc will get paid roughly 250k from a hospital, but the hospital will bring in over 3 million in revenue from that one doc, They're not gonna let their revenue generator leave because how else are they going to charge a patient a grand for breathing hospital oxygen? Non competes are a tool used by monopolies to underpay and trap employeeseric76 said:That's an excellent point.whytho987654 said:A doctor does not have the means to fight a wall street private equity or a major healthcare corporation in court, they will bleed you dry and draw it outeric76 said:Even with a non-compete agreement, it doesn't mean that the agreement would ever be held up in court.JW said:
some industries do force if you want to work in that industry.
Like one very expensive lawyer told me about one issue years ago (not a non-compete) -- that if I ever went to court, I would almost surely win, but it would be very expensive. My thought was that it would equally expensive for the other side. In the end, I paid the lawyer for the work he did and never did give in and the other side never went after me for it.
Does it work for general practitioners, too? I guess if the general practitioner has his own practice, he is free to do what he wants.
Featured Stories
See All
19:50
21h ago
4.8k
Donors can now earn priority points by giving to Texas Aggies United
by Texas Aggies United
5 Thoughts: No. 23 Texas A&M 78, No. 21 Ohio State 64
by Luke Evangelist
A&M's approach remains the same with NMSU coming to Aggieland
by Olin Buchanan
116:42
1h ago
574
27:22
11h ago
3.8k