Which is particularly relevant at consultancies where the product is a service.
If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy?
All of these contracts are time limited, FWIW. E.g. non-solicitation doesn't mean you can never work your your colleagues again. It protects against someone leaving and then immediately poaching all employees within 12 months. After 12 months you're welcome to poach as much as you'd like.
Edit: Furthermore, non-solicits don't ban your colleagues from quitting with you, as long as you're not directly asking them to quit. If they make the decision independently without being lobbied by a former employee, it's not in violation of non-solicit.
Yes. It's called free market competition and it's great for the society and economy. NYC bankers should be first in line to understand that.
If your company didn't pay you enough to keep you, nor did provide good environment ans support? absolutely yes.
It's true that multiple people can quit at the same time, but non-solicitation clauses significantly impedes the process otherwise companies wouldn't bother to write the them. If you have worked for a shitty company, what delays quitting? Often team loyalty is a big part of that. I think it would massively speed up the decomposition of bad workplaces if entire teams could move in one go. It would be highly efficient for the acquiring company as they get a complete team that already works together, for only slightly more effort than hiring a single employee. It would also be huge disincentive to tolerating bad managers.
The way you solicit clients from a prior company is downloading the client list, exporting to a personal drive, quitting, then using the list to poach.
I’m fine if that’s your intention, but let your employer know upfront that you won’t protect confidential company data.
I am not.
> The way you solicit clients from a prior company is downloading the client list, exporting to a personal drive, quitting, then using the list to poach.
Which part of this is "IP"?
The whole concept of "stealing IP" is something that was lobbied in to prevent market competition and establish monopolies. Calling a list of clients that might choose to vote with their wallets for better service "IP" is one of the most ridiculous claims I've seen here lately and pretty much proof of how this term has become a problem for modern free market society.
While IP protection itself is critical for some innovation, the way you all wield it to defend monopolization and entrenchment is a main reason to rethink what IP and protection actually gives to american economy.
For me that doesn't change anything. You should be allowed to tell your customer to come with you to a new business, the next day.
Companies know perfectly well that most of that value of the relationship is gone if you have to wait a year, so they pretend that time limiting is somehow reasonable.
The free market actually needs to be free.
If you steal the rolodex, it's questionable for sure.
If you leverage your network and reputation, that's something that free market should never limit.
And no, taking a client list with you is not how this works in consulting. You take the client you currently work for and have a relationship with and offer them a better deal to work with you independently. After that you’re on your own to solicit and win new clients.
If I'm a waiter in a restaurant there should be nothing to stop me telling the customers that I'm going to a better restaurant and they should come and try it. Will the boss be annoyed? Yes. Should he be allowed to stop me? No.
In the real world there is no salesman who thinks of the clients as belonging to the company. They all know that sales relationships are personal. The contracts may say one thing, but the reality is different. The law ought to be to allow free association. Customers lose out when they are not offered better deals.
If those clients are willing to jump ship that fast, then yes. Realistically, that won't happen without a good justification.
I've been part of 5x consultancies in my career now, so this is a very heated debate.
- First, if you "steal" a client roster, then this is very clearly a trade secret and sits under different terms ("IP")
- Second, if I can do the same job (e.g. that don't require access to trade secrets) then why do I need the consultancy's benefit anyway? If the consultancy's brand/operations don't provide enough value to its clients already then maybe they (the consultancy) are doing something wrong. It's a consultancy's job to create value for its clients, consultants and it's partners, otherwise it's just a body shop.
- Third, "is it really OK?" by whose definition? Are you saying ethically?
> If they make the decision independently without being lobbied by a former employee, it's not in violation of non-solicit.
Why does it matter whether the employee is lobbied or not? The employee ultimately has free will.
If we believe that the free movement of jobs is a net benefit (both in terms of wage normalization and societal innovation) then aren't those things we would want as a society?
Seems fine to me. If the only value the "company" brings to the table is a client list, maybe they should just be in the business of selling leads.
This is categorically untrue – if some past employer told you that, you might want to ask what their motives for lying to you were. Your knowledge of who you worked for is not corporate IP.
The actual legal standards vary from state to state but in some states it come down to three things: does that list have economic value on its own, would it be hard to recreate, and does the company make an effort to keep it secret? That probably won’t apply to your personal memory of who you worked for since that's highly unlikely to be an independently valuable resource - typically that would be a big list of non-public information like people who signed up to preorder a product, people with a certain need or interest, etc. – and it definitely wouldn’t include anything listed on their website, press releases, or someone’s C.V. If you dump the CRM on the way out, yes, you might be in trouble but there’s no legal standard expecting you to be mind-wiped on the way out.
I should have said conditional customer data. (Client lists, phone numbers, email addresses - basically whatever you can export out of Salesforce)
In order to poach your old company’s customers, you’ll need confidential data from your prior employer, assuming that your employer doesn’t publish their client roster publicly.
The debate is being dragged from poaching customers to how IP protections enable monopolies. That’s too big of a leap to be relevant in this thread (sorry for saying IP rather than confidential data)
If the clients prefer to leave with the then 2 month-old employee, then the consultancy is doing something very wrong.
If your company can only exist by blocking other companies from competition with your customer, then your company should not exist in first place.
Without a non-compete and without a strong IP clause, a handful of employees could very easily steal the IP and steal the client list, start a new company, offer the same product for half the price, and convince the 5 clients to come over to the new “half price” company. Putting the original company out of business. The new company employees are excited because they stuck it to the man by burying their prior employer. Fast forward 2 years, and the same stunt is pulled against the new company, and the cycle continues.
What happened was the stealing of IP and customers that cost $20m to acquire, but because you stole it you didnt have to pay that $20m in R&D and can offer the price for half off to get clients (whose contact and details have been stolen from the prior employer) to follow you to the next company.
Assuming you think this scenario is ethically wrong (maybe you don’t?), can you explain the type of contract the original company should have with their employees to disincentivize this scenario? If everything is left unchecked, there’s huge incentive and easy pathway to screw over employers for short-term gain.
Hell, if we take it to the extreme and get rid of NDAs, what’s stopping a random call center employee from selling a company’s client roster to the highest bidder?
Free market, yes. Unquestionably free market with no regulation, not going to work.
How would it be “the same product” without taking actual IP like source code or trade secrets for manufacturing? No company where the value is solely in a particular concept is going to last very long because a competitor can do the same thing. If you’ve discovered some novel physical process, chemical compound, or created a useful gene sequence, it’s unlikely that you could remember everything but what you want are patents.
On HN we’re talking about tech employees who make 5-10x the median US salary.
We can have stricter rules and stricter contracts for the 5% top paid employees. Obviously a waitress shouldn’t be sued for talking about another restaurant with a customer.
Also, it’s a 100% fact that companies consider client rosters confidential. It’s fun to say no one can claim my name or phone number as confidential data… but that’s not how things work.
It is how things work legally. What you are confusing is the distinction between individual bits of information and a database: if a salesperson leaves and calls their old client, nobody reasonably expects them to forget about that relationship or be unable to look up a phone number.
If there’s an entire lead database, that might be a different story if it includes non-public data and the company can show that it’s treated as a valuable asset (limited access, confidentiality agreements, etc. ). If it’s something you could recreate with a few Google searches, you’ll have a hard time convincing a judge that there’s substantial value in its secrecy.
I agree with what you’re saying, but non-competes are an example of free market not a counterexample. The employer is willing to give you x amount of compensation in return for your labor and for an agreement not to compete for some period of time when employment ends.
If a waitress shouldn't be sued, why should a dev or a PM? We should all be equal under the law, there shouldn't be a "oh well you make enough money" clause. If anything, freeing high-productivity workers is the bigger win for society, far outweighing the benefit from better restaurants.
Yes, of course. Neither the employees nor the clients are the property of the consultancy. Maybe next time they provide a better service so employees and/or customers don't see a reason to go to a competitor.
The solution to this is to compensate people so that they don't take the chance and leave. "I'm already making X here, why would I want to risk that?". This naturally distributes wealth a bit more evenly between the workers and the owners.
You also need to think about your scenario. If the employees are able to make the same thing at half the price to the customer, that is a HUGE gain for the customer. If another breakout crew does the same, that's half the gain again. The customer wins, but it can't go on forever, at some point it's not worth the breakout risk.
>>Assuming you think this scenario is ethically wrong (maybe you don’t?), can you explain the type of contract the original company should have with their employees to disincentivize this scenario? If everything is left unchecked, there’s huge incentive and easy pathway to screw over employers for short-term gain
"You can't use our IP if you leave, feel free to go to the clients and offer them your own product".
In an ideal world, employees would also share in the losses when companies aren’t profitable (forgo a paycheck).
…everyone wants the first scenario, but absolutely not the 2nd! When will people realize that one of the value props of working for a company (as opposed to starting your own) is you’re guaranteed a stable income regardless of whether profits are going up or down.
(You can say it’s not guaranteed because you can be fired. Fair. But the point still stands, it’s nice to have a stable paycheck that doesn’t wildly fluctuate up and down)
Here is how I see it working out:
Lets say that Foosoft is a rapidly expanding unicorn, and Microgle is a cash cow which is going nowhere, and the employees are being squeezed by bad managers brought in by private equity. Foosoft is wants to expand rapidly to take advantage of their huge opportunity, so the are setting up entire new teams. Right now, they have to do so at a cost of X per employee, so ~6X per team, which includes the cost of recruiter fees, time of interviewers, team-setup time, and the initial inefficiency as the team learns to work together. X is going to be a substantial fraction of 1 year salary. The cost is going to be pretty similar if a team migrates using the whisper route, as they won't all migrate across, the interview process is the same, there will be some new members, etc. X might be a bit smaller as you will have probably have fewer interviews as you found it easier to source candidates once your first hire made it in. But the your first hire might not have been from the team wanting to move.
Now instead suppose that the team from Microgle listed themselves on PoachMyTeam.com. Foosoft only has to check that the team is a good fit (it's a backend team, say, with capabilities they want). Then they interview the team lead and do group interviews of the team as a whole. Probably your interview process is 2X rather than 6X - you don't need to repeat everything for each candidate, because they already trust each other. Fundamentally, you don't need to check the capabilities of each employee individually, just the capabilities of the team. Also, X will be smaller because there will be less team setup, etc. So, a cost reduction of more than 3, at a guess. That degree of change is likely to change the employment market as a whole, at least in those areas where teams moving is likely to be practical.
But today, Microgle would sue PoachMyTeam.com for tortious interference. So PoachMyTeam.com cannot exist under current law. This is an economic friction caused by (private) regulation of the market.
As regards non-solicitation being mostly about clients, my most recent employment contract had a separate clause against employee solicitation as well as client solicitation.