I am considering an external offer from a small company in the field of IT health, but I am a little afraid that the non-compete clause may deny the offer. I can`t find documentation on a non-competition, even though I know it exists. If you sign the non-compete clause, you have the right to enforce the document, which may ultimately be expelled from court by a judge, but only after spending the time and money to defend yourself. This will deal with a great inconvenience if it could have been avoided simply by realizing that the only clause is ridiculous and would not have been agreed first. But one of the documents with which you are presented, you will not have seen it yet if you have only worked for hospitals: a "non-compete" document. The best thing to do is to deal with this before entering the business, so that if and if you decide to leave, your transition will be as smooth as possible. Does anyone have any information about what a "competitor" would be? Any suggestions on how to act safely? Honestly, I don`t think the company is a real competitor, but again, is in the field of it health. [Guide: Healthcare Consulting 101: Understanding the Four Types of Health Advisors] I am aware of at least two consulting firms that have this standard clause, which they present to all new employees. In my opinion, this is not reasonable and it is something that you should use to evaluate the company you are considering joining. The company feels part of the relationship assembly and they want to protect themselves from not letting an advisor or client get out of life inappropriately. So suppose you`ve been working with Cerner products over the past five years. If you join a company that accepts this clause, you cannot leave the company and make your know-how available to all Cerner customers for whom the company you leave works.
The logic of the consulting firm is that they have introduced you to this client and they want to protect themselves for a while against the fact that the consultant leaves the company to go straight back to the client himself. If you bring the skills to your employer, it would not be good for your career to agree on conditions that significantly reduce the number of potential clients to whom you can offer your skills once you leave this business. This would affect your future market capacity. . Some people just say, "I`m just going to sign it because I don`t want to deal with it, and I`ve heard they`re unworkable anyway." Here`s the problem: if there is a clause in a signed contract that is unenforceable, you can win if you are brought to justice. But you`ll have to deal with the fact that you`re opposing something you`ve accepted. This is one thing for the consultant who has provided all the training you currently have for your skills, to ask you to stay with them for a while so they can get their investment back. It`s quite another if you have the skills before the company hires you, but then the company asks you not to offer your skills to a number of organizations because they have done business. In this case too, you bring your skills first on it. So what is reasonable and what does it make sense in this document? On the one hand, you usually can`t find a company that doesn`t at least invite you to stay away from customers they`ve put you in projects with for a while. At Healthcare IS, this is our one-year corporate policy.
On the other hand, some consulting firms have agreed to their new employees not to work for one of the company`s clients for a period of one year after the company leaves. Not only the customers you have associated with, but also all the customers of the company. You define a client as any company he or she works with now or with that he has worked with in the past.