Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Businesses United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Executive 'Forced Out of Job' For Posting CV Online 219

Posted by timothy
from the hr-dept-on-patrol dept.
First time accepted submitter sweetpea86 writes "An executive who uploaded his CV to LinkedIn was forced to quit his job because he ticked a box stating he was interested in 'career opportunities'. John Flexman is demanding hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation from his former employer, gas exploration firm BG Group, where he earned £68,000 pounds a year as a Graduate and Development Manager. He is thought to be the first person in the UK to bring a case for constructive dismissal. The case highlights a grey area around employees' use of social networks such as LinkedIn. According to Kate Hodgkiss, Partner at law firm DLA Piper, employers have every right to seek to protect confidential company information by restricting LinkedIn and other profiles, but cannot prevent employees from looking for a new job. The news echoes a report in December that a Californian Twitter user was being sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs. PhoneDog launched legal proceedings against Noah Kravitz, seeking damages of $2.50 a month per follower for eight months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Executive 'Forced Out of Job' For Posting CV Online

Comments Filter:
  • Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alphatel (1450715) * on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:25PM (#38599910)
    If employers can post openings for your position on job sites, you can certainly check a box indicating general interest in careers-at-large.
    • Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tysonedwards (969693) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:31PM (#38600020)
      I can be "interested" in something like Career Opportunities without having a dissatisfaction with my current job, or a desire to leave.

      Frankly, I find a lot of things interesting.
      The idea that such an interest could get me fired is very disconcerting.
      • Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mvar (1386987) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:44PM (#38600178)
        You can be interested in career opportunities like for example as a consultant or part time partner..Who the fuck are they to say what you can and can't do in your spare time anyway? There's either a very misleading article summary here or a very very stupid employer. If its the latter, then what's up next? 24/7/365 surveillance of their employees? I hope he wins this case.
        • Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gorzek (647352) <gorzek&gmail,com> on Thursday January 05, 2012 @04:10PM (#38601722) Homepage Journal

          Many salaried positions actually forbid you from engaging in other work without the company's permission. The idea is that if you are being paid salary, you are on the clock 24/7, so technically you shouldn't be working for anyone else.

          (My employer has no such policy, fortunately. But my previous one did.)

          • Re:Over-reaching (Score:4, Informative)

            by Zibodiz (2160038) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @06:39PM (#38604104)
            I got fired from Office Depot because I had a second job. They required that all second jobs be approved -- not just by the corporation, but by the store manager. I got fired because my manager quit, and the new manager didn't approve of my second job, even though the last two had. My role was hourly, and I worked as the manager in the Print Center. My second job was in-home computer repair. I still fail to see how those are a conflict of interest.
            • by gorzek (647352)

              Wow, that's pretty crappy. I'm not sure that's even legal when you're an hourly employee--the company doesn't "own" you on your off hours, so how can they give you grief for having another job (or three)?

              • Wow, that's pretty crappy. I'm not sure that's even legal when you're an hourly employee--the company doesn't "own" you on your off hours, so how can they give you grief for having another job (or three)?

                Of course they don't "own" you -- but they also don't "owe" you a job. Odds are that the new manager was either (a) trying to show he was in charge, in which case GP was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or (b) the new manager wanted to hire his girlfriend's son for the position and this was the excuse for making the opening.

        • by Synerg1y (2169962)

          Lol, ever read that one article about IT consulting sites monitoring employees via the webcam?

          Ever meet a CEO dude? Your typical one is an arrogant, selfish, willing to jump over anybody kind of bastard. One thing I'm thankful for after working w a few is there's BIGGER things in life than money, and these people only care about that one small thing.

          There is no limit to what they would do as long as they can legally get away w it, ethics are secondary to money in the ceo archetype.

          The article's case sound

      • by prakslash (681585) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:54PM (#38600362)
        To play devil's advocate, the employer could claim that the very fact that an important executive was looking to leave could give the impression to outsiders that something bad was going on in the company and that could result in a loss to their business. Perhaps his interest in leaving this company turned away some of the customers or investors or lowered other employees' morale.

        Remember when Steve Jobs was doing nothing more than going on a medical leave, it adversely affected Apple's stock price. Of course the company is this case would have to PROVE that suffered or stood to suffer a loss.
        • by tysonedwards (969693) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:03PM (#38600510)
          Except the BG Group's stock price has actually continued an upward trend since before Mr. Flexman was "forced to quit", and has actually risen by $100 / share in the past 5 days.

          Yahoo Finance - BG Group [yahoo.com]

          Seems as though they would have a hard time proving that Mr. Flexman leaving has negatively impacted them. Sure there are additional considerations, including the obvious Streisand effect that could have led to this change, but it is obvious that they did not see a mass exodus or a decrease on brand confidence with their investors.
          • by Dishevel (1105119)

            Of course this makes it easier for them to state that having him there was a detriment to their company. :)

        • That would only have merit if there is any way they could prove that people that tick that box on twitter statistically are actually more interested in leaving their company than people that don't tick it. Also, even if they would be interested, would they actually leave? Until they come up with statistics that actually prove that sort of correlation, there is no way to prove that him ticking that box would in any form or way damage his employer.
        • I'll go you a step further. He may have done this via a company computer, thus violating the company's AUP.

          I think it's stupid, too, but that's the devil's advocate position.

        • by LifesABeach (234436) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:09PM (#38600622)
          First off, when an rank and file employee doesn't show up for work, investors don't care. When Founders, and Chief of-what-ever's don't show up for work, the rules change. Investors vote by shorting their stock. It causes the "wealth cream-skimmer types" to take notice; examples are Boards of Directors, and CEO's along with their attentive minions.

          I don't know that much about UK Employment Law, but I'm on the receiving end of US Employment Law. Given that Noah Kravitz has a fairly competent lawyer, PhoneDog will get to pay for this waste of the Courts time. This is just harassment of an ex-employee by a corporation that has to pay for some large egos that are clueless about increasing revenues.
          • by mjwalshe (1680392)
            I suspect that phonedogs senior management may not have realized the difference in both legal and employment culture in the USA.
          • I don't know that much about UK Employment Law, but I'm on the receiving end of US Employment Law.

            This is an area where there is substantial difference. The UK's rules are very much not "at will"; a dismissal that doesn't follow exactly the stated procedures for the company (which are constrained by law and have to be set out in writing ahead of time) will open up the way to an unfair dismissal claim (which is typically processed by tribunal in the UK, rather than normal courts). Would the claim be successful in this case? I've no idea at all, but UK companies don't dismiss without being very careful about it (unless the company's in Administration, the approximate equivalent of Chapter 11).

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward

              This claim should be successful. Normally in the UK dismissal requires a verbal warning, written warning, then your notice with time to correct the situation between. Skipping any of these steps requires "gross misconduct". Knowingly skipping safety rules that could lead to someone getting injured is gross misconduct, floating your CV on the net isn't. The appropriate guidelines are here [direct.gov.uk], and there's even a page about constructive dismissal (this wouldn't be the first case, it's probably the first involving

              • Except this is a *constructive* dismissal case - where you are forced to resign as your position has been made untenable, in otherwords the company has constructed it to effectively dismiss you

                More difficult to prove, but if the details presented (that 21 other people, including the manager in charge of the disciplinary process, had also ticked the box, and there were no confidential details) are true, the guy shouldnt have a problem.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:24PM (#38600896)

          In a company like BG on £68k/annum he's not an important executive. Having worked for them for several years (but not since 2002) I know from the pay/job title that he's upper middle management. Also when it comes to customers then BG isn't a typical corporation. They have a monopoly on the UK's gas/electric infrastructure although they do also work with other firms in projects for things like natural gas exploration. I'd be amazed if this isn't about managment cliques, he wasn't popular with one, they went digging for dirt, they found his profile, and they've tried to use that to shaft him. With any luck it's about to backfire quite spectacularly.

          • by mjwalshe (1680392)
            yess from my back ground in BT I can imagine the unreconstructed nature of their senior management - "Hairy arsed engineers" who think that HR is for girls and pooftas.

            I think they are going to lose as its custom and practice to use linked in for networking and putting your CV on linked in is part of that process nowadays. And as he was a recruiter he could argue that that tick box was for people to contact him who might want to work for BG.

            Will have to look out for that one on xperthr at work.
        • You know there is more to life than only the employers point of view.

          Employment is a 2-way street for both parties. Good employees bend over backwards for their employers and realize that their own needs do not matter to the employer and that its needs need to be addressed. Likewise a good employer realized employees have lives outside of work and that good talent needs a reason to stay loyal and will treat him/her with respect.

          When one party only cares for itself that is when you have problems. Employers g

        • by Artraze (600366)

          The problem with that argument is that he isn't being paid 'vital for the company' money. According to http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/ [itjobswatch.co.uk], that salary is about average for "Architect" / "Senior Developer" positions. The key being average. If this guy is so vital to the company, either in an executive or technical capacity, they need to be paying a _lot_ more. For example, the top 10% of "[Java] Architect" makes over £95,000/yr.

          So I have a very hard time believing that he was some vital member of the co

          • by mjwalshe (1680392)
            Hes a HR bunny and a recruiter at that, HR 100k jobs are very rare unless your a very senior HR/IR guy in very big (FTSE 100) companies.
        • by sootman (158191)

          > To play devil's advocate, the employer could claim that the very
          > fact that an important executive was looking to leave could give
          > the impression to outsiders that something bad was going on in
          > the company and that could result in a loss to their business.

          There's an old saying that everything is for sale. I am not trying to sell my house, but if someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $1,000,000 for it, the next words out of my mouth would be "Great! I'll tell my wife we're movi

        • Important executive? The guy was earning 68k as a graduate.

      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        Actually mine was checked but it was a hold over from before I had my current job. I don't know if it was on by default or not, but I definitely forgot to turn it off. Eventually I did after a week of getting recruiter calls and emails.

    • Re:Over-reaching (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tyr07 (2300912) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:33PM (#38600038)

      Yeah I agree. Why is it okay for employers to post a job listing, when they know they're going to remove you from your position, and yet it's not okay the other way around? Foul play.

      You should be able to quit on the spot with whatever termination package you were entitled to in the first place or lay off status.

      • by BitterOak (537666)

        Yeah I agree. Why is it okay for employers to post a job listing, when they know they're going to remove you from your position, and yet it's not okay the other way around? Foul play.

        You should be able to quit on the spot with whatever termination package you were entitled to in the first place or lay off status.

        But that's not the question to ask. The question to ask is, if your employer posts a job listing for your job, are you allowed to quit? Unless your under a contract, the answer is yes. So, why should employees be allowed to terminate the relationship when employers post their job, but employers aren't allowed to terminate the relationship when an employee posts a resume?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      CVs are not Resumes. They're far more detailed in the UK. Unless we know what his CV contained, we can't tell whether there was something considered confidential by the company. If he mentioned projects he'd worked on, where and what date, which is the kind of level a CV will contain, he could inadvertently be giving out information rival companies would love to have.

      Using a recruitment agency would strip out certain items before forwarding on CVs.

      Gas exploration sounds like he may have made a boo-boo, if h

      • by hedwards (940851)

        Generally executives in the US are "made to quit." They aren't literally forced to quit, but it is made clear to them that they will be fired if they don't and that their golden parachute would only be there if they "quit."

        As for the matter at hand, is the UK not at will employment typically? Around here they can fire employees for any reason or no reason provided that the reason isn't included on the short list of reasons that an employer isn't allowed to use. Posting a resume of that sort definitely would

        • by jeremyp (130771)

          As for the matter at hand, is the UK not at will employment typically?

          No.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          As for the matter at hand, is the UK not at will employment typically? Around here they can fire employees for any reason or no reason provided that the reason isn't included on the short list of reasons that an employer isn't allowed to use. Posting a resume of that sort definitely wouldn't be prohibited in the US.

          This is the UK, but I have a hard time believing that it's that much different in this case than it is here.

          No the UK is not 'at will' - in fact it is illegal, and will result in a significant payment if challenged at tribunal, if an employee is fired without a substantial reason. Firing someone usually requires a series of disciplinary actions, starting with verbal warnings, at least 1 written warning and a meeting with an HR rep to mediate the problem (the last one isn't required as not all places have an HR dept obviously - but it is considered to be a show of goodwill come tribunal time).

          In the case of being

        • by mjwalshe (1680392)
          Actually the UK isn't a right to work (a dubious legal fiction in my view) how ever you can be let go in your first year of probation (the Condems are trying to put this back to 2 years)

          In practice the employer holds all the cards and there are tactics to force people out Poor performance and so on.
      • by mjwalshe (1680392)
        never heard of constructive dismissal have we ? and companies do illegal stuff though cock up and malice regularly - I have only just finally sorted out my tax from my previous employers going bust not having paid my NI stamp Its taken 2 years.
    • Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bws111 (1216812) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:51PM (#38600308)

      And if you see your employer posted your position on a job site, you are free to terminate your employment, are you not?

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        In accordance with my contract. Plus, it'd be silly to quit without notice (earning a bad recommendation) based on a job listing. Perhaps they were opening up a new position in the same office, or possibly opening another office. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to ask about it before quitting?
        • by bws111 (1216812)

          Make sense - sure. Required - absolutely not.

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            It also "makes sense" to fire someone who has indicated they are planning to quit. In fact, a statement about a future departure is generally taken as an immediate quitting with greater than required notice. I've quit in an email before, so who is to say that a LinkedIn message (their internal email system) isn't sufficient unless otherwise limited from the contract? And if that's ok, what about a statement in theri profile that they have or are going to quit? I see no "problem" with taking a statement
        • by hedwards (940851)

          In general yes, but it really depends upon the cause. I walked off the job on a previous site because they weren't paying me all the money they were required to, that didn't hurt me at all finding more work.

          Future employers worth working for are going to understand if the company wasn't issuing timely paychecks covering all the hours worked or if there were an excessive number of safety violations. OTOH, walking off the job just because you didn't feel like going any more is probably not going to be well lo

          • by AK Marc (707885)

            OTOH, walking off the job just because you didn't feel like going any more is probably not going to be well looked upon.

            I've done it and didn't have any issues ever. I just left it off the resume. I wasn't there that long anyway.

            I walked off the job on a previous site because they weren't paying me all the money they were required to, that didn't hurt me at all finding more work.

            In general, it's in your best interests to report that to the employment commission and continue to work.

      • by timeOday (582209)
        I don't place much stock in good-for-the-gander arguments when it comes to employers vs employees, because it is a false equivalence. Yes, you can imagine an economy of voluntary exchanges among peers, where a farmer pays a neighbor to milk his cows one day, but the neighbor pays the farmer to help him with the harvest the next. But is that representative of the modern economy? No. It is almost always the collective vs. the individual, and those are two different things - a very asymmetric interaction.
    • I don't know the details, and if his CV really did contain confidential info, the the employer was correct. If it did not, then I hope he wins the suit. Posting your resume/CV on a networking/career site is not a valid reason for dismissal (or creating a hostile environment such that the employee quits). If that is indeed what happened, make them pay dearly, both as a penalty to BG Group and as a precedent and caution to other employers.

  • by Tekfactory (937086) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:26PM (#38599928) Homepage

    Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.

    • by j-pimp (177072)

      Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.

      Well, its an interesting point there. Some will certainly move. Some won't for a variety of reasons, such as their no longer as interested in the person or topic, and never unfollowed. Some of the twitter accounts are probably abandoned. So there is value in the "inertia" of the existing account, despite the fact that a similar sized fanbase could probably be rebuilt.

      If you think about it, if you you sell a professional practice (medical, law, or accounting for example), you sell the list of existing client

  • by Tekfactory (937086) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:31PM (#38600008) Homepage

    I have a small network of friends and associates on LinkedIn, they know I am happy where I am at, but I always listen to new opportunities that's how I got where I am. Ususally I will pass on the info to someone else I know that's looking.

    However if you never listen to opportunities, people never think of you as someone to talk to about them.

    When the time comes that you need a job, your network has withered and you're stuck looking at official postings, half of which are already wired for a certain candidate but have to be announced for legal reasons.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You know. I really wasn't expecting to find anything useful in this article. I was really hoping for a big of premium snark, maybe a flame war. But that right there is damned good advice and has kind of turned on a light bulb in my head. I didn't realize I was sabotaging myself in that manner, but it does make sense. Thanks for posting it.

  • by sinij (911942) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:33PM (#38600044) Journal
    This kind of discrimination always existed, the news is that company in question actually admitted it as a dismissal cause, instead of the usual 'performance' cause.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:34PM (#38600056) Homepage Journal

    Could have been within the company too.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:35PM (#38600072) Homepage

    1. Getting contacted by an executive at another company for a joint venture.
    2. Getting a new degree.
    3. Getting contacted by an investor.

    This is as ridiculous as firing someone for racism because they put "enjoys participating Civil War reenactments" on their Facebook page.

    • by jkiller (1030766)
      But what if they're fighting for the North?
      • by Andraax (87926)

        But what if they're fighting for the North?

        Of course they're fighting for the north if they word it that way. Someone fighting for the south would say "enjoys reenacting the War of Northern Aggression"... ;-)

    • I wasn't aware the Sealed Knot were racist...

      Oh, that Civil War!

    • by Xest (935314)

      Also, the reason cases are so uncommon is because most companies know full well when they're in the wrong, and just settle the case.

      People getting some kind of payout over a company accepting or being found guilty of constructive dismissal isn't as uncommon as the headline might make it seem with it's suggestion this is the first ever UK constructive dismissal case.

    • by pjt33 (739471)

      That's clearly a slip of the mind coupled with bad editing. The intention must have been to say that it's possibly the first constructive dismissal case related to Linked In.

      • by jimicus (737525)

        That's my view, too. Constructive dismissal has existed as grounds to take your employer to a tribunal in the UK for years.

  • Betty Crocker (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Maximum Prophet (716608) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:46PM (#38600230)

    sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs.

    Then the company is too stupid to survive.

    This is happened over and over with celebrity chefs. Smart companies create a fictitious character, then promote that, not a real person.

    If you have to use a real person, get a multi-year agreement that specifies what you get in return for royalities. Yes, you will still have to keep paying them after they leave, but you can continue to use their image/persona.

  • by Ichijo (607641) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @02:48PM (#38600258) Homepage Journal

    It's similar to a resume. (I had to google the acronym to figure out what this Slashdot topic was about.)

  • I wonder if they'll go as far as trying to find out if he posted it while at work, and how much that might matter.
  • It was kind of a low thing to do to terminate someone for using linkedin to look for other jobs. If they could prove that he was doing it on company time, that is a entirely different thing but if he was at home or on his own time and resources it is low.
  • by swb (14022) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:08PM (#38600588)

    I, like many people, treat the "you could get fired if your boss thinks you're looking for another job" as kind of axiomatic, but what's the employer motivation for this?

    I'll exclude poor performance, where the employee basically comes in and does nothing but use the company PC to create resumes and cover letters, faxes them with the company fax machine and then goes home, his current job's work undone, mainly because that's being fired for poor performance, the cause of the poor performance is immaterial.

    "Because I have to hire a new employee" -- OK, you just *fired* your current employee, you're going to hire someone else anyway, and with zero cooperation from the existing employee who is now job hunting AND doing it while enjoying unemployment benefits because "looking for a job" isn't termination for cause.

    "I don't want them to take my secrets/customers" -- the good ones already have your secrets, customer lists, etc. Firing them now gives them moral justification to utilize these in their new job.

    I'm lost on where it benefits the employer other than vague claims of weak performance (working well enough not to be reprimanded but not at peak output) or nearly unmeasurable claims of impacting morale.

    About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.

    • Employers who treat employees like shit want to keep them in line. THey do not want to train someone else or have you leave before they can find someone else to do your job.

      Also since the economy is recovering you are getting mroe and more bargaining power month by month to demand higher wages and better working conditions. Same is true with replacements. If you had to take a job in 2009 for 40% less than your networth it means your employer has to pay market wages for your replacement when you leave. That

    • by mark-t (151149)
      In the UK, just cause is required to terminate any employee after their probationary period, and "looking for another job" is not considered just cause according to UK employment law.

      Strong advocates of at-will employment might feel that such policies can saddle companies unnecessarily with incompetent workers. This is a non-issue, however, since poor performance *is* considered a perfectly just cause for termination, as long as the applicable paperwork has been done to confirm this is actually the case

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.

      The purpose of this behavior is to prevent other employees who might be considering leaving from even starting to look, because to do so risks their current job. It's in a high-value employee's interest to keep their ears open for better positions at all times. It's in employer's interest to keep the high-value employee thinking that their options are continuing to work for the employer without making a fuss, or long-term unemployment.

      This is much easier to pull off in a recession.

      • Well once someone leaves and brags about finding another job was sooo easy now that the great recession is over and how they can get more money, the other employees will jump ship too. You can't hold onto this forever once the dam breaks so to speak.

        The UK is entering into recession now, but the US is going out finally as employers are adding new jobs. When the boom times were here in 1999 we ripped off our employers by demanding $100,000 a year to write code, DBAing various database projects, and calling i

  • I have never gotten any pussy off that website, so I classify it is totally useless.
     

  • by Wolfling1 (1808594) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @04:44PM (#38602276) Journal
    Invariably in these situations, there is more to be found if you scratch the surface a bit.

    Perhaps he was sleeping with the boss's wife. Perhaps he's an obnoxious, abrasive prat. The fact that he's suing (instead of just moving on) suggests as much.

    The lawsuit eventuated because they used an inappropriate dialog in getting rid of him. Ironically, if he had just taken it on the chin and moved on, his career would not have been significantly impacted. The fact that he is suing has ended his career.

    Karma's a bitch like that sometimes.
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Alternate scenario:
      1. Relative newcomer Smith is outperforming accomplished schmoozer Jones significantly and consistently.
      2. Jones doesn't want Smith around because Smith is making him look bad.
      3. Jones does some searches on Smith, finds the profile.
      4. Jones goes to the mutual boss of Smith and Jones, and shows the boss Smith's profile. Jones draws on his past schmoozing success
      5. Boss sacks Smith. The threat to Jones is eliminated.

      Smith finds out why he was sacked.

    • This is not just cause. Way I see it, promote him and let him sleep with the wife.

      The employee is usually younger than the boss. Younger people might perform better sex. Better sex = Happy wife = Happy marriage = No divorce.

      So if the employee is sleeping with the wife, forget his inability to work. The boss should remind himself that divorces are costly and this employee is saving him 50% of his life earnings! That is a great employee!!!!

  • by TankSpanker04 (1266400) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @04:57PM (#38602504)
    FTFA: "BG Group ... accused him of including confidential information in his CV, such as details about how he had reduced the firm's rate of staff attrition." His dedication to this goal only went so far, apparently.
  • For The Americans (Score:4, Informative)

    by assertation (1255714) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @05:30PM (#38603048)

    A 'CV' is what the British call their resumes

    HTH

  • Bad management (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jandersen (462034) on Friday January 06, 2012 @05:05AM (#38607724)

    It strikes me as a very stupid way to handle the situation on the part of the company.

    Firstly, an ambitious employee can most definitely be an asset to a company, if they are celver enough to keep him/her.

    Secondly, if the employee was actually unhappy with the job, perhaps the company should see this as an opportunity to address the problem. If one employee is disgruntled, it is quite likely that there are others; dissatisfaction leads to low morale, which leads to poor results - this sort of thing is too important to ignore.

    Thirdly, if an employee genuinely wants to leave, the company could do worse than to help him in a positive way; if an employee leaves with a good feeling, he will remember that in a new job and may even send business back to his previous employer.

  • by Builder (103701) on Friday January 06, 2012 @09:20AM (#38608642)

    Most posters here don't seem to understand how very different the UK is from the US with regards to employment law.

    An employer cannot fire me if they find out I am looking for other roles. They cannot take any punitive action. The absolute worst they can do is stop promoting me or giving me increases.

    At my level (senior tech / lower management) I actually inform my line manager when I start to look for a new role and when I go for interviews. This results in an adult, respectful and largely healthy transition. It avoids all the skullduggery I see from my US colleagues and is actually better for the team I leave behind as people can plan accordingly.

    Most people I've worked with in Europe find the idea of the at-will state to be abusive and would never support something like that in their region.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen

Working...