Welcome to The Fordyce Letter:

The Fordyce Letter

Straight Talk for the Recruiting Profession


Jeff’s On Call!

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Candidates Paying Back Fees



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Tim Burkhart:

Hello Jeff — really enjoy your industry input and availability via The Fordyce Letter. Always helpful.

I have been in the placement industry since 1984. Always on the perm staffing side of the business. Our company focus is in the accounting and finance area.

Quick question: a candidate of mine living in the city where I work has taken a job out of state via another recruiter. The candidate shows up for his first day of work and gets surprised with a ‘please sign this if you leave in the first year’ agreement. Basically, it states ‘if you leave our employ in the first year(12 months) you have to pay back the fee.’ That was never discussed by the recruiter (ever) or the client (ever) during the whole interview/offer /acceptance process. Is this legal or is he truly bound firmly to the agreement? He feels he signed this under duress for fearing his job offer would be rescinded.

Tim

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Wrongly Classified as “Adverse”



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Mary Anderson:

Jeff, I have been an avid reader of The Fordyce Letter and your “Jeff’s On Call!” column for over 10 years. Reading your column has helped me to avoid a number of pitfalls that you never think will happen to you. Your insight and legal knowledge has been very helpful in running my business. I’ve run into a situation that I don’t recall having been addressed in your column before, but I know you’ll have the answer.

I’ve had a signed contract and have made placements with a firm since 2006. I have not made any placements with them for the last few years due to the economy, ever-changing HR personnel and hiring managers, etc.  However, I have always stayed in touch with them throughout these years and sent them candidates for positions that never went anywhere.

A couple years ago, this firm was bought by another firm, but remains a separate entity in name.

About six months ago, I started working very closely with two new HR people and several hiring managers in different locations. I sent them resumes, they interviewed my candidates, etc. etc. During this process, I was informed by one of the HR contacts that the new company had implemented a new HR system that requires all recruiting vendors to use this system for applicant tracking and client management. I was emailed an RFI to complete and return. The RFI was made up of questions only related to my company’s ethics program. Did I have a formal ethics program? Did we do an ethics audit once a year? Did we regularly train our employees on ethics issues. etc. I am a sole proprietor and do not have a formal ethics program, so I had to answer each of these questions “no.” However I added an addendum stating how long I had worked with the company, the names of the employees I placed with them, the hiring managers I worked with closely, and offered additional references.

I received a call from my HR contact and was told that they could no longer work with me because I was determined to be “adverse.” I asked what that meant and the HR person told me she was only the messenger and did not have any further information. I asked for the name of the person in compliance that made this decision and she wouldn’t give it to me. I told her I had an existing contract and reminded her that the firm has continued to accept and interview candidates from me. I told her my reputation was on the line and that it was very important to me to be able to discuss this further. She said she’d do what she could and call me back. She did call me back and said she was told by compliance that even if I talked to them directly, I would get the same answer. This time the HR person used the words “background check.” Well at that point I could hardly talk because I know for a fact that I have a completely clean background whether it be credit, criminal, or otherwise. She also said that the contract I had with them originally was no longer valid because the new firm was using this new system. I proceeded to tell her that the very last statement on the original contract is in regards to Termination Notice, and it states that either party can cancel the contract with prior written notice. I informed HR that I never received written notice.

At that point the HR person asked me to fax her a copy of the original contract and she would send it over to the compliance department. I did that, but have not heard anything back.

Jeff, can a company do this without informing me as to the reason WHY I have been found to be adverse? Although I don’t want to lose this company as a client, I am more concerned about my reputation. I have strong relationships with hiring managers in this company and I don’t know what I’ll have to tell them when they are ready to hire again. This could really damage my reputation. Also, if I knew for a fact that this was based on the RFI responses, I would research to see if there was some kind of ethics program for a sole proprietor, just so I could fulfill their requirements.

Please Help!

Mary

Fees, Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Enforcing Old Fee Agreements



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Tarin Yankovich:

Hello Jeff,

First off, I have been a fan of you and the Fordyce articles you write for years, thank you for all your great advice! Your experience and wisdom have giving me the foresight on numerous occasions to avoid situations that would have otherwise cost my firm valuable business. Here is a recent question that came up; I thought you’d be the perfect person to shed some light on it for me and possibly your readers.

I run a search firm in Los Angeles and run a national practice within the Finance space. We work with many of the largest finance companies in the world. As most, our business goes in cycles with clients, meaning we’ll do many searches with a client one year and the next we won’t. As a result, sometimes a couple years go by during which time we won’t work with a client but still have contracts with them.

I have one particular client I worked with in 2007; we did many VP level searches for them and they were happy with our results. At the time I had several contacts at various levels within the organization in Chicago, Boston, and New York.  Since the 2009 recession and with a myriad of internal changes at the company literally all of my original contacts both in HR and management have moved on, their assistants have moved on, and even the President of the firm has moved on. Additionally, the firm changed their name a couple years ago using hyphenated name, and recently the firm has dropped the old name altogether and only uses the new one.

Here is my dilemma, I have continued to call on the firm and know who most of the new players are.  Recently I found an open door and am trying to rekindle this relationship with a new search assignment. I don’t want to lose momentum with a new contract if I don’t have to. I have a signed contract, my contract (not theirs), from several years ago, at a percentage I really like. I don’t want to haggle with a new HR person, renegotiate a good contract, and possibly lose the search or get a lower fee than I negotiated pre-recession. However I’m smart enough to see a couple possible issues. I have a contract, with no expiration date, which is signed by a signatory who is no longer there, under a name that the firm no longer uses. I do have some wording that says should the signatory leave his position the contract is still valid, but I fear I’m facing a few issues and want to make sure I’m covered. So, is my contract still valid?

Any guidance would be much appreciated.  Thank you Jeff!

Tarin

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: No Payment for Consultant Hires



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Floyd Prescott:

Jeff,

Over the years, I have learned much from viewing your column with bemused detachment, observing the predicaments “less savvy” recruiters have gotten themselves into through slipshod practices with unsavory clients. With 15 years of industry experience, I assumed I had seen everything and had the bases covered. Never had a client who refused to pay, until now. Your outstanding expertise is badly needed here and now.

My formerly best client of 13+ years with 60 some placements has hired a candidate I showed them as a consultant for about 6 months and has stated they don’t owe me any compensation for his services since no permanent placement occurred. I am working on finding a permanent replacement which I may or may not be able to do and they feel that fee, if earned again, should suffice for both. I have argued that would be two separate events to no avail. I have some suspicion that they are using this chump, who agreed to work at a monthly rate based on the full time base they originally offered him (half what he previously earned) before determining he could not sell his property and relo, and then plan to discard him when the project is done and declare the search over, owing me nothing. They are paying for his weekly travel and he seems happy with the arrangement so far. Both parties have talked about making him permanent but the relo situation does not seem resolvable in this real estate market. The client has said they will (conveniently?) not consider a long-term commuting scenario.

I do not have a current signed agreement and have operated on a handshake since 2000. I do have a signed agreement from 1998 when I was with another firm that says any employment results in a fee (which has always been my understanding going forward from there). I know I have been an idiot but they have always had searches that I work on contingency and they have always paid my 30 percent fee. I did not anticipate this situation arising.

There is other money on the table here that would be resolved in a few months. Client has shown some marginal behavior in the past but has overall been reasonable. They are highly respected in the community. I would consider declaring “Broken Arrow” and calling in artillery and air strikes on my position if it makes sense and forgo future business as I have a hard time giving them a pass on this.

You advice greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Floyd

Fees, Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Candidate Fee Reimbursements



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Neil Arden:

Hi Jeff-

Enjoy your column!

Thank you for providing you services to the staffing community through the Jeff’s on Call column. I look for your columns and articles in The Fordyce Letter every month and would recommend everyone in recruiting profession to do as well. They too will see how your responses and tips are insightful and helpful when needing advice for different situations.

A candidate we want to hire has an agreement with a recruiter who placed him at a bank as a mortgage banker. It is a 100% commission job but receives benefits. He has been there for 3 months and has not had any luck closing loans. The deals he has brought to the table for the bank have either fallen through or been put on hold because of the overlays/underwritings of the bank. With some of the new regulations arising from the Dodd-Frank bill, he doesn’t see the light at end of tunnel with this company. He feels it is best to look around, but when he approached his recruiter who placed him at his current position (in good faith), the recruiter told him he will have to reimburse him the $10,000 placement fee he received from the bank.

My question is regarding a non-salaried/exempt employee; is a candidate liable to reimburse the placement fee to the recruiter, if the candidate wants to resign from his company within the guarantee stated by recruiter, if he is not earning enough income to provide for his family?

Is this agreement enforceable in court, when an employee cannot survive financially nor provide for his family?

Thank you!

Neil

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Converting From Contingency to Retained Search



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Brigitte Welters:

Dear Jeff,

First of all, I really appreciate your advice and expertise concerning placement very much. I hope you can advice me on following subject matter:

A short introduction:  I manage a headhunting agency which is specialized in placement of professionals. This company is based in the Netherlands and we place mid-level to high-level professionals in the legal and financial field in the Netherlands. We work mainly for international firms. These clients are very appealing to our candidates since they offer interesting career opportunities and development for them.
Our clients set very high standards; multiple in-depth interviews and tough assessments are the rule. Working in this field of placement is very interesting and challenging; not one day is the same.

We now work for the largest part on contingency basis. Yes our clients are happy with our services, however, we now want to work for the largest part on retained fee basis. The reason we want to convert is that contingency poses many risks for us.

My question is how to convert contingency-based services to a retained fee business?

Thanks so much for your advice,

Kind regards,

Brigitte

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Background/Reference Checks



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Christine Hoffman-Hicks:

Hi Jeff,

I am a regular subscriber and reader of your insightful and informative column.  My question pertains to background checks for permanent (direct hire) placements: If our client is performing a background check on our candidate, should we still run of our own as well or is our firm protected from liability if something were to happen with this candidate down the road?  Our practice has been to always perform a background check if our client does not, but if they do we’ve deemed that acceptable. I can’t help but wonder if something were to happen, could we be held liable?

Thank you!

Christine

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Relocation Reimbursements



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Marc Stevens:

Hi Jeff,

I’ve been recruiting now for about 11 years and as you would imagine, I’ve seen a lot of different things happen in this sometimes crazy but very rewarding business. I’ve attended the Fordyce meetings and really have benefited from your presence there. In your articles, you always share unique solutions we can’t get anywhere else…thanks!

Recently, I’ve been exposed to a situation that one of my candidates is facing and because of it seems a bit unfair, I wanted to share it with you to see what ideas or thoughts you have.

I have a candidate who has accepted an offer from our client and learned on his exit interview from his current company they wanted him to reimburse ½ of his relocation costs. Apparently the agreement is that 100% of the relocation costs are refundable to the company if the candidate leaves in the first year and 50% if within the second year. To me this seems a bit harsh — think of it this way:

Let’s say the candidate left on the 23rd month, well technically the company is looking for 50% of the relocation costs reimbursed? Huh?! I know I’m going to be biased about this but I can’t see why the company wouldn’t be amenable to at least working out a prorated schedule, which brings me to my question.

Is this typically something a company will enforce? Have you found that they would be willing to work something out, i.e. prorated schedule &/or does the candidate need to get an attorney involved?

Thanks,

Marc

Jeff's On Call!

Jeff’s On Call!: Employer PSA Limitations



law_gavel

This week’s inquiry comes from Michael Evdemon II:

Jeff,

I am a veteran recruiter for 2 ½ decades in the insurance industry. During that time, I’ve benefited tremendously from your writing, legal knowledge, and improvement of our profession.

My concern is that many of the employer PSA’s (placement service agreements) mandate that the search is only for the specific position. This cuts our effectiveness and ability to make additional placements by at least half — before we even pick up the phone or send an email.

It also undercuts what a professional search firm should be doing for a client. The recruiter is prevented from presenting highly-qualified candidates that have been determined to be an asset to the client. Why would a quality search firm be denied to inform an organization like that?

From your writing, it seems this is legal as long as the exclusion is job-related. But what can we do about it?

Thanks for your anticipated reply!

Sincerely,

Michael

Business, Jeff's On Call!

Coming in August: Why High Billers Are “Why” Billers



moneypeople

What’s the secret to being a “high biller?”

Is it using a formula? Making a certain number of sendouts? Perhaps using just the right script? The right niche? Or just luck?

Then again, is it something else that drives certain recruiters to sky-high billings?

It must be! Look at any champion. Any superstar. Any winner at anything! Are they stronger, better looking, more articulate than millions of others? In fact many are weaker, uglier, and don’t speak as well. Were they just lucky? Always, until you know their story. Let’s say it’s hard work. No, that’s not it – manual laborers aren’t high billers.