If you demand Non-Compete you admit Defeat:

In 1414 an English court heard the case of John Dyer, an apprentice whose master had stopped him from plying his trade for six months, while offering nothing in return. The judge was having none of it. “The contract is contrary to common law…” he ruled continuing “…In my opinion, you might have demurred upon him that the obligation is void, inasmuch as the condition is against the Common Law; and by God, if the plaintiff were here, he should go to Prison until he had paid a fine to the King.” 

Modern non-compete clauses are based around restraint of trade laws which for the modern era is an offshoot of the legal case of Reynolds V Mitchel of 1711. 

Reynolds was a baker at  the London Parish of St Andrew Holborn, who chose to rent his bakeshop business to Mitchel for five years and gave Mitchel a bond for £50 with the condition that the bond would be void if Reynolds refrained from acting as a baker in the parish for the next five years. Reynolds resumed his trade as a baker at another location in the parish within the five years, and Mitchel sued on the bond.

Reynolds defended by demurrer, contending that the bond was void because it was on a restraint of trade. His position was that any such restraint of trade was illegal per se, since it prevented him from exercising his trade as a baker.

Although general restraints of trade are unlawful, the court of the Queen’s Bench, per Chief Justice Parker (Lord Macclesfield), held this restraint of trade reasonable and therefore lawful. It was ancillary to a legitimate transaction (the rental or sale of the bakeshop business) and it was reasonably necessary to effectuate the main purpose. Its extent was limited to what was necessary to accomplish the main purpose of the transaction. If Reynolds reopened his bakery business, he would attract his old customers and deprive Mitchel of the benefit of his bargain with Reynolds, which included the goodwill of the business (i.e., the habit of the customers to continue to buy baked goods at the same location). Although a restraint of trade without a good reason to support it is presumed unlawful, the court ruled, the presumption can be rebutted and overcome by facts such as those present here: the restraint of trade was necessary and ancillary to a lawful transaction. 

Interestingly these cases, and particular Reynolds, Vs. Mitchel have been used to justify the restraint of trade on Monopolies (Hi Chiropractic Chains) in the United States. 

These two cases also show the directions non-competes have gone.  You can ask someone not to compete, but you must COMPENSATE them to stop them from competing, which are as the laws are written in China.

Speaking of China, I came across a Funny (I’m going to Hell) press release from Chiropractic’s First Website.

Media Statement

I don’t know the full story so please don’t sue me but CF was in Shanghai, China where they set up a bunch of clinics before the local Chinese investors stopped paying franchising fees.  (Side Bar: Welcome to China).  Only one of the clinics are “Official” Chiropractic First clinics while the other clinics are just using CF’s name and logo and branding and marketing material and equipment.  CF, a Singapore based company, has legal options and legal standing in China ranging from Jack and shit and jack just left town.

Now as much as I think that is kind of funny (again, I’m going to Hell in a rusty shopping cart with a Broken wheel) this is wrong as CF has built up a name and a brand and the Chinese Investors have purloined their entire business structure.  That is entirely wrong, but I don’t know how much of and advantage that is in China where Chiropractic is not well recognized. It’s not like knock off Rolex and Gucci we are talking about.

But notwithstanding copyright and branding how much can a Chiropractic chain actually restrict an actual chiropractor from going somewhere?

Non competes come down to 3 things: purpose, restrictions and enforceability.

Purpose: The purpose of a non-compete is to prevent someone from giving proprietary information to a competitor or becoming a competitor yourself with commandeered techniques.  What proprietary information does a chain have apart from stolen scripts and cheesy marketing techniques?  Chiropractic associates BRING to the Chain their unique techniques and experience.

Restrictions: Mabuhay tried to pull a non-compete with us (when I still had well over a year and a half on my original contract) that would disallow us from working for 2 years or within 5 KM of ANY Mabuhay Clinic (HA!).  The restrictions are ridiculous you can’t bar someone from being gainfully employed because you are afraid you can’t beat them

Enforceability:  It depends on the country.  If you are a foreign worker under local leadership your options may be limited.  If you work in free enterprise Singapore, you have more options.  If you work for a foreign interloper in pro labor friendly countries, hypothetically speaking of course, your options are greater. In America concerning Chiropractic Non-compete clauses have allowed associates to leave with patients (how do you stop a patient from exercising their rights to decide their own health care provider) while restricting the competition of Chiropractors who sell their practices to other Chiropractors (IE you can’t sell your practice and open up next door).

This, again, shows the true nature of the economics of Chiropractic, the money is made not with the logo or the system or the script, or the address of the brick and mortar or even the equipment, but with the sacredness of the doctor patient relationship.

Sitting at their Oak desks are the Chiropractic Chain CEO’s trying to decide how to maintain and grow revenue, which involves maintaining and growing patient relationships.  While marketing may have brought them in, staying revolves around the individual doctors cultivating relationships and having those relationships refer in new patients.  After a while Chains management are as useful to the doctor patient relationship as shit on a pump handle.

So, they get heavy handed and try to restrict the doctors movement in starting their own practice. As described previously: There is usually ham- handed attempts at non-compete clauses but how does a Corporations management interfere in a doctor patient relationship? “Yes, ma’am I understand you like your particular Chiropractor, however you answered our group-on ad back in November of 2017 and availed of our Topaz supreme package so that defines your relationship as being with the nameless faceless management of this company” is not a viable patient retention strategy. 

Further complicating the matters is that these chains are really slow- and heavy-footed once competition enters the market.  Having potentially commoditized the market, offering a generic form of Chiropractic care, the better value of competitors means you might lose YOUR patients.  When Mabuhay offered us the non-compete and some colleagues signed it me bringing up the prospects of competitors coming in scared the hell out of them.  Imagine individual practitioners opening up in your vicinity and your noncompete and inability to leave and join them or start your own made your income dependent on an out of touch septuagenarian whose understanding of chiropractic is from the Reagan Administration and who has foible and follies everywhere else competition has reared its ugly head.  With each and every ridiculous decision you are being blamed for the stats being bad because they believe in the non-sequitur in the vastness of Chiropractic: Their Brand.

When a Chiropractic Chain demands a non-compete it’s really a way of saying they give up, they cannot offer the value that truly makes the profession special.  WE NEED YOU or whatever it’s is that the patients like about YOU.  And you can’t leave and take our money… um er… wonderful patients who need life giving chiropractic care.

This realization on their part is why the chains are doomed to failure IF, and only if, we recapture the spirit of independence within our profession to cultivate our unique talents and share it with our patients.

I remain hopeful, as always, but if we allow the chains to define what chiropractic is for the public the public will decide that we are not in competition for their money or their care.