The conversation

Business & incomeExperience excerpt · English

What followed was approximately a year of intense training to get him up to speed on not just our …

… What followed was approximately a year of intense training to get him up to speed on not just our products, but the science and technology of the relevant domain. We sold to very technical people, mostly engineers, so you had to be know what you were talking about. A bit over six months after "graduating" he took a job as sales manager with one of my largest competitors. He probably got a nice boost in pay. He used me --quite literally, me, because I was the only one who could train him-- to learn and go from his resume being utterly irrelevant for the position, to being valuable enough to hire. This wasn't about money. He was making double what our engineers were making. He told me why he did it: He did not want to work for a startup. He wanted to work for an established company. That absolutely fried my brain. Of course, there was no non-compete. The investment in time and money to get this person up to speed easily exceeded a million dollars at the time. Him leaving also caused damage across more than one front. First, I had to replace him. That took time and money. …

Original discussionNLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy90 source comments · at import
2

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 2

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

SA

Were all your employees blank slates when they joined, or did they "use" their previous employers to gain the skills required to become hirable by you? If your training is so valuable, why aren't you charging for it? I'm sure your competition would be willing to pay lot's of money to have their people upskilled from 0.

Full original
WH

Spending time to train an employee is an expected cost for the employers. It is not that they steal from you corporate secrets that the competitors would leverage against you. It is a minimal time risk that the employer takes, to make productive an employee for them. If you don't have that time, then you pay extra to hire an experienced person. Think about the risks that the employees take for the company (they are not just time risks). They have to relocate themselves, and even worse move their entire family and kids away from their friends & schools, sell their houses often at loss / break leases, and then join your venture with just at will employment contract, which means that at any-time you can just tell them to go f themselves. So no your complaint is not calibrated. Sorry.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.