Re:FTC Proposes Banning Noncompete Clauses for Workers
by lolinder on Friday January 06, 2023 @08:34AM
(#34274388)
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 firms don't do that.)
[0] https://healthrecruitlink.com/blog/what-will-it-cost-to-recr...
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.