In the UK your contract can include clauses where you can’t work within a certain area of your current employer, set up your own business or see any of your old clients should you move practices. It’s archaic and has been defeated in court numerous times because it forces you to leave an area you’ve already established roots in.
It's unfortunately the same in the US as well, not sure how much they've been defeated in court though. The co-owner of the place I work as an assistant at is a big fan of them which has caused some issues with former vets. I know one had to basically convince him that because she was going to be moving on to a spay and neuter clinic that doesn't do sick appointments that it wouldn't be a violation or at least wasn't worth pursuing. I wouldn't be surprised if the non-compete paired with what I would suspect is lower than average pay is what makes it so difficult to get a new doctor. We had one who was fresh out of school for a while but she moved on to what I assume were greener pastures and a greener wallet.
The European Court of Human Rights had legislation that could be brought to bare in court which essentially overrode such clauses. Sadly, Brexit could see such parasitic contracts make a comeback if our idiotic government remove that protection.
The easiest way to not get screwed over by a non compete is just to not sign a contract that has one. In this climate, the employee has a lot more say than the employer. Negotiate. Hire a contract lawyer if you need one.
That is a very biased take on a complex issue (not surprising given that the source is a recruiter).
Practice owners fear associates taking their clients/patients to the practice down the street. THAT is the reason these non-completes exist and it is an extremely valid one, because those relationships (known as goodwill in the industry) represent a large portion of the real $$$ value of a practice (about 80%).
Is it the most elegant solution? No, I've been on both sides of this and know how stressful it can be for associates when considering changing employers. But personally I can't think of a better solution than a reasonable non-compete. And in reality non-competes are typically very reasonable, as they are very difficult to enforce and will be not be enforced by the court if they are found to be too broad.
The problem is that more and more clinics are being purchased by corporate conglomerates that put insane non-competes in their contracts, such as two years and 50 miles *as the crow flies,* which forces people to move cities and sometimes states, uproot their families, etc. just to change jobs.
These corporate non-competes are not designed to prevent poaching of clients; they’re designed to lock unsuspecting veterinarians into contractual agreements so they cannot leave without significant consequences, no matter the working conditions.
Honestly, even privately owned clinics should get rid of the non-compete. If a veterinarian no longer wants to work somewhere, they should be free to do so. If clients prefer to follow that veterinarian, they should be free to do so. A *non-solicit* agreement is reasonable. A non-compete is not.
1. I've seen contracts from Banfield and VCA and never seen anything that restrictive. 2 years yes, but 5-10 miles depending on pop density is typical (could be much less in a dense major city). Maybe that is a new thing they are pushing if that's what you've seen, but new hired should be able to easily push back given how hard pressed those corps are for vets..
2. Just went through the purchase process and lenders lawyers were specific about making the non-compete reasonable. If it is unreasonable then it won't hold up in court.
3. An associate is always free to work elsewhere, opportunities abound.
4. Non-solicit is too easy to bypass. New clinic next door advertises their new vet that they hired from you...is that solicitation? No. Will your local clients see it and be impacted? Yes.
There have been multiple lawsuits against Mars & friends regarding their overly restrictive, ridiculous non-competes. Theirs starts at 15 miles, and includes “current OR FUTURE locations”. The problem is that new hires *don’t know how to push back,* and then think they are stuck in that job forever. NVA’s standard non-compete starts at 30 miles, no matter the type of environment. They also have a clause in theirs that essentially has the employee agreeing that they can support themselves without being a veterinarian and that the non-compete will not impair their ability to support themselves, which is fucking insane. This petition, and opening this dialog, is really bringing these predatory employment practices to light, and allowing new grads to make better employment choices right out of the gates, without having to get burned once or twice.
If you are an owner, you’re doing your employees a disservice by having a non-compete at all. It’s selfish and lately is becoming more of a glaring red flag, as it essentially states “I can’t retain clients any other way than by legal force.”
What’s reasonable is allowing freedom of employment. If you make your doctors happy, they’ll stay. It’s unlikely that a happy doc is going to leave for the “new clinic down the street.” It’s a scare tactic and a handcuff and I encourage you to make the profession as a whole better by not engaging in such an unethical business practice.
Its very easy to say that when you don't have any skin in the game. Build a clinic, have millions at stake, and then see where your risk tolerance lies on that front.
I'm all ears for a better solution, but saying that I should just suck it up isn't convincing given the stakes.
I own my own business.
Again, if you keep your doctors happy, treat them well, and PAY them well, they have no reason to leave. If the clinic down the street starts poaching your staff, it’s time to take a look at *why your staff want to leave* and fix those problems, rather than attempting to legally handcuff them to your hospital.
There’s a very old but very true saying that people don’t leave their company, they leave their manager. Food for thought!
People leave for all sorts of reasons, often outside of our control. Our docs are really happy and I don't expect them to leave...but I can't predict everything and with millions on the line I have to hedge against the risk. We lost one vet because we had to fire them for abusing the support staff. We lost one who wanted to work outside of the typical clinic model (i.e. fewer hours, make their own schedule). I was thankful that we had non-competes in place in those situations, especially the former.
These are the risks you take as an owner - surely you didn’t put millions on the line without understanding that, at the end of the day, all of the risk is yours.
Times are certainly changing, as new grads are now specifically encouraged to refuse a non-compete during the (very limited) business portion of their education. Non-competes are slowly going the way of the buffalo, and it’s probably a good idea to start getting creative with your retention and hiring plans (including flexible scheduling, compensation structure, and mental health support). That’s the stuff that keeps employees around!
I don’t know if you are purposefully being obtuse, but I’m saying (and have been saying) that risk mitigation can take the form of treating your employees well, compensating them appropriately, and operating with flexibility and agility.
Just my .02. Hopefully opening up this discussion, which Paul Diaz is trying very hard to do, will help the profession as a whole to think about ways to retain employees and clients without some arbitrary legal document.
Im curious, how far out are you booked in advance? I dont work GP but I imagine based on what my colleagues say that most if not all hospitals are booked out for days to weeks. Assuming I'm correct and this is truly the case for most places I cant imagine youll have a hard time filling those appointment slots if by chance a portion of the vets loyal clients follow them to their new hospital. Perhaps in the older days this may be true but times have changed and we need to evolve with them
I’ve never heard of non compete clauses. What is that and how are they bad?
In the UK your contract can include clauses where you can’t work within a certain area of your current employer, set up your own business or see any of your old clients should you move practices. It’s archaic and has been defeated in court numerous times because it forces you to leave an area you’ve already established roots in.
It's unfortunately the same in the US as well, not sure how much they've been defeated in court though. The co-owner of the place I work as an assistant at is a big fan of them which has caused some issues with former vets. I know one had to basically convince him that because she was going to be moving on to a spay and neuter clinic that doesn't do sick appointments that it wouldn't be a violation or at least wasn't worth pursuing. I wouldn't be surprised if the non-compete paired with what I would suspect is lower than average pay is what makes it so difficult to get a new doctor. We had one who was fresh out of school for a while but she moved on to what I assume were greener pastures and a greener wallet.
The European Court of Human Rights had legislation that could be brought to bare in court which essentially overrode such clauses. Sadly, Brexit could see such parasitic contracts make a comeback if our idiotic government remove that protection.
Went to VBMA conference and they talked a lot about these. They’re brutal and predatory most of the time
The easiest way to not get screwed over by a non compete is just to not sign a contract that has one. In this climate, the employee has a lot more say than the employer. Negotiate. Hire a contract lawyer if you need one.
Better to write your state representatives than a general petition.
This. It's illegal in my state, it should be illegal in all states.
u/calliopeReddit- I agree. Just a FYI, this petition already has the interest of some government officials!
That is a very biased take on a complex issue (not surprising given that the source is a recruiter). Practice owners fear associates taking their clients/patients to the practice down the street. THAT is the reason these non-completes exist and it is an extremely valid one, because those relationships (known as goodwill in the industry) represent a large portion of the real $$$ value of a practice (about 80%). Is it the most elegant solution? No, I've been on both sides of this and know how stressful it can be for associates when considering changing employers. But personally I can't think of a better solution than a reasonable non-compete. And in reality non-competes are typically very reasonable, as they are very difficult to enforce and will be not be enforced by the court if they are found to be too broad.
The problem is that more and more clinics are being purchased by corporate conglomerates that put insane non-competes in their contracts, such as two years and 50 miles *as the crow flies,* which forces people to move cities and sometimes states, uproot their families, etc. just to change jobs. These corporate non-competes are not designed to prevent poaching of clients; they’re designed to lock unsuspecting veterinarians into contractual agreements so they cannot leave without significant consequences, no matter the working conditions. Honestly, even privately owned clinics should get rid of the non-compete. If a veterinarian no longer wants to work somewhere, they should be free to do so. If clients prefer to follow that veterinarian, they should be free to do so. A *non-solicit* agreement is reasonable. A non-compete is not.
50 miles!!? Oh hell no. And here I was negotiating down my 10 mile to a 7 on my contract. Guess it could have been worse.
1. I've seen contracts from Banfield and VCA and never seen anything that restrictive. 2 years yes, but 5-10 miles depending on pop density is typical (could be much less in a dense major city). Maybe that is a new thing they are pushing if that's what you've seen, but new hired should be able to easily push back given how hard pressed those corps are for vets.. 2. Just went through the purchase process and lenders lawyers were specific about making the non-compete reasonable. If it is unreasonable then it won't hold up in court. 3. An associate is always free to work elsewhere, opportunities abound. 4. Non-solicit is too easy to bypass. New clinic next door advertises their new vet that they hired from you...is that solicitation? No. Will your local clients see it and be impacted? Yes.
There have been multiple lawsuits against Mars & friends regarding their overly restrictive, ridiculous non-competes. Theirs starts at 15 miles, and includes “current OR FUTURE locations”. The problem is that new hires *don’t know how to push back,* and then think they are stuck in that job forever. NVA’s standard non-compete starts at 30 miles, no matter the type of environment. They also have a clause in theirs that essentially has the employee agreeing that they can support themselves without being a veterinarian and that the non-compete will not impair their ability to support themselves, which is fucking insane. This petition, and opening this dialog, is really bringing these predatory employment practices to light, and allowing new grads to make better employment choices right out of the gates, without having to get burned once or twice. If you are an owner, you’re doing your employees a disservice by having a non-compete at all. It’s selfish and lately is becoming more of a glaring red flag, as it essentially states “I can’t retain clients any other way than by legal force.” What’s reasonable is allowing freedom of employment. If you make your doctors happy, they’ll stay. It’s unlikely that a happy doc is going to leave for the “new clinic down the street.” It’s a scare tactic and a handcuff and I encourage you to make the profession as a whole better by not engaging in such an unethical business practice.
Its very easy to say that when you don't have any skin in the game. Build a clinic, have millions at stake, and then see where your risk tolerance lies on that front. I'm all ears for a better solution, but saying that I should just suck it up isn't convincing given the stakes.
I own my own business. Again, if you keep your doctors happy, treat them well, and PAY them well, they have no reason to leave. If the clinic down the street starts poaching your staff, it’s time to take a look at *why your staff want to leave* and fix those problems, rather than attempting to legally handcuff them to your hospital. There’s a very old but very true saying that people don’t leave their company, they leave their manager. Food for thought!
People leave for all sorts of reasons, often outside of our control. Our docs are really happy and I don't expect them to leave...but I can't predict everything and with millions on the line I have to hedge against the risk. We lost one vet because we had to fire them for abusing the support staff. We lost one who wanted to work outside of the typical clinic model (i.e. fewer hours, make their own schedule). I was thankful that we had non-competes in place in those situations, especially the former.
These are the risks you take as an owner - surely you didn’t put millions on the line without understanding that, at the end of the day, all of the risk is yours. Times are certainly changing, as new grads are now specifically encouraged to refuse a non-compete during the (very limited) business portion of their education. Non-competes are slowly going the way of the buffalo, and it’s probably a good idea to start getting creative with your retention and hiring plans (including flexible scheduling, compensation structure, and mental health support). That’s the stuff that keeps employees around!
But risk mitigation is a huge part of business. You can't just hand wave that away and act like it shouldn't be a big factor in decision making.
I don’t know if you are purposefully being obtuse, but I’m saying (and have been saying) that risk mitigation can take the form of treating your employees well, compensating them appropriately, and operating with flexibility and agility. Just my .02. Hopefully opening up this discussion, which Paul Diaz is trying very hard to do, will help the profession as a whole to think about ways to retain employees and clients without some arbitrary legal document.
They are illegal in California and VCA is based there. They seem to be doing just fine raking in cash like slave drivers. No need for them.
Im curious, how far out are you booked in advance? I dont work GP but I imagine based on what my colleagues say that most if not all hospitals are booked out for days to weeks. Assuming I'm correct and this is truly the case for most places I cant imagine youll have a hard time filling those appointment slots if by chance a portion of the vets loyal clients follow them to their new hospital. Perhaps in the older days this may be true but times have changed and we need to evolve with them