Why give someone a raise and annoy them at the same time?

February 20, 2008 5:21 AM

Why give someone a raise and annoy them simultaneously?

I landed a great new job with a very significant pay bump. Whoopee!

There was a slight question about whether my non-compete agreement would cause problems: the new company's customer base overlaps ours a little, but they are not a competitor.

So, I handed in my notice on Friday, and raise the issue of the non-compete in a polite conversation. My current CEO counter-offers strongly - enough to make me wait until after the weekend to think about it. But, over the weekend, I decided to turn down the counter-offer, since money wasn't the only concern.

So, this morning, I am about to go to my current CEO and decline the counter-offer, when the new company CEO calls me to say that my current company has threatened a mutual customer, telling them they won't work with new company on the customer's project unless new company agrees to a non-hire agreement with current company. No direct communication was received by new company from old company. Customer is pissed and escalates as expected to new company, who now say essentially they can't hire me under these circumstances, and tell me not to resign yet.

So, I was fully expecting my current CEO to not follow through on the counter-offer, since he's achieving his goals through non-financial means. But surprise, surprise, he follows through.

I am left with a significant raise, redefinition of my job role in my favor, and the resolution of several other issues, but am sorely annoyed that my current CEO would deliberately resort to strong-arming in addition. (Funnily enough, I could understand it if he had used it to avoid a counter-offer. It would just be a business tactic. But to use both a counter-offer and simultaneously annoy me just seems crazy.)

It seems to me just a matter of time before I will want to quit regardless of the new company I end up going to, but need to prepare to side-step such insanity.

How would you proceed? What recourse might I have regarding current employers behavior? Bear in mind that "go and find another job" is quite difficult because most of the ten or so companies I could work for with this kind of remuneration are out of bounds due to my non-compete.

I am aware you are not my lawyer, etc. and I will be speaking to someone next week (they are on vacation this week), but usually find it necessary to suggest ideas to the lawyers to explore...

posted by anonymous to work & money (10 comments total)

Your bosses motivation is just to prevent you from leaving. He's not focused on the problem of it annoying you and the promotion pleasing you and the cognitive dissonance that results. In fact, he probably doesn't expect that you know about the other thing. He didn't know if it would work and he didn't know you would find out.

I suspect that you may have a claim of tortious contract interference but there are several subleties that will depend on the facts in your situation and the specific state laws were you are located (assuming you are in the US). I would suggest that you are careful to consult an attorney who specializes in employment law, because there are some pretty specific issues that only those who concentrate in that area can be trusted to address, in my opinion. www.nela.org is a good reference to locate one.
posted by Lame_username at 5:38 AM on February 20

Yeah, it sounds like your boss is just trying to protect his company's interests with the no-hire thingy, which is totally fair and reasonable. Play it cool.
posted by 1 at 5:50 AM on February 20

As wierd as this sounds, that fact that your CEO used belt and braces tactics to keep you (offering you a raise/job redefinition as well as strong-arming the other company) indicates that you're considered very valuable to your current employer. Like Lame_username says, he likely doesn't realize you know about the strong-arming.

Bear in mind that there might be other factors in this situation that you're not aware of. Perhaps the CEO has lost a couple of people recently to competitors, and used your resignation as the opportunity to stem the tide. Only the CEO will know for sure. Yes, his behaviour seems bizarre, but bosses sometimes behave in wierd ways because they're privy to information the employees don't have.

I'm not sure what to suggest in terms of your current situation, but when the time comes to quit somewhere down the road, remember the lesson you've learned this time! Boss-man has shown that he's willing to do some strange things to prevent you from leaving. Don't give your boss the time or the information to roadblock you like this, if quitting is indeed what you want to do.
posted by LN at 6:05 AM on February 20

time to get out. A company with a loose cannon for a CEO is headed for the tank anyway. Threatening customers over competitor's hiring practices is bad form, especially if you don't directly compete. Look for a better job elsewhere.
posted by jenkinsEar at 6:32 AM on February 20

Don't tell your current job where you are going when you resign :)
posted by jon4009 at 6:54 AM on February 20

"I was fully expecting my current CEO to not follow through on the counter-offer"

As someone who spent some time in corporate management, I can tell you this: I was taught not to make verbal offers about salary because once an offer was on the table, even if only verbally, the company was pretty much obligated to follow through on them. It's pretty likely you were given the raise because not doing so would open the company to liability.

You hadn't declined the offer, therefore it was still valid regardless of what other peripherally-related activities the CEO engaged in.

"most of the ten or so companies I could work for with this kind of remuneration are out of bounds due to my non-compete."

I don't know where you live. Here in California where I live, non-compete agreements are illegal and unenforceable.
posted by majick at 6:58 AM on February 20

They will fire you when the timing is more beneficial to them. You gave your notice, your loyalty will always be in question now. It is not uncommon for a company to counter offer to keep you and fire you 2-3 months down the road when they have had time to find a good replacement for you. Keep looking, don't think it's all kosher at that home company because chances are they are only keeping you there for now until they can replace you. I would not trust such a cut-throat boss who did that with a customer, either.
posted by 45moore45 at 7:12 AM on February 20

You did these things in the wrong order. You figure out what your noncompete says first, by discussing it with an independent lawyer, not with your employer. Then you get an offer in writing from a company that intends to hire you. Then you hand in written notice.

Because you did things in the wrong order, your situation now is politically terrible. I agree with 45moore that you need to keep looking for a new job, because you're going to need a new job pretty soon.
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:32 AM on February 20 [2 favorites]

I don't know where you live. Here in California where I live, non-compete agreements are illegal and unenforceable.

IANAL, but non-competes have been thrown out in court time and time again. It's pretty rare that they hold up in court. I realize this doesn't change the fact that the new CEO rolled so easily.
posted by mkultra at 7:33 AM on February 20

This only addresses the second part of your question, but...

You mentioned that money wasn't the only issue, and yet you got a significant raise. If you didn't need the raise badly, you might want to consider saving the difference between your new salary and your old one. Then, should circumstances require you to quit in the future, you'll have some money set aside should you need to be unemployed or take a lower paying job in the meantime. I assume your non-compete agreement has a limited duration of maybe 1 year or so after you leave? Set some money aside and, if the need arises, you'll be able to wait it out.
posted by Vorteks at 1:29 PM on February 20