5 ms·

> non-competes are fine if they are narrowly focused, fair, and your compensation is sufficient to make it worth the restrictions Yes! This is a particularly t

> non-competes are fine if they are narrowly focused, fair, and your compensation is sufficient to make it worth the restrictions Yes! This is a particularly true for most software engineers. I have a friend who is a doctor whose contract says that if quits, he can't practice medicine within a 30-mile radius for 12 months. His only option would be to move to a different area, take a job with a horrible commute for a year or to wait it out. On the other hand, as a software engineer, I've never been in a situation where my thought is to move to a direct competitor. My skillset is broadly applicable to many industries, and it wouldn't be strange to do one gig for Home Depot, the next one at Google, followed by a role at Tesla.

swader999 4y ago
A lot of doctor and vet contracts are like that because they are likely to get a large local client following just by joining a practise that the practise has spent years cultivating.
- riskable 4y ago
  There's an easy way to solve this problem without non-competes: Treat your employees better. Usually by paying them more. The entire concept of going to work for someone else is that it's supposed to save you a lot of trouble having to sell your services on your own/run your own business. If it has become so much more profitable for doctors to leave and start their own practice then they should be doing that because you're not paying them enough! You're not "making good" on your end of the bargain that we offer in civilized society.
  - NhanH 4y ago
    Sure, and if a doctor is good enough, he can just start his own practice from the start and never have to sign anything since he never join any practice except his own. That line of reasoning goes both way. If you sign something, then it was worth it for you.
    - xjlin0 4y ago
      >if a doctor is good enough, he can just start his own practice It depends. Many instruments, such as PET in nuclear medicine, cost a lot. One have to work for hospitals/networks to help his/her patients with that instruments, no matter how good he/her is.
  - hfifjdghu 4y ago
    This perspective completely evades the actual argument which was that practices behave this way because they're extending access to their client base which is a resource they cultivated themselves and which will almost certainly yield a following the the new applicant.
    - riskable 4y ago
      A client base is not an exclusive resource that only the employer gets to have. If the doctor started a coffee shop and those same clients started going there for their coffee would it be the same? Or perhaps the whole point of such clauses is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior. Also, if the doctor's patients all like him enough to switch to his private practice when he leaves then clearly they weren't paying the doctor enough. He was worth that many patients!
      - swader999 4y ago
        They could pay doc more if they didn't spend any money on marketing and retention but that would be a lose lose situation, especially as most docs bill money on a per visit basis.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Complete bullshit. The patients are not "theirs", they are not resources to be traded. The doctor is the one extending services to the practice. They're the ones who benefit from having high quality professionals attending to patients. The practice did not cultivate anything, the doctors practicing there did. Doctor-patient relationships are personal and it is 100% unethical to interfere in them with anticompetitive contracts.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > it's supposed to save you a lot of trouble having to sell your services on your own/run your own business Can't stress this enough. Show up, attend to patients as scheduled then go home and enjoy life. All the boring details are taken care of. It's definitely more profitable to start one's own practice but the comfort of working at such places should not be underestimated.
    - swader999 4y ago
      Not always, a vet practise can have 1-5 million in fixed capital costs. Surgery, dental, x ray, blood and so on all add up. Sharing admin and vet techs helps too.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  It's still an anticompetitive clause. The patients don't belong to the practice.
  - buildbot 4y ago
    When my dentist retired his practice they actually sold the client list specifically, so I am not sure this is legally true. Morally I agree.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      What exactly is this "client list" that they sold? Names and contact information?
      - swader999 4y ago
        Yeah, it's generally called good will. Client list, client interaction, services, and payments history, website, company name. The ability to figure out the best clients and continue the relationship with them.
francisofascii 4y ago
I know a PT who signed on of those. Then left, worked outside the agreed radius (but still in the same metro area) , and was still sued. He eventually settled.
- b3morales 4y ago
  I imagine the lawyers came up with some bull like "well actually we meant that the 30-mile radius of your new clinic can't overlap with the 30-mile radius of ours"?
microtherion 4y ago
Luckily Google does not, to my knowledge, try to have non-competes in their contracts, and they would not be enforceable in California, otherwise the problem with companies their size would be that they "compete" in an awfully large number of business areas. Going from Google to Tesla? Sorry, they're a competitor in driving cars. Spotify? They compete in streaming music. Microsoft? They compete in search. Apple? They compete in cellphones. Telegram Inc? Google does instant messaging. Garmin? Google does maps. NCR? Every heard of Google Wallet?

swader999 4y ago

A lot of doctor and vet contracts are like that because they are likely to get a large local client following just by joining a practise that the practise has spent years cultivating.

riskable 4y ago
There's an easy way to solve this problem without non-competes: Treat your employees better. Usually by paying them more. The entire concept of going to work for someone else is that it's supposed to save you a lot of trouble having to sell your services on your own/run your own business. If it has become so much more profitable for doctors to leave and start their own practice then they should be doing that because you're not paying them enough! You're not "making good" on your end of the bargain that we offer in civilized society.
- NhanH 4y ago
  Sure, and if a doctor is good enough, he can just start his own practice from the start and never have to sign anything since he never join any practice except his own. That line of reasoning goes both way. If you sign something, then it was worth it for you.
  - xjlin0 4y ago
    >if a doctor is good enough, he can just start his own practice It depends. Many instruments, such as PET in nuclear medicine, cost a lot. One have to work for hospitals/networks to help his/her patients with that instruments, no matter how good he/her is.
- hfifjdghu 4y ago
  This perspective completely evades the actual argument which was that practices behave this way because they're extending access to their client base which is a resource they cultivated themselves and which will almost certainly yield a following the the new applicant.
  - riskable 4y ago
    A client base is not an exclusive resource that only the employer gets to have. If the doctor started a coffee shop and those same clients started going there for their coffee would it be the same? Or perhaps the whole point of such clauses is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior. Also, if the doctor's patients all like him enough to switch to his private practice when he leaves then clearly they weren't paying the doctor enough. He was worth that many patients!
    - swader999 4y ago
      They could pay doc more if they didn't spend any money on marketing and retention but that would be a lose lose situation, especially as most docs bill money on a per visit basis.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Complete bullshit. The patients are not "theirs", they are not resources to be traded. The doctor is the one extending services to the practice. They're the ones who benefit from having high quality professionals attending to patients. The practice did not cultivate anything, the doctors practicing there did. Doctor-patient relationships are personal and it is 100% unethical to interfere in them with anticompetitive contracts.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > it's supposed to save you a lot of trouble having to sell your services on your own/run your own business Can't stress this enough. Show up, attend to patients as scheduled then go home and enjoy life. All the boring details are taken care of. It's definitely more profitable to start one's own practice but the comfort of working at such places should not be underestimated.
  - swader999 4y ago
    Not always, a vet practise can have 1-5 million in fixed capital costs. Surgery, dental, x ray, blood and so on all add up. Sharing admin and vet techs helps too.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
It's still an anticompetitive clause. The patients don't belong to the practice.
- buildbot 4y ago
  When my dentist retired his practice they actually sold the client list specifically, so I am not sure this is legally true. Morally I agree.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    What exactly is this "client list" that they sold? Names and contact information?
    - swader999 4y ago
      Yeah, it's generally called good will. Client list, client interaction, services, and payments history, website, company name. The ability to figure out the best clients and continue the relationship with them.

francisofascii 4y ago

I know a PT who signed on of those. Then left, worked outside the agreed radius (but still in the same metro area) , and was still sued. He eventually settled.

b3morales 4y ago
I imagine the lawyers came up with some bull like "well actually we meant that the 30-mile radius of your new clinic can't overlap with the 30-mile radius of ours"?

microtherion 4y ago

Luckily Google does not, to my knowledge, try to have non-competes in their contracts, and they would not be enforceable in California, otherwise the problem with companies their size would be that they "compete" in an awfully large number of business areas. Going from Google to Tesla? Sorry, they're a competitor in driving cars. Spotify? They compete in streaming music. Microsoft? They compete in search. Apple? They compete in cellphones. Telegram Inc? Google does instant messaging. Garmin? Google does maps. NCR? Every heard of Google Wallet?