massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners


Tags: agreement, business, clause, compete, massage, non, opinion

Views: 1263

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I used to work at a Massage Envy in a small town and I had to sign a non-compete agreement.  It was for a year and a ten mile radius.  The down side to that is that the clinic was in the middle of the city and the ten mile radius literally covered the entire city.  So basically I was blocked out of working in the city for a year.  I don't agree with non-compete agreements but I do think that you should sign something stating that you will not take their client lists.  But once you leave an establishment you can post in the paper that "you are on the move".  It would be the client's decision to follow you or not.  I absolutely love what I do and I don't want to be stopped in my career and have to get another job just because a company doesn't want me to work in their area.  I worked very hard to get where I'm at and spent a lot time of money doing so.

So has the business worked hard and spent money to build clientele and attract Therapists. When signing a contract with a business read carefully conditions following employment. They may be even more important to you later unless you make a career of it.

 

Remember a contract is a paper agreement. You are able to cross out and edit. Initial each change in the margin next to it. Make sure the one signing for the company does the same. You should both initial each page as well in the corner. Failing to make changes and getting their approval means you accepted All the terms.
Wendy Breibach said:

I used to work at a Massage Envy in a small town and I had to sign a non-compete agreement.  It was for a year and a ten mile radius.  The down side to that is that the clinic was in the middle of the city and the ten mile radius literally covered the entire city.  So basically I was blocked out of working in the city for a year.  I don't agree with non-compete agreements but I do think that you should sign something stating that you will not take their client lists.  But once you leave an establishment you can post in the paper that "you are on the move".  It would be the client's decision to follow you or not.  I absolutely love what I do and I don't want to be stopped in my career and have to get another job just because a company doesn't want me to work in their area.  I worked very hard to get where I'm at and spent a lot time of money doing so.

There is a lot of mis-information out their regarding non-competes, and much of it has to do with the language we use, just like I often see posts about being "hired" as an ""independent contractor" or room renter, when neither is actually possible.

 

Non-competes, even in states where they do hold up in courts, have to be "reasonable" for which there is no written definition. but you can be pretty sure it does not include not practicing your chosen profession for two years without any form of compensation.

 

That being said, there can be -- even in CA -- enforceable non-solicitation provisions in a written agreement which are very enforceable. They can include things like "Any client encountered while working here is not to be treated by you anywhere else" which gets around the multiple employer issues or employer vs. private practice issues. Similarly, it has been successfully argued that establishing a coimpeting massage business in "close proxmitiy" to your prior employer, or prominently using the name of your former employer in advertising is an attempt at solicitation of your employers clientele.

 

Like most legal issues -- even if one party is 100% in the wrong -- non-competes are difficult and expensive to fight. One of our former employees was being sued by a former place of work, who had her sign the most ridiculour non-compete our attorney had ever seen -- and she had been an IC with them. It still took $2,500 in legal fees to reach a settlement -- to prove the Non-Compete was not enforceable in a court of law would have cost $10K or more, and even winning the suit would only have left our employee free to work for us, unlikely to be able to recover 100% of her legal fees.

 

Singing a non-compete, no matter how ridiculous it might be, is creating a costly deterrent to ever getting out of it.

Seems to me that we all benefit when more people are exposed to therapeutic massage & bodywork.  If the big chains with their advertising power can help build public awareness of massage, local sole practitioners benefit. Likewise,  the big chains benefit from the good reputations earned by skilled, well established sole practitioners.  I mean, when aches and pains comes up in casual conversations at, say, distant family reunions or social events, we all benefit if someone in the circle of friends says, "You should get a massage--it cured my neck pain!"  I don't think the name of a NYC practitioner is mentioned to a cousin who lives in Louisiana.   

Gloria Coppola said:
Non Compete clauses are not only unrealistic , they will not hold up in court according to some attorney's I have spoken to in the past. No one can truly stop you from working. You have the right to work.

What would be nice, is if people had a honor system and you could trust that someone wouldn't open next door from you after you train them. Some schools try to make instructors have non-compete clauses signed as well ,FYI. They expect Ce providers to only teach at their facility too and this is ridiculous. Seems there is a lot of fear out there. There is enough for everyone!

When I owned facility where I employed MT's, I never made them sign a non-compete. When I had my massage school, I encouraged my instructors to teach and share their knowledge wherever they could. I even had one of my instructors open a massage school down the road after working for me for a couple of years. She did not tell me, because she was afraid I'd be mad. I wasn't mad, I was disappointed I had to hear about it from someone else. When she opened her school, it did not effect my enrollment and they did well too!

So there is enough to go around for everyone!!!

More mis-information.

 

Right to Work has nothing to do with non-compete clauses. Right to Work has to do with whether or not union membership is required in a unionized workplace.

 

Similarly, "at will" employment states -- not all of which are Right to Work states - allow an employer to terminate employment for ANY reason, but it does not absolve the employer from paying unemployment benefits to an employee terminated without cause.

Rick Morgan said:

Non-competes are not legal- it violates the "right to work" laws.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by Lara Evans Bracciante.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service