I have some concern that when you first wrote about these type of recruiting tactics going back from 2000 or earlier to as recent as 2004 you would counsel individuals that there ?there are certain cases that can get you in legal jeopardy? yet somehow you did not feel it incumbent to mention this sage advise again. There in lies my first and biggest concern which I initially stressed in this forum.

Dr. Sullivan, When Steve brought up the articles You mentioned that since 2000 recruiting had become global and US laws no longer dominated the recruiting business, to which I responded that Recruiting had been global for as long as there had been a phone, and since the internet, the laws have even become stricter. Nowadays, there indeed have been more law suits, many of course are not as public as the Microsoft/Google, that will not attract media attention.

You also stated that that ?Speculation and idle worrying about what ‘might happen’ are no substitute for facts, None of the things that many forum readers have been warning about… have actually happened? and ?have you calculated the probabilities of being sued? Or the business benefits of doing it this way vs ‘getting sued’. As a CEO, I never let lawyers or the fear of being sued overcome my ROI and probability analysis?

Which addresses my other concerns ? When you said that none of these things have actually happened, were you speaking about lawsuits? If so, then why did you bring up the arguments of lawsuits in your earlier articles?, what basis were you making your claims?

There have been several cases presented by individuals and one member of ERE even noted that they had personally had been sued. So why did you decide to stop advising against the possibility of lawsuits in these specific articles? Or am I missing something?

Also, you have expressed the personal lack of concern of being sued. Is it not Fair to inform others who would have concern that there is a possibility?
Would they not want to be able to determine if the Candidate is going to be worth the Cost and Can they even afford the cost; The cost of lawsuit, the cost of paying an employee whilst they are unable to work during the lawsuit and the possible cost of settlement. And on top of that the risk of the candidate now being recruited himself after all of that.

Should not people be informed of the legal implications and risks, or be aware of how they could reduce those risks?

ON a personal Note. About 6 mths after I first opened my company I received a resume, it was 7 pages long, job history dated back to 1950?s, individual graduated in the 40?s. The candidate had been a Regional Vice president of sales for a National Corp, and he wanted me to help him find a position as a trade worker where they would have to lift over 50 lbs. Well I did help this candidate with their resume, and Yes I even did submit him to a position, and told him about some companies that were hiring. Well as many can guess I was unable to help this person in his job search. About 2 Mths after receiving this resume, I received a call from the State Workforce Services. They were on their way to my office for an Audit. Yes People, We can get Audited. (Cell phones were around that time) and if anyone has been in this situation, when you get that call they are about a mile or so from your business.

I was able convince them of my good intentions with this candidate. I was able to prove assistance (thank Goodness I keep sent e-mails in Client Folders, and I maintain a strong database). That Same day, I also received notification that I was being sued. Well the state dropped the case, and so did the candidate. Had I not submitted the candidate, or have proof of submission, or actually assisting him, well that would be different today.

Also a couple of years ago my husband was recruited for a position, gee it was awesome.. So we thought, the recruiter did such a snow job on my husband it was unbelievable, my husband took the job, and hated it. It was not what was promised, not even a little. Seems the client was snowed as well. Anyways, after 6 mths (job history looks pretty shaky now) my husband was laid off.. Company was not as solid as presented. He did get rehired, but that little stint did cost him time and it took a while for him to get work again. My husband also referred a couple of friends to the recruiter for same company who were also lied to and they also got laid off. It took almost a year for one of his friends to get a new job, and he had been with the other company for 10 years.

When Recruiters are buying my resumes from companies that I submit them to, It does upset me.. I do not work my but off everyday trying to grow my company at my expense to create another person?s database for them..

I have a few other very personal stories, but will not discuss in public.

It is so easy to not be aware, just recently I was informed that owning a company directory was illegal.. Wow, would never had guessed that one, so I checked the one I had.. Yep, it said that it was for internal use only, and Restricted. Copyright laws and such like. Even asking for one is illegal, and is putting the individual I ask in legal jeopardy themselves. Well can you imagine if I got a visit from the state and they saw that directory, well that could be some interesting explaining. For sure.

What does that have to do with recruiting and your articles.
Well nothing and Everything. Recruiting is dealing with people, the General public on a day to day basis. Not only do we impact their lives but they can impact ours. We can be impacted by the federal government and have many legal precedence that dictate how we should be running our business. It is so easy for us to harm another, and at the same time there are many repercussions we do have to deal with daily.

We do have a responsibility to this industry, to the candidates, clients, ourselves and each other to be informed, educated and practice specific standards to maintain the professional integrity of this industry.

Today, it is easy to be a recruiter, but one day if we are not careful, it Will not be. We really cannot continue to make excuses for lack of industry knowledge to justify behavior especially if this behavior can come back to haunt us in the future. Especially with the government watching us like a hawk due to concerns with the many issues of privacy. The senate has proposed some interesting bills and they keep getting tougher.

Why? think about it, we deal with personal information every day.. (if you look at CA?s OPPA law, personal information is considered anything from a name to an e-mail address) It is scary to think sometimes who has access to this information considering how easy it is to get into this industry.

One last thing to note ? on the B.B.Burea the stats came out recently.. The Executive Search industry had 15443 complaints and ranked 323 out of close to 4000 industries (report ranks), the Employment Agencies had 90k complaints and ranked 84. Outplacement 155 with 40k complaints, and temp 425 with 10k complaints. Please Note, the lower the number, the worse the industry, the higher the better.

Another Magnifying Glass on us!!!!

http://www.bbb.org/about/stat2004/US%202004%20INDUSTRY%20SORT%20Table%20I.xls
http://www.bbb.org/about/stat2004.asp

From the FTC -The FTC’s antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition, seeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition. As a result, purchasers benefit from lower prices and greater availability of products and services- would that not include -

Raiding during a traumatic event, Recruiting an entire team, A poaching emphasis, Warlike tactics, hiring to slow down the rate of improvement of your competitor, trying to ‘steal customers’

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/asbe/2004/PDFS/06.pdf UTILIZING PRE-EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS IN SMALL BUSINESS does have some interesting cases but a great read for protection and infomation on the type of aggreements you want for your employees

http://www.clm.com/pubs/pub-907371_1.html Common Law and Contractual Restraints on Employee Conduct – Really Great and extensive pieces of information and includes Litigation information, and definitions. (from a lawyers office) Make sure to review all seven pages – really great info as to how to protect yourself, what are Your or the employees legal rights, and HOW TO RECRUITIT W/IN the bounderies of the law.

http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/07/15221.html Employment Practices Audit Can Protect Against Lawsuits Make your company as bulletproof as possible with an employment practices audit.

http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/07/15227.html Poaching: Where to Draw the Line Is it a good idea to try to recruit a competitor’s best people?

http://www.hunt-scanlon.com/releases/1999/060899.htm Executive Search Review Examines Growing Litigation Threat in Executive Search Industry this was back in 1999, and it is only getting worse.

So reader beware. Free advise is worth what you paid for it. Use at your own risk!

What does having a law degree have to do with knowing the legal issues of your Industry? Every Accountant, HR Manager, Real Estate Broker, Recruiter Should be aware of these issues. In fact when you mention lawsuits and ROI, are you not AGAIN (as you also did this to Me) performing the Same Behavior that YOU accuse us of.

Recruiting has gotten Global since 2000 ? Sullivan, recruiting has been global since the end of time that we know it.. I find your comment is misleading and darn Many of Us Smart recruiters are aware of that!!!! We know individuals who have recruited internationally and have done it for as long as the phone, and Fax has been in existence. In fact the computer has created more legal issues and laws regarding privacy that Recruiters DO Need to be aware of!!! So Why did You stop Advising of the Risks!!!

By the way, I have found Other Articles. where you have mentioned the same information even after 2000 ? in fact a post as early as June 14-2004. in Cite HR (business case in HR)? the percentage you gave wasVERY VERY low regarding the lawsuits, in fact off the record low, (I think you were right on target about the law suits growing in the original article mentioned here. (as per the FTC) but you did mention that though Not illegal that there were legal implications?

Now I find it interesting, if there are legal implications how is an action not illegal.

Not being sued, (YET!) I think it interesting that you say seven years, where Michael Homula?s profile states ?lead a team of Talent Acquisition Consultants??Since their inception in fall of 2001 they have achieved a?.? Cut and pasted from ERE. Gee, well that is only 4 years Actually!!!! Now Granted, I may be missing something!!?? HMMMM!!!!

And I have always found the word Yet to be well utilized!!!!!!

Regarding ?legal issues? and Trade secretes why stop there, that is NOT what is ONLY considered Illegal ? the issues fall under Unfair Competition, Unfair Business Practices (amongst other things)

And by the way this industry is VERY much regulated in over 14 STATES ? There definitely are employment law and labor related laws, regulations that DO dominate Employment industry ? besides the OBVIOUS ? ADA, OFCCP, Title VII, Fair Credit Reporting ACT, AAP, title I, title III, IRCA. FLSA, Which by the way do also impact TPR?s as well

Then there is also –
UNFAIR COMPETITION – Any of various torts (as disparagement) that interfere with the business prospects of a competitor or injure consumers
ANTI-COMPETITIVE – business practices that prevent and/or reduce competition in a market To Monopolize, cause harm to disadvantage competing firms and consumers who are not able to avoid their effects, generating a significant social cost

For those who keep wanting to risk it
The Federal Fines for Unfair Business Practices under the Anti Trust and Trade Regulations are up to 10 MILLION Dollars. Yep 10 million for corporation and 350 thousand per individual, and imprisonment up to three years.

I might add that every state also tightens the ropes that much more by having their own state bureau that enforces federal and their state laws sometimes the FEDS Ambiguous laws seem weak.

From the FTC – ‘The antitrust laws are aimed at protecting consumers’ purchasing power and saving jobs and businesses, all at the same time’

So Don?t just take my word for it – FOR MORE INFORMATION DON’T HESITATE TO CONTACT -

The FTC?s antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition - (yes that is what it is called)they have an 800 reference line. So Don’t Just Take my word, or anyone else?s for that matter.. They do Love to assist!

It’s okay to deceive and blackmail candidates because you’ve been doing it for 7 years without being caught.

What tosh!!!!

Ironically it was 7 years ago (1998) that Bernie Ebbers finished swallowing up MCI which some would say was his biggest mistake. It was MCI’s decline in it’s long distance business that started to drag WorldCom’s stock price down with it. We all know the rest of the story. For 6 years, he probably thought what he was doing was good business because no one had sued him (yet).

The measure of good practice in recruitment is not about not being sued. It’s about being professional towards clients, candidates and the candidates employers whilst still achieving your targets.

You are actively promoting unethical practices whichever way you dress it up.

It does not matter whether it’s 1 company or 10 that use them, although I’m not sure there are 9 others that would want to use these practices and brag about it.

I am amazed that any business anywhere lowers it’s practices to such a level that the key issue is not ‘Will this practice work well and give me the return I want whilst ensuring professionlism and quality?’ but rather ‘If I do this, what are the business benefits versus the chances of us being sued?’.

There are many creative, professional, effective and enjoyable ways to recruit, even in today’s competitive market.

Why not promote these instead?

Does promoting rotten apples over good apples mean that all the good ones have gone?

Steve

The answer to your question is simple… this is a case study of just one firm, so it describes what actually happened at just that firm.

And in the 7 years of doing it this way… the FACT is… they haven’t been sued, lost recruits or customers.

Speculation and idle worrying about what ‘might happen’ are no substitute for facts! None of the things that many forum readers have been warning about… have actually happened.

And the year you got your law degree was?
And have you calculated the probabilities of being sued? Or the business benefits of doing it this way vs ‘getting sued’. As a CEO, I never let lawyers or the fear of being sued overcome my ROI and probability analysis.

Incidentally, recruiting has become global since 2000, so the ‘trade secret’ stealing argument has been diluted, as US laws no longer dominate recruiting or business.

The fact that… the dir of recruiting spoke in front of the shareholders meeting says it all. The CEO knows this way works. To think that as an outsider, that any TPR’s are smarter and have more information than their CEO and senior managers is just… unbelievably arrogant in my book.

John Sullivan

‘Legal arguments – although poaching is not illegal there are certain cases that can get you in legal jeopardy. For example if you were to attempt to hire an intact team you might face a legal challenge on the premise that you are purposely attempting to harm the other firm by interfering with its employment relations, stealing its trade secrets, or unfairly competing. The second area of concern is when you hire an employee with a high level of technical skills that could be used directly by the competitor to gain an unfair advantage. Although these cases are relatively rare, they are increasing in number. Another issue can arise when you poach an employee that has signed a non-compete agreement. It is always pays to ask new hires if they have recently signed any of these agreements. Although many non-compete agreements are unenforceable it is always wise to be cautious and to check with legal counsel’.

I have a question for Dr. Sullivan: Why in the year 2000 when this artice was written you went into great detail on the ‘legal issues’ and of your recent articles you seem to be implying that it is an acceptable business practice to raid your competition?

I’m going to agree with Karen and some of the others on this thread. ‘Poaching’ can put recruiters in potential legal jepordy without them realizing it.
But the bigger picture is the harm to the reputation of our industry and the threat of Government regulation so severe as to drive a majority of recruiters out of business.
And nobody wants that!

Haven’t had much time, but wanted to say dido. What a blinding glimps of the obvious. Great comment.

Brandon

Dr. Sullivan raises the issue of logic. Not everyone looks at logic (or recruiting or culture or ethics for that matter) in the same way. In fact most people have never even had a course in any of these disciplines. In the same vein, not every organization can justify developing a dream-team recruiting department.

But lets say that someone in an organization with a high turnover environment does ?recognize the business logic behind some practice or approach?, are they in a position, to be a change agent if they have no input into strategic, tactical or financial planning?remember, they?re simply administrators.

Moreover, considering that HR is typically viewed as an administrative function where people are hired accordingly, to fulfill an administrative function, it would be a real stretch to imagine such a person would have developed the competencies to ?recruit.? Consequently, it may not be that they ?personally don’t want to do it?, it may be that they?re simply unqualified to do it.

As far as ?someone in HR will find a reason why it is unethical?, I?ve found that their concerns run more with whether it?s legal?remember they?re administrators (people with training that are more likely to be concerned with contract terms than results).

As I implied in one of my reviews to Dr. Sullivan?s ?The Best Practices of the Most Aggressive Recruiting Department?, TPR?s understand Culture and Ethics in terms of recruiting, better than almost anyone?in that sense they have the right stuff. And as I also mentioned, size matters?not every organization has the resources or need to staff a sophisticated internal recruiting dream team. Again, maybe he covered this in another article; but if not I?m still looking for Dr. Sullivan to address and/or acknowledge these simple facts?it might even be a good disclaimer to consider in future papers.

Nearly twenty years in executive search tells me that Dr. Sullivan may be underestimating the rigidity of corporate culture (or any culture for that matter)?as a general rule. So, if you think about it, ?culture? may really not be ?an empty excuse? any more than ‘We’re different’ is true.

Even so, I agree with him that ?ethics and culture as excuses for not acting in the best interests of the organization must stop? for the reasons he cites. For any that want to argue the merits of his council, they should first take courses in logic and ethics. Alternatively, they can save the time and money and just hire a search firm; which will eliminate the need for the education, the overhead and the arguments.

I have a question for you. When a person or corporation hires a top notch law firm to represent them in some important matter would that under your line of thinking also qualify for hiring a ‘gunslinger’? (And just for the record I kind of like that analogy, I always did like the West lol)

‘Great, If you hire a gunfighter to do your fighting for you, that makes it
all ok?
I guess if someone else does the same thing for you… it leaves you clean
and ethical. LOL’

So who would want to honestly work for a company who wants to start a war and whose priority was to hire you because of who you work for rather than what you can achieve. And how long would it be before they moved you on for someone else?

It’s all in the original article folks.

The best way of protecting your own employees is to look after them.

Let’s be professional here. Competition is good. It’s what makes us grow and get better. Ask any athlete.

Bill, you are correct, more and more companies are concerned about their reputation, and also the effect that direct recruiting will have with the relationships with their friendly competitors. It also discourages future employees as well from considering employment with that particular company.

Rumors spread, controlled rumors become created, Candidates and internal staff become disgusted, and people begin to question the company. This I have seen on a personal note as a TPR.

John, again we do disagree. As was stated earlier, to consistently go after A particular company consitently and raid it is illegal. Red flags will appear, and companies will now take care of their own by creating very stringent contracts, and then go through litigation to protect their companies.

If a company is not creative in their internal recruiting efforts by targeting several companies instead, they are putting themselves into a heavy financial burden.

There are companies that have created an agreement with a paricular company which protects them from recruiting from each other, but again this must be entered into very carefully because in most states this would be cnsidered collusion…

John, the article you wrote was excellent, but it should be acknowledged, today the market has become highly litigious, and what might have been considered the norm yesterday is not today. Due to the extremely high number of lawsuits today it might be rellevant to note the considerations a company needs to take into effect to protect themselves from a future lawsuit.

I didn’t mention a thing about ethics, nor am I concerned about the ethics of recruiting from competitors, If I were, I’d certainly be in another business.

Yes, TPR’s know it’s a war. The use of a third party offers a degree of deniability and creates a veil behind which all parties can find some shelter. It’s the difference between a cold war and a hot one. Most corporations are far too busy trying to increasing profitability and productivity by creating better products and practices than indulge in ruinous trade wars.

Incidentally, were I some junior corporate recruiter, inspired by your bugle call, I’d really want to check with upper management before I declared war on a competitor in my company’s name.

We try hard to fish with a net and not a line when times are slow so we have people in mind for a client need regardless of whom they work for at present. Of course, an ethical TPR never recruits from another client.

When I was a Chief Talent Officer, we knew AND directed the 3rd party search people to the competitors we wanted to raid.

If the target firms didn’t know that we were targeting them… now THAT would have ben a surprise.

And we of course had a blocking strategy, because we knew they would retalliate.

We even had a give away take away metric to track how many we got from them vs them getting from us.

Hell, we even raided our own parent firm (HP) after they spun us off.

I even know a firm that has the cajones to Fedex the welcome package (mobile phone, computer, bus cards etc) to the desk of the newly hired employee during their 2 week notice period at their current firm just to send a message to other employees how different we were!

It’s a War!

John

When a company calls me, they are asking me to find them talent, based upon specific qualifications. They do not know if I have them in my database or not, and they do not know who I am going to call for them to produce the said talent.

When an effective recruiter is recruiting, they will keep name of the company they are recruiting for confidential. Thus Candidates and the company they are working for are not aware of why we chose to target said company. (we are able to determine if a candidate is willing to consider placement with a particular company before we get into deep conversations.)

One of the benefits of working with a specialist as well is if a candidate is not interested in a specific company or has interest in more than one, the TPR will be able to present the applicant to several companies at one time.

Thus the motive of the TPR thus becomes one that will benefit the candidate AND the Employers they represent, helping candidates find a better position in the company of their preference.

Great, If you hire a gunfighter to do your fighting for you, that makes it all ok?
I guess if someone else does the same thing for you… it leaves you clean and ethical. LOL

I recommend hiring 3rd party people because they already know it’s a war, not because it keeps your firm out of a war.

John

So well said, with so few words, a gift I need to learn to acquire.
Excellent points.

it’s aimed at corporate recruiters and it’s telling them: ‘be a tiger, a warrior, I know you really wanted to be a social worker but now your at WAR’. a preposterous notion in itself.
next, it assumes that these new minted tigers will so devastate the competition that they’ll never be able to retaliate. Third, destroying the competition may be on the list, but for most companies making a profit comes lots higher. Playing to a third string negative objective is dumb. Starting a fight that you don’t know you can win is stupider. Thinking that corporate recruiters have the nessecary blood lust for this terror campaign; well, we’re moving far from the sublime here.

What companies used to do, before the current wave of thinking (?) in hr practices, is hire a third party to recruit the competition anonymously.It was and still is, extraordinarily effective.

Dr. Sullivan did make some good points, but in the same token suggesting to cripple your competitor well that is not only crossing a grey line/ethical, it actually crosses a legal line. It is one thing to recruit a couple of people a year from the same company, but if one recruits several people over and over, not only do red flags appear, but then the company has recourse against the company who damages it.

There are some things to look out for when recruiting directly which I did point out in my previous post. Knowledge of the law when reaching out to your competitors can save your and your companies hiney when you are doing the job, note I only covered some of the aspects, there are more, that is why it is a good idea to be aware.

Regarding Ethics well that is common sense and comes down to your company’s position on that matter. If you don’t have business relationships with your competitors, and you don’t care how others may perceive you in your industry well this does not have any bearing on you or company. But remember, a reputation is hard to get back once lost.

One thing to note many companies do try to set up agreements with other specific companies so that they do not recruit from each other, but that is crossing a Grey line – term is called collusion, so that is also something one must watch out for when setting up agreements like that with your friendly competitors.

Happy Hunting and Good luck to all!!

Their mission was to hire and they were willing to ‘train’, but it is still to be determined if any training for the individuals actually occurred, as many individuals did not last very long…

Again, the Ethics Moral regarding this company may not be an issue within your industry or company, but there are some companies who do have a hands off approach, and a very high discretion approach to recrutitin…