When the boss finds out...

[Force Majeure]

As a carryover from annabel lee's thread about (not!) contacting friends at other companies from whose employees you receive resumes, I'm curious about the following:

Which of you have been "discovered" in the middle of a job search, how did it happen, and what were the consequences - if any - therein?

I won't tell my experience yet; I'm waiting until I actually accept an offer beforehand. ;-)

[asamd]

Definitely uncomfortable. I had applied to a company and was waiting for my offer. On their application, they sought permission to check with your boss. I thought it was kind of strange, but I figured I'd have my offer in hand, so it wouldn't matter.

Anyway, I got the offer, but then the firm wanted to do a background check. I wasn't about to give notice until I cleared the background check. They contacted my boss who had also worked at the company previously.

It sure was awkward until the background check cleared and then I gave notice. It would have been even more awkward had I not taken the job and stayed.

I think when it gets to that point where you're entertaining job offers and the boss finds out, you're toast. You have to have your exit strategy ready to go.

[Guest]

I have not been discovered, but I know someone in T.O. whose recruiter "accidentally" sent her resume to her boss. She couldn't get out of there fast enough after that - it was my firm's gain since we got to pick her up.

I may piss off recruiters by refusing to give them my resume unless it is for a specific opportunity I'm interested in, but I consider it good risk management. After all, accidents do happen.

[Abnormal]

I once had a headhunter send me a resume for a position I was looking to fill. It was the right resume but the email header said "Resume of XXXX" where XXXX happened to be one of the senior people in another one of our offices. [I didn't squeal but I did have a rather serious talk with the headhunter about his procedures].

On another occassion a friend of mine had accepted a new position but had not yet resigned. The chairman of his new company took it upon himself to tell the chairman of his existing company how thrilled they were to have "Joe" on board. Interesting.

[Wigmeister General]

Why should it be uncomfortable?

It opens a reasonable discussion with your current boss.

"Boss, ABC is looking for someone to _________. They contacted me, inviting me to discuss the opportunity. I accepted their invite, and I'm waiting to see what comes of it. If they make me an offer, I plan to seek your counsel about it, but I didn't want to bother you with this until there was something for us to discuss. I'll keep you posted."

[The Matrix]

Why should it be uncomfortable?

It opens a reasonable discussion with your current boss.

"Boss, ABC is looking for someone to _________. They contacted me, inviting me to discuss the opportunity. I accepted their invite, and I'm waiting to see what comes of it. If they make me an offer, I plan to seek your counsel about it, but I didn't want to bother you with this until there was something for us to discuss. I'll keep you posted."

Here are a few reasons:

Uh, Joe, I just got a disturbing phone call from someone asking for employment verification. What's going on? Can we talk? What can we do? Have you eaten lunch yet? Want to go to lunch to discuss this? Have you made any decisions? blah, blah, blah

Uh, Joe, I just got a disturbing phone call from someone asking for employment verification. You're a moron if you think you're going to have any kind of career at XYZ. I know people who work there and they're all idiots. You just landed landscaping duty, my friend. Enjoy your next two weeks.

Uh, Joe, I just got a disturbing phone call from someone asking for employment verification. Joe, today will be your last day. In fact, security is coming up to escort you out of the building. What? No, we'll box up your stuff and send it to you. Here they are now; get the hell out of here.

In general, change is risky and most individuals like to be in the driver's seat. If you're open to some risk (e.g. offer contingencies are not satisfied, etc.), and are "outed", it sort of takes you out of the driver's seat and makes you straddle the gear shift (at best) or puts you in the passenger seat (at worst).

The people in greatest peril are the people who cannot drive in these positions.

[Cynic]

Definitely uncomfortable. I had applied to a company and was waiting for my offer. On their application, they sought permission to check with your boss. I thought it was kind of strange, but I figured I'd have my offer in hand, so it wouldn't matter.


Yeah, one company I applied for had that in their application (permission to check with your current employer). I answered no. This gave me a bad impression of the company, btw.

[Miguel on the Beach]

Most companies I have seen lately will not allow your boss to speak at all to someone from another company who calls wanting info, whether it is info on what type of employee you are, or even info on how long you worked for their department. Even after you notify the boss you are leaving they will refuse to give out any refs, citing company policy.

All apps for prospective companies that I have seen ask if they can check with your current company. I just put down the HR number and tell the new company that they can check to verify dates of employment, but that my current company has a policy of not allowing managers to speak with other companies about their employees.

If you need refs nowadays, you often have to find them somewhere else. It's not like the good old days when you would work for a company for 3 years, and there was an expectation that if you did a good job your boss would give you a positive ref...those days are almost gone

[Wigmeister General]

Here are a few reasons:

Uh, Joe, I just got a disturbing phone call from someone asking for employment verification. What's going on? Can we talk? What can we do? Have you eaten lunch yet? Want to go to lunch to discuss this? Have you made any decisions? blah, blah, blah

--- My previous response answers Sensitive Boss' concerns


Uh, Joe, I just got a disturbing phone call from someone asking for employment verification. You're a moron if you think you're going to have any kind of career at XYZ. I know people who work there and they're all idiots. You just landed landscaping duty, my friend. Enjoy your next two weeks.

--- Thank you, Mr. Jerk. You just made me filthy rich beyond my dreams. Between this company and XYZ, I should be receiving lifetime benefits of millions of dollars. Oh, and Mr. Jerk, I believe you might be the one who just landed landscaping duty.


Uh, Joe, I just got a disturbing phone call from someone asking for employment verification. Joe, today will be your last day. In fact, security is coming up to escort you out of the building. What? No, we'll box up your stuff and send it to you. Here they are now; get the hell out of here.

--- You're firing me for seeking employment elsewhere? That's clearly wrongful termination. I'm your employee, not your slave. Thank you for making me filthy rich beyond my wildest dreams.


In general, change is risky and most individuals like to be in the driver's seat. If you're open to some risk (e.g. offer contingencies are not satisfied, etc.), and are "outed", it sort of takes you out of the driver's seat and makes you straddle the gear shift (at best) or puts you in the passenger seat (at worst).

The people in greatest peril are the people who cannot drive in these positions.


My one piece of advice is to cite your current employment, but fail to give authorization to contact your current employer until an offer is accepted.

[aces219]

Good luck with that wrongful termination suit in an at-will employment state.

[Pillow]

Most companies I have seen lately will not allow your boss to speak at all to someone from another company who calls wanting info, whether it is info on what type of employee you are, or even info on how long you worked for their department. Even after you notify the boss you are leaving they will refuse to give out any refs, citing company policy.

All apps for prospective companies that I have seen ask if they can check with your current company. I just put down the HR number and tell the new company that they can check to verify dates of employment, but that my current company has a policy of not allowing managers to speak with other companies about their employees.

If you need refs nowadays, you often have to find them somewhere else. It's not like the good old days when you would work for a company for 3 years, and there was an expectation that if you did a good job your boss would give you a positive ref...those days are almost gone
Yep...that was my experience. Makes me wonder why they are even bothering with it anymore.

[Wigmeister General]

Good luck with that wrongful termination suit in an at-will employment state.

aces,

"At-will" employment means there's no employment contract. However, it doesn't extend rights to an employer to terminate an employee for any reason. Otherwise, logically, you can terminate an individual for his political, religious or marital status, too.

Oh, BTW, read up on At-Will Employment. You'll discover it isn't what you think it is.

[PinkFloydActuary]

Good luck with that wrongful termination suit in an at-will employment state.

aces,

"At-will" employment means there's no employment contract. However, it doesn't extend rights to an employer to terminate an employee for any reason. Otherwise, logically, you can terminate an individual for his political, religious or marital status, too.



This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm curious to know why letting someone go for searching for a different job would be wrongful termination. Couldn't an employer make the arguement that the person searching for a job can no longer be counted on to provide the same quality of work, may not take the same care in confidentiality, etc. etc.? While firing someone over testing the market seems petty, it doesn't feel like it should be something you could sue over.

[Force Majeure]

Exactly. In addition, in my company, if the potential future company is a direct competitor, that person is walked immediately for reasons of confidentiality. The person is typically paid as if two weeks notice was given.

I've seen it happen twice in my department.

LVB, I know a bit about at-will employment (in TX at least), and I have heard interviews with lawyers who specialize in that area. In Texas, there are very few reasons for which an employee can pursue a wrongful term suit. The reasons are limited to such things as racial/sexual/etc discrimination, firing for getting pregnant / having a baby, terminated while on disability, etc. Termination because you were looking for another job is not considered wrongful termination here. I can check with my HR person just to be sure.

Typically, even when sued, a company doesn't have to give any reason at all for termination, citing at-will - they can hire and fire as they please, just as the employee may join and quit as s/he pleases.

[Wigmeister General]

http://www.allbusiness.com/articles/content/1186.asp

So when can you legally fire an employee? Here is a list of some reasons that should generally stand up:

Consistent incompetence. If an employee just isn´t able to do a competent job, and you have given the employee a reasonable opportunity to succeed, then termination will often be seen as appropriate.


Violation of company policy. If you have established clear, legal and consistent policies, and the employee clearly has violated them in a meaningful way, then termination is appropriate. Violation of antiharassment, discrimination or confidentiality policies are particularly actionable.


Repeated unexcused absenteeism or tardiness. Your company depends on its employees to show up for work and perform their jobs. Continual absence or tardiness jeopardizes the ability of an employee to complete important tasks. If absenteeism or tardiness is continual and unexcused, then termination may be justified.


Physical violence. If an employee commits or threatens physical violence, you will want to fire the person immediately. All employees are entitled to a safe work environment, and employers have a duty to take reasonable steps to provide for that.


Drugs and alcohol. Depending on the circumstances, being under the influence at the office may be grounds for immediate suspension or termination. Some companies now offer treatment and rehabilitation counseling as an alternative to immediate firing.


Illegal acts. If you find the employee committing illegal acts, such as theft or embezzlement, immediate termination is justified. Before you fire the accused employee, however, make sure you know all of the facts and have gotten the employee´s side of the story.


Falsified information. Sometimes employees lie on their employment applications or resumes (they list fake degrees or jobs they´ve never held). When you discover this, and the falsification appears deliberate and material, termination of the employee is usually warranted.



I don't see "Having discussions with another potential employer" listed.

[Wigmeister General]

http://www.paintstore.com/archives/columns/smallconcorn/scc0396.html

The Model Employment Termination Act: Goodbye to Employment at Will
by Perry R. Safran

Safran Law Offices, Raleigh, NC

Historically, employers have had the right to fire employees at will, absent a fixed contract term. "At will" means an employee can be fired for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all - as long as the reason is not discriminatory. (Federal and state statutes prohibit firing an employee due to religion, race, or gender.) The variety of rules and reliance on myths of what is right and wrong regarding the termination of employees created a demand for uniformity by employers and employees alike. The Uniform Law Commissioners (ULC) answered this demand with the Model Employment Termination Act (META). The ULC is a group of legal scholars who draft model legislation in an effort to maintain stability and uniformity in state law. These model acts can then be used "off the shelf" by state legislatures. Although META is just a model, 40 states are presently considering legislation in this area, and undoubtedly META will be considered as a guide. By reviewing META now, you can get a head start on understanding your state's potential new rules regarding termination of employment.

Who is covered by META? The ULC used broad language in META and attempted to cover most employment situations. However, employers with less than five employees are not covered, nor are independent contractors.

What is the basic rule? Employees cannot be terminated without good cause. "Good cause" includes reasons related to the employee's individual performance and reasons related to the employer's business judgment. For example, an employer can safely fire an employee for poor job performance. Also, an employer can legally terminate an employee due to a company reorganization. For example, if a company discontinues a service, those employees that are no longer needed may be terminated.

What is considered termination? Termination includes a dismissal, a layoff, the elimination of a position, and the employee quitting or retiring due to an act or omission by the employer which makes continued employment intolerable.

Can the employer and employee agree not to be covered by META? META may be waived through a written agreement signed by the employer and the employee. In order for the agreement to be enforceable, the employer must agree to provide some severance pay.

What is the proper procedure for terminating an employee? There are two procedures for termination of employees in META. First, employees can be fired without notice. Ten days after the termination, however, the employer must give a written statement as to the reasons for the termination. The other option is for the employer to file a complaint against the employee with the agency set up by the state to handle these matters, to see if there is good cause for termination. If the employer files a complaint, the employer must give the employee a written statement of its intent and the reasons it is seeking to terminate the employee at least 15 days before the filing.

What is the procedure for filing a complaint against an employer? The employee must file a complaint within 180 days of termination. The time for filing a complaint is suspended while the employee seeks the employer's internal remedies for termination. The filing deadline remains suspended until the employee receives written notice that internal procedures are complete. Once the complaint is filed, the state agency contacts the employer. The employer has 21 days to respond to the charges.

How is the dispute settled? Unless otherwise agreed, disputes are heard before an arbitrator. The state agency is responsible for adopting rules concerning the qualifications of arbitrators. Traditional court rules apply in the arbitration proceeding: The parties may seek discovery (gather evidence), parties may be represented by a lawyer, etc. The person who filed the action has the burden of proving whether the employer did or did not have good cause for the termination.

How else can the dispute be settled? The parties may agree to settle any disputes through private arbitration. Since META does not explain who pays for private arbitration, this should be covered at the time of the agreement. The parties can also agree to skip arbitration altogether and have the dispute settled in court.

What can be recovered? The employee's remedies for wrongful termination are limited to reinstatement and back or severance pay. Attorney's fees are available to employees who win and to employers if the employee filed a frivolous action.

Can the decision of the arbitrator be appealed? The decision of the arbitrator may be rejected and/or modified in court. The appealing party must file an appeal in court within 90 days of the decision by the arbitrator. The court will only change the decision of an arbitrator if the appealing party can show some misconduct by the arbitrator (exceeded powers, took a bribe, etc.).

What else does META require? The act requires that a copy of META be posted. Furthermore, META provides sanctions for employers who take retribution on employees who file complaints or testify at META hearings. If an employer takes retribution, the injured employee can file a civil action in court, where the employer is subject to punitive damages.

How can an employer guard against these claims? Here are some suggestions:

* Post the standards employees are required to meet. Note, however, that these standards will only be effective if they are consistently and non-discriminatorily enforced. These standards will put the employees on notice as to what you expect.

* Create a paper trail. Record incidents of employee misconduct, poor job performance, and coming late to work. Write down when an employee is reprimanded and for what reason.

* Prevent claims before they arise. Have open communication with employees about problems. An employee who feels cheated and abused is more likely to bring a claim than a satisfied worker.

META is essentially a compromise. Employees are guaranteed that they will only be terminated for good cause. On the other hand, employers are secure in the knowledge that employees' remedies are limited to reinstatement or severance pay. Similar statutes to META should be appearing in many states in the next few years, so keep a lookout: The rules as you know them may be changing.

Perry Safran is a licensed construction contractor and attorney with Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, NC. He sits on the boards of several industry associations and is a national panel
member of the American Arbitration Association. Doug McClanahan assisted in the preparation of this column.

[The Matrix]

The Model Employment Termination Act: Goodbye to Employment at Will
by Perry R. Safran

Safran Law Offices, Raleigh, NC

Historically, employers have had the right to fire employees at will, absent a fixed contract term. "At will" means an employee can be fired for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all - as long as the reason is not discriminatory. (Federal and state statutes prohibit firing an employee due to religion, race, or gender.) The variety of rules and reliance on myths of what is right and wrong regarding the termination of employees created a demand for uniformity by employers and employees alike. The Uniform Law Commissioners (ULC) answered this demand with the Model Employment Termination Act (META). The ULC is a group of legal scholars who draft model legislation in an effort to maintain stability and uniformity in state law. These model acts can then be used "off the shelf" by state legislatures. Although META is just a model, 40 states are presently considering legislation in this area, and undoubtedly META will be considered as a guide. By reviewing META now, you can get a head start on understanding your state's potential new rules regarding termination of employment....:blah: :blah: :blah: LVB, I'm not sure this is relevant. But, who cares? I'm not an attorney.

My feeling is: Litigation is time consuming and expensive. The outcome is not certain. Most firms have deep pockets or counsel on retainer. Most individuals do not. Some people take this chance. And, some win. But, the numbers are VERY tiny. It's like bringing a knife to do battle with an opponent who has nukes.

So, you say "I'm not going to litigate; I'm going to settle." What if you reach a settlement? It will likely be significantly less than "riches beyond your wildest imagination" -- enough maybe to pay your legal expenses and buy you some tissue.

Firms do what they want. One of our friends, a young woman, was called to come into the office while on maternity leave. When she got to the office, the HR person informed her that she was being terminated and not to come back to work. Sounds bad, hunh?

Multiple legal opinions: Yeah it's wrong/probably illegal. Get over it; it's not worth the time, emotion, or money.

[Force Majeure]

I won't tell my experience yet; I'm waiting until I actually accept an offer beforehand. ;-)OK guys & gals. I said I would tell you of my experience, so here it is, in somewhat condensed form (a few people have been combined into fewer people for the sake of simplicity, and names have been changed):

I'm working at ABC Consulting Firm, and my boss is "Carl". I submitted my resume to XYZ Insurance Company, where my boss would be "Lenny". In the interview process, I find out that Lenny and Carl used to work together at QRS Insurance Company, along with "Homer" and "Waylon", who are still at QRS, after all these years. QRS does bidniss with ABC very often, so my boss Carl and I have a working relationship with Homer and Waylon. Keep in mind also that here at ABC I also work with a woman named "Marge", who used to date Homer in the not too recent past (and is still friendly with him). (Can you see where this is going yet?)

Well, after my first interview with Lenny at XYZ, Lenny decides to tell Waylon, in the "strictest confidence", that he received a resume from someone at ABC who works for Carl. Waylon replies, "Oh, yeah. Homer and I got Force Majeure's resume recently too. He's a good guy, but underqualified for the position we have open." (They were hoping for an ASA+.)

Now, because both Waylon and Homer know in general about my job search, Waylon decided to tell Homer, "Hey, looks like Lenny got Force Majeure's resume too. Looks like it might be a good fit."

Well, a couple of days or weeks later, Waylon and Homer at QRS host this big shindig trip for the consultants here at ABC down at Vacation Spot Beach. (Again, can you see where this is going?) Among those invited are my boss, Carl, and co-worker Marge.

Well, after a few - ok, several - margaritas are had by all, Homer gets into a conversation with Marge and - because they are still friends (and drunk), says, "Hey, did you know Force Majeure is looking for a job? Yeah, we got his resume and Lenny over at XYZ got it too."

At that moment, my boss Carl walks up and says, "Hey, what're you two talking about?"

On a sitcom, this would be when everyone and everything within a ten-mile radius stops making noise right at the moment Marge says, "Oh, did you know Force Majeure is looking for a job?"

:shake:

End result: My review was conveniently timed shortly following this trip. ABC Consulting gave me a ridiculous raise, which I will have enjoyed for a total of 7 weeks. They also attempted to conjure up a guilt trip, but hey, we've had four years of each other, and my reasons for leaving are well-documented elsewhere on this board. (bland summary: It's not a terrible company, I just don't want to work here anymore.)

And I got the job at XYZ. :-D

[Cynic]

Congratulations! I'm glad it worked out, but it certainly was an awkward situation.

[Guest]

FM - that is pretty bad and I can't believe that they told you what happened and then your boss tried to manipulate the situation. Glad you got the raise and the new job though - and hope you used that raise to negotiate with the new job. :wink:

[RedSoxFan]

My feeling is: Litigation is time consuming and expensive. The outcome is not certain. Most firms have deep pockets or counsel on retainer. Most individuals do not. Some people take this chance. And, some win. But, the numbers are VERY tiny. It's like bringing a knife to do battle with an opponent who has nukes.

So, you say "I'm not going to litigate; I'm going to settle." What if you reach a settlement? It will likely be significantly less than "riches beyond your wildest imagination" -- enough maybe to pay your legal expenses and buy you some tissue.

Firms do what they want. One of our friends, a young woman, was called to come into the office while on maternity leave. When she got to the office, the HR person informed her that she was being terminated and not to come back to work. Sounds bad, hunh?

Multiple legal opinions: Yeah it's wrong/probably illegal. Get over it; it's not worth the time, emotion, or money.

Lawsuits can have more success than you think. Plus, some companies will settle all lawsuits of this type, regardless of how good a case the plaintiff has, because its not worth the bad press.

[Force Majeure]

FM - that is pretty bad and I can't believe that they told you what happened and then your boss tried to manipulate the situation. It wasn't really that bad. Just a couple of little comments from my other superiors (not "Carl"). I believe the comment at my review was, "We know you're looking, and if you decide do leave, we're going to make it very painful for you." <hands me a sticky with the ridiculous raise>

Oh, and I didn't tell you the weirdest part! On the weekend of the trip to Vacation Spot Beach, I had this awful dream that "Carl" called me into his office to tell me that he knew about my job search and that he was very disappointed. I told another one of my coworkers and she said, "Erm, I think your dream is about to come true." So that's how I found out about their finding out.

Oh, and "Carl" has a saying: "There are no secrets in this industry." Two responses: (1) It was a secret for about six months; (2) Yeah, well, there is also quite a bit of alcoholism (latent and otherwise) in this industry. One reason I'm glad to be getting back into a traditional job. Yes, alcoholism is everywhere, but at least my new job won't encourage it.Glad you got the raise and the new job though - and hope you used that raise to negotiate with the new job. :wink:Well, duh! :-) I actually told them about the raise before getting the initial offer, and the offer was comparable, so I had VERY little negotiating to do. Technically I'm taking a very slight decrease, but I was so well-paid after the raise that it was foolish to expect anything beyond that.

(I guess I'll have to rely on exam raises for the next few years - I may have priced myself out of merit increases...)

[Michel de Nostradamus]

Congrats, FM! :tup: