[lolinder]

1. If the doc is worth $220K, why couldn't the practice that hired him match the offer to save themselves the $250K they spent hiring him? This feels like exactly the kind of wage suppression that the FTC is arguing against.

2. Workers are not serfs to be bought and sold. If the acquiring company wants the talent, then they should structure the deal in a way that makes the talent want to stay, not use legal handcuffs to force them to.

3. I can see this as an argument for noncompetes being legal in some very limited cases, but most jobs don't need this. Others have suggested requiring garden leave in lieu of a noncompete, and in the few roles where this applies I suspect that would work out fine.

[skue]

You’re focusing on the specific numbers in the example, but missing the point. Imagine the salary difference is larger.

Basically, you have one company that has already paid $250K recruiting the doc and another company that paid close to $0. So if it comes to a bidding war over salary, the former company will always be at a financial disadvantage. And budgets always have limits.

[lolinder]

No, I'm not focusing on numbers. In fact, if I focus on the numbers they seem suspect: $250k is the cost to recruit, not the relocation costs[0]. A good chunk of that (upwards of $220K) is going to occur even with a local recruitment, which makes the disadvantage of the initial recruiter much smaller.

Further, as others have mentioned, there are other ways to contractually recoup relocation costs without a non-compete. A "you must pay back your relocation costs if you leave within a year" clause is far more justifiable than a "you can't work as a physician within 30 miles for at least 1 year if you ever leave us ever" clause.

(The same type of payback clause could apply if you did something drastic like pay off their entire student loans in one lump sum, though I am assuming that in most cases practices don't do that.)

All that said, my point had nothing to do with the numbers and everything to do with the principles: non-compete clauses are an extremely blunt instrument and are inappropriate in most cases. Firms should be required to come up with more limited contracts that accomplish their stated goals and nothing more, rather than throwing in something that is so damaging to the worker because it's easier for their lawyers.

[0] https://healthrecruitlink.com/blog/what-will-it-cost-to-recr...