Breaking your agreements. Honest?

[Mrs. Funk]

That seems like a tough situation for your dad, so I want to tread lightly. I'm wondering, however, what your dad's understanding of the 30-day out clause was? Seems like the presence of the clause itself might have been enough to put your dad on notice that this guy might not stick around. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying?

No, I think you're totally right in how you read the situation. However, I think it was my dad's attorney who put that particular clause into the contract. I'm not sure why it's there and both Mpfunk and I have expressed concern over ever having it in future employment contracts as this thing might happen again.

I don't know how the clause was supposed to function, honestly, and it's creating a huge problem for Dad who is a very smart guy with an excellently run practice. Ugh. I think the fact the new doc is LDS is just one more twist of the knife.

[falafel]

No, I think you're totally right in how you read the situation. However, I think it was my dad's attorney who put that particular clause into the contract. I'm not sure why it's there and both Mpfunk and I have expressed concern over ever having it in future employment contracts as this thing might happen again.

I don't know how the clause was supposed to function, honestly, and it's creating a huge problem for Dad who is a very smart guy with an excellently run practice. Ugh. I think the fact the new doc is LDS is just one more twist of the knife.

Got it. It did seem like a strange clause, one that benefitted the other doc more than your dad. I would presume that you dad would do good to have a "terminate for cause" clause in the contract that might be a little more effective.

either way, in your situation, it seems like the guy went above and beyond the contract by personally stating that he would be there for the 2 years. He even went as far as to mention the fellowship possibility and that it wouldn't be until after the 2 years. Sounds like your dad had a right to be frustrated.

[Mrs. Funk]

Got it. It did seem like a strange clause, one that benefitted the other doc more than your dad. I would presume that you dad would do good to have a "terminate for cause" clause in the contract that might be a little more effective.

either way, in your situation, it seems like the guy went above and beyond the contract by personally stating that he would be there for the 2 years. He even went as far as to mention the fellowship possibility and that it wouldn't be until after the 2 years. Sounds like your dad had a right to be frustrated.

Mpfunk just told me I recalled incorrectly and the clause was a termination clause within the first 30 days of the contract. This isn't my memory, but it makes more sense.

If that's the case, then the guy is totally breaking the contract. It's remarkable Dad hasn't just fired the guy and left him high and dry like this doc is doing to him.

[falafel]

Mpfunk just told me I recalled incorrectly and the clause was a termination clause within the first 30 days of the contract. This isn't my memory, but it makes more sense.

If that's the case, then the guy is totally breaking the contract. It's remarkable Dad hasn't just fired the guy and left him high and dry like this doc is doing to him.

If that's the case (and it would seem to make more sense that way), then you're dad should be pissed. Anticipatory breach! Fire that dude.

[Mrs. Funk]

If that's the case (and it would seem to make more sense that way), then you're dad should be pissed. Anticipatory breach! Fire that dude.

No joke. The doc is making way too much money to just keep around until he deigns to leave.

[Commando]

I'm curious, how can a bank "bend you over" with anything outside of the agreements in the contract you and they have signed? When does a bank "breach the K in furtherance" of their own business interest?

Full disclosure: I work for a bank, and am very familiar with the terms and conditions that are included in many of the consumer agreements they sign. And I am in a position where I frequently interact with customers when there are disputes that come down to how the agreement reads. I can't speak for all banks everywhere, but I always compensate customers when a situation falls on the customer's side of the agreement. Last week, I reimbursed one customer with over $1250.00 and another with over $400.00 in finance charges they had been charged by other companies because the payments weren't received in time as agreed upon in the terms and conditions of our product.

Even when customers have situations falls on the bank's side of the agreement, we frequently provide all or part of their request out of courtesy or goodwill. Usually this happens if they have been good customers in the past and we don't want to damage the relationship over fine points of the terms and conditions.

ha. I was going to ask if you worked for a bank after reading the first sentence. In my experience with, say, Wells Fargo-- they don't give a shit about damaging relationships with customers. They and others are constantly shifting terms of credit card agreements, finance charges, etc. It's okay if they send you a letter telling you they are changing the terms, though. I would like to kick that bank in the balls, so to speak, the way they have kicked everyone else in the balls for years.

[CardiacCoug]

My dad, a dermatologist, signed on a new doctor (LDS guy) fresh out of residency for a two-year contract (with a tacit understanding that the new doc would be staying around). Six months into the contract, new doc told my dad that he'd been accepted for a Mohs fellowship and that he would be leaving the practice in June.

Besides being in my opinion a stupid choice (the contract was for $300k plus a very generous benefits package and periodic bonuses, etc.; dermatologists CAN and DO perform Mohs on a routine basis without a special fellowship), it's further complicated by a statement this doctor made earlier into his contract. He'd mentioned the possibility of doing a fellowship, but said that "as a matter of personal integrity, I will fulfill the two-year obligation."

My dad feels, and I think understandably, betrayed. He feels the guy lied to him and never intended to fulfill his contract. The contract has a conditional thirty-day out clause for either side (with thirty days notice, the contract can be cancelled on either side) and the new doctor seems to be relying on this as his rationale that it's okay for him to be leaving. He appears to be saying, "I'm informing you that I intend to exercise my thirty-day out in six months' time." This isn't exactly how the "out" clause was meant to work.

In short, I don't think this guy was particularly honest, but he appears to see nothing wrong with it. He's a temple-recommend holding father of soon to be six kids.

Food for thought.

If the guy is willing to give up his $300K per year job to make $50K as a fellow (and when he has 6 kids to support), then it is obviously something he really feels strongly about as far as career and life satisfaction.

And at least he gave your dad as much time as possible to find a replacement. What he did doesn't seem that bad to me, honestly. It's not like he is breaking his contract to take a higher-paying job -- he is just taking an opportunity for a higher level of training that wasn't previously available to him.

[Mrs. Funk]

If the guy is willing to give up his $300K per year job to make $50K as a fellow (and when he has 6 kids to support), then it is obviously something he really feels strongly about as far as career and life satisfaction.

And at least he gave your dad as much time as possible to find a replacement. What he did doesn't seem that bad to me, honestly. It's not like he is breaking his contract to take a higher-paying job -- he is just taking an opportunity for a higher level of training that wasn't previously available to him.

What's puzzling is that the doc has been doing Mohs surgery almost since beginning work. And "It's really important to me" isn't a valid excuse to break a contract. It's still a breach of contract. Add that, and other personal assurances about the doc's intent to stay and finish the contract, and my dad feels both professionally and personally betrayed.

[RobinFinderson]

What's puzzling is that the doc has been doing Mohs surgery almost since beginning work. And "It's really important to me" isn't a valid excuse to break a contract. It's still a breach of contract. Add that, and other personal assurances about the doc's intent to stay and finish the contract, and my dad feels both professionally and personally betrayed.

This obviously isn't a breach of contract, since the 30-day out clause was a part of the contract. It may be a breach of 'personal assurances,' which certainly means something in a thread discussing honesty. But what took place in private, between your dad and the doc, is hearsay as far as any of us is concerned. You are naturally inclined to believe your dad's account, but "as a matter of personal integrity, I will fulfill the two-year obligation," is a pretty strange thing to say, unless your father was pushing the doctor into making this personal commitment, in which case dear old dad is yet another LDS employer who was seeking to use religious standards of honesty to create an unequal power relationship in the work place (had the doc been an under-performer, would your dad have exercised the 30-day option on a family man?).

[DU Ute]

This obviously isn't a breach of contract, since the 30-day out clause was a part of the contract. It may be a breach of 'personal assurances,' which certainly means something in a thread discussing honesty. But what took place in private, between your dad and the doc, is hearsay as far as any of us is concerned. You are naturally inclined to believe your dad's account, but "as a matter of personal integrity, I will fulfill the two-year obligation," is a pretty strange thing to say, unless your father was pushing the doctor into making this personal commitment, in which case dear old dad is yet another LDS employer who was seeking to use religious standards of honesty to create an unequal power relationship in the work place (had the doc been an under-performer, would your dad have exercised the 30-day option on a family man?).

Those Mormons! Expecting people to be honest and honor their commitments! Also, did I mention they're cool with MURDER!?!?!?

[Moliere]

This obviously isn't a breach of contract, since the 30-day out clause was a part of the contract. It may be a breach of 'personal assurances,' which certainly means something in a thread discussing honesty. But what took place in private, between your dad and the doc, is hearsay as far as any of us is concerned. You are naturally inclined to believe your dad's account, but "as a matter of personal integrity, I will fulfill the two-year obligation," is a pretty strange thing to say, unless your father was pushing the doctor into making this personal commitment, in which case dear old dad is yet another LDS employer who was seeking to use religious standards of honesty to create an unequal power relationship in the work place (had the doc been an under-performer, would your dad have exercised the 30-day option on a family man?).

I had some thoughts similar to these. Almost every contract I've read (and I've read a lot as it is part of my job) has had a default and termination clause. If the doctor is leaving the practice in regards to this clause in his contract, he is not breaking his contract. In fact, he is perfectly in line with the contract.

I think this is similar to a mortgage. If you stop paying your mortgage, you bear the consequences which includes being kicked out of your home and your credit score taking a beating. Walking away from a mortgage can be a lot more damaging than some people realize especially with the damage done to your credit.

But a contact is different than a personal promise. If the guy truly said he would fulfill the two year commitment then I would expect to do that.

[RobinFinderson]

Those Mormons! Expecting people to be honest and honor their commitments! Also, did I mention they're cool with MURDER!?!?!?

Employers eliciting non-contractual agreements as a requirement of hiring is not unique to LDS culture. Mormon notions of integrity, however, provide employers in primarily LDS regions one more tool for manipulating a situation.

I'm reminded of an indecent at BYU housing where I had caused a small bit of damage to the vinyl flooring in the kitchen. My contract stated that, upon a final inspection, my deposit would be returned to me in whole or part, based on the outcome of the inspection. The inspector noticed the damage (a small burn mark caused by a flaming tortilla), but didn't deem it significant enough to merit forfeiture of any part of the deposit. I left with my check. A year later, a different inspector noticed the mark and was going to hold one of my former roomies accountable for the damage. The roomie appropriately deflected threat to me, since he had nothing to do with the damage. The complex called me up (I was in New Haven, at grad school, and BYU seemed like a different lifetime) to request that I pay to have the floor replaced, or they would hold my former roomies' deposits. I told them to go take a flying leap, since I had lived up to my side of the contract. The apartment rep then challenged my integrity, and told me that I was not being honest in my dealings with my fellow man (as if her threat to hold my roomies' deposits was an act of integrity). I informed her that I would not pay for the replacement of the floor, and requested that she not call me again. Next day I get a call from the former roomy with the threated deposit, asking me to man up and take responsibility for the damage, as that would make things easier for him. It really sucked, but I told him I had met my contractual obligation, and that I wouldn't pay for the damage unless I was legally compelled to do so. I ended up writing him a letter claiming sole responsibility for the damage, and I don't know what happened after that.

My point here is that LDS notions of 'integrity' are not well defined, but are often used as a tool of manipulation when LDS parties are interacting. Maybe this makes sense in friendly personal matters, but in situations that are primarily business related, the contract itself should be the only measure of 'integrity.'

[RC Vikings]

As I read this I'm reminded of some advice I got long ago. If you are about to enter into dealings with someone and they pull out the church position card, I'm a bishop or I'm a stake president, to gain your trust then run like hell away from the deal.

[Moliere]

As I read this I'm reminded of some advice I got long ago. If you are about to enter into dealings with someone and they pull out the church position card, I'm a bishop or I'm a stake president, to gain your trust then run like hell away from the deal.

As a teller, I once had a guy come in to cash a check. For ID he handed me his driver's license and his temple recommend. As to why he handed me his TR I can only speculate.

[Art Vandelay]

What's puzzling is that the doc has been doing Mohs surgery almost since beginning work. And "It's really important to me" isn't a valid excuse to break a contract. It's still a breach of contract. Add that, and other personal assurances about the doc's intent to stay and finish the contract, and my dad feels both professionally and personally betrayed.

As an partner and a former employee, I can't see why either side would want and ironclad 2 year agreement. From the senior doctor's standpoint if the associate is poor in dealing in patients or harangues faithful staff the senior doctor certainly wouldn't want 24 months of damage to his practice before cutting ties. If the junior doc finds the senior doc is keeping all the best patients and only sending him scraps, is unethical in his treatment protocol or insurance billing, he also would want to seek employment elsewhere (I'm not accusing either doctor of this, since I obviously know next to nothing about either MD).

Some tangentially, I personally think there is a huge value in fellowship training. When I refer out to a surgeon, I send my patients almost exclusively to fellowshipped trained sub-specialists. Even though in some instances it might mean the patients sees 2 different surgeons and each maybe able to do both procedures; I want them to see the best whoever is the best qualified to perform the procedure (assuming he or she is not a complete jackass. There are many great surgeons I don't refer to because they have such a terrible bedside manner).