The industry standard is if an executive level person has to sign a non-compete then the exec gets paid a salary equivalent amount to cover the time he/she has to 'sit on the beach'. That is the only fair way to do it, but rank and file workers can't afford to hire good lawyers to get that benefit. I find it very interesting that Epic is viewed as having a liberal democratic bent...but somehow its rank and file staff are treated almost like indentured servants.
Ex-Epic - 3 weeks ago
Technically, you can try to get an exemption for the non-compete based on the employee handbook, but when I asked HR about it they told me that customer support positions are not eligible. When Epic found out where I was going, my new company was not prevented from hiring me, but they were told I would get a permanent ban from the UserWeb if they found me doing anything Epic related within two years of my departure date.
aiwhistler - 3 weeks ago
20 years ago, in 2006 when XTENITY project was cancelled and Epic and Philips parted ways a unique situation arose. Philips employees but integrated into Epic with all training and system access just like an Epic employee. It got sticky because many of the Philips employees had been working with Epic teams. The Epic customers wanted the Philips team members. Some of the Philips team members ended up working with Epic. Some team members ended up working at Philips. Some chose neither option. At the end, neither Epic nor Philips wanted to state if Epic could hold Philips employees to the non-compete. Would have thought after 20 years this would have been addressed one way or the other.
Case of the MUMPS - 3 weeks ago
It's a shortcut to mitigating attrition, and with their quasi-monopoly in the EHR market Epic employees have insufficient alternatives, which leaves them with quasi at-will employment.
Jobless dude - 4 weeks ago
Epic should be required to follow the industry practice where they pay the base salary for the non compete period. In that situation, they would be more judicious who they want to adhere to non compete and who they don't care.
I am just waiting for this to go to court and finally decided once and for all.
NoEnshittification - 4 weeks ago
The whole concept has long been abused in the general trend of enhisttification of our world. This concept is abused even in the world of fast food and McDonald's and similar
https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2026-04-27-analogs-and-analogies-trapped-c3f23b865eb4
Epic is as bad if not worse and it just adds to their overall cult like behavior
Michael Mistretta - 4 weeks ago
These non-competes have proven unenforcable in many jurisdictions. Unless they are going to compensate the employee for signing the non-compete, placing them at an individual level may be against the fair labor act. Better for them to build the provisions into their contractual agreements with their customers and enforce it at a corporate level.
The industry standard is if an executive level person has to sign a non-compete then the exec gets paid a salary equivalent amount to cover the time he/she has to 'sit on the beach'. That is the only fair way to do it, but rank and file workers can't afford to hire good lawyers to get that benefit. I find it very interesting that Epic is viewed as having a liberal democratic bent...but somehow its rank and file staff are treated almost like indentured servants.
Technically, you can try to get an exemption for the non-compete based on the employee handbook, but when I asked HR about it they told me that customer support positions are not eligible. When Epic found out where I was going, my new company was not prevented from hiring me, but they were told I would get a permanent ban from the UserWeb if they found me doing anything Epic related within two years of my departure date.
20 years ago, in 2006 when XTENITY project was cancelled and Epic and Philips parted ways a unique situation arose. Philips employees but integrated into Epic with all training and system access just like an Epic employee. It got sticky because many of the Philips employees had been working with Epic teams. The Epic customers wanted the Philips team members. Some of the Philips team members ended up working with Epic. Some team members ended up working at Philips. Some chose neither option. At the end, neither Epic nor Philips wanted to state if Epic could hold Philips employees to the non-compete. Would have thought after 20 years this would have been addressed one way or the other.
It's a shortcut to mitigating attrition, and with their quasi-monopoly in the EHR market Epic employees have insufficient alternatives, which leaves them with quasi at-will employment.
Epic should be required to follow the industry practice where they pay the base salary for the non compete period. In that situation, they would be more judicious who they want to adhere to non compete and who they don't care.
I am just waiting for this to go to court and finally decided once and for all.
The whole concept has long been abused in the general trend of enhisttification of our world. This concept is abused even in the world of fast food and McDonald's and similar
https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2026-04-27-analogs-and-analogies-trapped-c3f23b865eb4
Epic is as bad if not worse and it just adds to their overall cult like behavior
These non-competes have proven unenforcable in many jurisdictions. Unless they are going to compensate the employee for signing the non-compete, placing them at an individual level may be against the fair labor act. Better for them to build the provisions into their contractual agreements with their customers and enforce it at a corporate level.