Recruiting from Previous Employer 10

[dozer]

When I resigned from my previous position the big boss asked me not to recruit any of their employees. This request came after several days of negotiations to try to get me to stay and I was pretty much tired of arguing so I mumbled "Yeah, sure."

Now I'm kicking myself for not getting into it with him. Would he apprecitate it if he had an employee that wouldn't turn him on to a potential good engineer or designer because of loyalty to a previous company? I think not.

So what are people's opinions? Was it right for him to ask that of me? Is it right to raid previous employers?

Let me start with my two cents. The more I think about it, the more I think it's absolute BS that he even asked. Mainly for the reason I already gave.

As for the second question, it depends. If you're just being malicious and trying to wreck a company by stealing people, then, of course, I would say that's wrong. But if you have a legitimate need for someone, why risk the whole resume review, interview gambit and not just ask someone that you already know if they're interested. Last time I checked that was called free market econonomy.

 

[PsionSaint]

I work in the program management consulting world so this issue comes up all the time - both between competing firms and even with Owner's hiring away staff toward the end of projects.

In general, I think that if the potential recruit initiates the conversation (someone from your old company contacting you about a switch) then it's free game. If it's you actively soliciting people, then it's not ok particularly since you said you wouldn't do that.

Now in reality, it's much more gray that what I portray. Maybe you're just going to lunch with business associates from your old company to keep the network up. Maybe the conversation over happy hours beers turns to work (since all engineers do that) and just maybe someone expresses interest in what your new job entails...

One other option might be to subcontract work to your old firm (as much as that probably chaps your hide) which would allow you to expose the potential recruit to your new company. Makes it much tougher for the old boss since now he's turning down revenue to try and keep you away from his employees.

 

[MintJulep]

I agree with Psion, and add the following hypothetical to the happy hour discussion.

"Do you want to come work for me?" = recruiting.

"I'm looking for a few people." = a statement, not recruiting.

 

[Ashereng]

dozer,

I am NOT a lawyer.

Are you asking if this is legal or ethical issue when you ask "Was it right for him to ask that of me?" It is perfectly legal for him to ask you to not poach. If you are asking whether this is ethical of him to ask, well I leave that to your ethics and morals, since I am sure, we each have a slightly different ethic and moral compass.

Are you asking whether there will be a legal issue if you do "poach" becuase you had said "Yeah, sure." If you did not sign this into your exit negotiation papers, then IMHO (I am NOT a lawyer), it is legal. If you did sign, then it is probably illegal wrt your negotiated settlement and somebody will probably contact a lawyer. If you are asking whether it is ethical for you to poach after you said you wouldn't, I will also leave it to your ethics and morals, since I am sure, we each have a slightly different ethic and moral compass.

My suggestion is to follow your own internal compass, since it is you who have to live with your decision.

 

[LHA]

I disagree with Saint and Julip. I left my old company because they would pay me what the market says I am worth. I now make much more, and have contacted about a dozen of the best and brightest from my former employer. One actually came in for an interview, we made him an offer, he mulled it over with his wife, and politely declined. No harm, he's still a social friend. I just hope he used our offer to get more $$ out of my stingy former employer.

Dozer, it is called a free market. That means anyone is free to work for, or to offer a job to, anyone else. It is the employer's burden to make it unattractive to the employee to leave.

I agree with Ashereng's assessment though. Do what you think is right, unless you signed that "Yeah, sure" bit. Then don't, because you agreed not to.

Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”
-Steve

 

[Zoomzoo]

As an engineer with many years under his belt, I'd probably laugh out loud at my employer's face if he had the audacity to ask me during an exit interview not to raid his company's staff if I saw they would be better served elsewhere.

There are lots of ways a company has to retain employees. One way that does not work is to try to coerce former employees to not communicate opportunities to existing employees.

Having said all that, if I had shrugged my shoulders and hesitantly agreed to not talk to employees of my former company about opportunities that I knew were out there, I'd comply with that verbal agreement. That's just part of having integrity.

But, I'd learn from the situation and never repeat it.

 

[JAE]

You might simply just wait a few months, get into your new job and then after the dust settles, despite your comment, I would think that anything is fair game.

Your comment, I think, didn't commit you for a life of non-recruiting. A waiting period of, say, 6 months to a year, would be appropriate. No legal issue here...simply an ethical response to your "Ya, sure" comment.

The request was based on a concept where you would go to the new job, and then communicate back to your previous employees and draw them away due to the immediacy of your situation. After a year or so you are no different than any other employee of your new firm.

And I would say that there's nothing wrong with an employer asking you not to recruit. Its just a request. Nothing more, nothing less. You can (could) still say no. How would they enforce such a request? Simply relying on your word.

 

[dozer]

Naw, I know it's not illegal for him to ask me not to recruit, maybe not even unethical. It just seems incredibly chicken s**t to me. I mean, how many of y'all have had a former employer ask you not to recruit? Not many I'll wager.

Here's the part of the story that I didn't tell you that really gets my goat. About a year ago they hired a middle manager type. Since then, he has hired three people from the his former company. Now, I don't know for a fact that this guy actively recruited, but if he did, the duplicity would just irk the snot out of me.

Bottom line is I said I wouldn't so I won't. But if any good folks come asking, I'm not going to turn them away.

Oh, and I didn't sign anything. I had been confrontational for a couple of days of negotiation and was ready to move on. When I gave them my final "no", he threw that request out. I was caught off guard that he would even ask, plus I didn't want to rub salt in his wounds so I just caved. As Zoomzoo suggest, I should at least learn a lesson from this. You too can, boys and girls.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Poaching isn't limited to former employees taking staff to their new employer. It also applies inside companies, where people move up the ladder and take their best staff with them when they go. We have a rule (not sure if it's written or just understood) where I work that prevents managers from one department directly approaching staff from another.

I can recall a few times where that rule was bent and the bad feeling it created.

 

[HVAC68]

I have a couple of slightly different questions :

1. Does your former employer never poach ?
2. Does he not poach from your present employer ?

Why would somebody leave one job and take up another ? Obviously because, he/she gets something better - not necessarily only monetary. At least in his/her perception, he/she is getting something better. How can anybody stop that ? unless there's a written agreement at the time of joining.


HVAC68

 

[UcfSE]

I think JAE's advice is sound and logical. Once you're past the "newguy" phase in your new job I'd say all bets are off as far as any type of verbal agreement like you have. You can't be expected to be held to that for life. I would just say be careful about burning bridges if it comes to that. You never know when you'll have to cross it again, be it 20 years down the road or whenever.

 

[RDK]

You agreed to something.

Now follow through on your promise.

All I have seen here so far is rationalizing about ways to break your word. The promise was extracted under duress, it its not written so is not binding, it was never intended to be for life etc etc etc

You agreed to it now live up to your agreement.

If it is inconvenient then too bad for you, you should never have made a promise that you never intended to keep if you want to also keep your honour and integrity.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[JAE]

RDK - I'm generally a moral absolutist as well, but in this case, I'm not "rationalizing" but rather defining just what happened at dozer's departure.

The boss spends a bit of time negotiating with dozer to stay. Dozer eventually decides not to stay and out of the blue, at the climax of the discussion, the boss requests dozer not to recruit others within the firm. Dozer replies that he won't.

What happened there? Was there a contract (legally or ethically)? No, because there was no distinct meeting of the minds. There was no "consideration", to use a legal term, between the two parties. The boss didn't give dozer a stipend or going away bonus not to recruit. He was simply asking dozer to "be nice", to not use dozer's relationships and knowledge of the firm's personnel to recruit.

Dozer, on the other hand, was simply being polite, getting out of an awkward and difficult conversation. He was in a position of discomfort and he admits that the promise not to recruit was not thought through.

But when you give your word to something, normally it applies to a mutual agreement where one party offers their "word" and the other party depends on it and acts on it differently had the word not been given. It was a unilateral promise on the part of dozer. The boss didn't say, "hey dozer, we're thinking about cutting back on some of our benefits to save some money but we can't do this if you actively recruit our employees. So could we count on you to not recruit our people away?"

In this case, the boss didn't depend on the word, didn't act on it, but rather, simply used a form of social coercion to get the promise out of dover due to the difficult social position that dover was in...he was leaving, and the boss used their long term relationship and the heat of the moment to benefit the firm.

I suggested that after a waiting period, dozer's promise not to recruit would be satisfied. The boss was distinctly worried that dozer's move would stimulate other moves in the immediate time period of the move.

So in a sense, the promise not to recruit could be paraphrased as "I won't respond to my move and my immediate reasons for moving and attempt to convince others in the firm to do the same."

Once the time period is over, dover's status is not one of a fresh ex-employee stirring up trouble, but rather simply an employee of another firm.

 

[Ashereng]

dozer,

Everyone has their own take on ethics, what is right/wrong, etc.

My suggestion is still "to follow your own internal compass, since it is you who have to live with your decision."

Everyone has their own take on ethics, what is right/wrong, etc.

 

[RDK]

JAE

I agree that there is no contract since the elements of a contract are missing (offer, acceptance, consideration, intent and capacity). It is a gratuitous promise in legal speak.

The situation is that dozer gave his word and now wants us to help him rationalize breaking it.

I really doubt of any legal implications will happen if he does break his word. What may happen is that the former employer will consider this agreement part and parcel of the overall employment contract and therefore the agreement is legally binding but again I doubt if the case would get beyond the lawyers posturing and writing letter stage.

What may happen is that the former employer can state that he has no trust in dozer and that he went back on his word. Dozer would have no recourse since the truth is an absolute defense against slander and the claim would be truthful.

Bottom line if you do not intend to keep your word then keep your mouth shut.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[kchayfie]

If I found myself in a similar situation I would probably use the following rationale...

If I knew one of my former colleagues was unhappy at my former company and didn't have the freedom/confidence to seek out a new job and there was a position for them at my new company, I would actively encourage that colleague to make the move. This would be for the benefit of the individual involved and as much a favour to them as not recruiting is a favour to my old boss.

If my former colleagues were seemingly content to stay at my former company, I wouldn't go out of my way to communicate the possibility of work at my new company but if we were still in contact and they asked how things were going in the new job, I would answer honestly about being short-staffed or needing a person who can xxxx or whatever (assuming that is the honest answer). If they choose to take the hint and apply and their CV crosses my desk, I won't not hire them because of my promise to my former boss - they might be looking to make a move and we might both lose out.

 

[IRstuff]

Non-compete and non-poaching agreements are quite common in many industries, particularly where intellectual property is important. Case in point is the recent struggle between Microsoft and Google about a former employee and his non-compete agreement.

However, I'd vote with RDK here. Your word is YOUR BOND and your professional image is at stake. Having said that, you can wait a reasonable duration, either 6 mths or 1 yr and the poach to your heart's content.

TTFN

 

[JAE]

IRstuff
The waiting is my main point....His word is still kept, the circumstances surrounding that promise change completely over time and after a period, the promise doesn't really have any basis anymore.

I guess I fully believe that given his description, dozer was promising not to recruit under the current circumstances, not for the rest of his dang life.

 

[dozer]

Wow, JAE, were you there? I couldn't have explained it better myself. Thanks for your comments. Here's a star.

Rick, you say, "The situation is that dozer gave his word and now wants us to help him rationalize breaking it." If you care to read my second post, I said, "Bottom line is I said I wouldn't so I won't." I'm not looking for anyone to give me an excuse to break my word. I was miffed that my former boss would even ask and I was wondering what other people's opinions and experiences are. Trying to gauge if my indignation was justified, if you will.

If you view someone from my old company coming to me and me getting them an interview as rationalizing and breaking my word, then so be it. I do not.

 

[IRstuff]

The smaller the company, the more likely it will be crippled by poaching. I don't see anything wrong or malicious in the request itself.

The timing was poor and if this is a condition of employment, it should have been so stated.

TTFN