[LordKano]

Approximately 10 years ago, I was really unhappy with my work situation and was checking job postings. I found one that sounded right up my alley and I reached out to the agency that posted it. They told me that because I was working for another one of their clients, they wouldn't submit me for the job because they felt it was unethical.

I responded that I wasn't owned by my employer and just as they were free to let me go, I was free to leave on my own. The real reason was that since employers pay them and talent does not, they don't want to risk their income stream. Since that day, when this agency emails me to ask if I'm looking for new opportunities. I remind them of that incident and request that they don't contact me again.

It took about 8 years to finally sink in that I would NEVER have any dealings with them and they eventually stopped emailing me.

[throwaway_8145]

I have an even worse expirience.

I was a SWE for a large corp for a while, and after that transitioned to a role of manager.

As I was very eager to build a good team, and the company HR looked slow and unefficient I tried doing recruting myself, at least the part of meeting people and talking them into come to work for us.

What I could decide (up to a point) the salary and benefits but people had to go thru testing with the people from HR (IQ tests, personality tests etc)

Anyway I was pretty successful in finding experienced engineers but the thing fell apart when it came to HR testing. "He/She is not a good fit for the company" they would told me.

This was going on for months. I did more than 300 interviews in my free time in maybe 5 months and only about 5 people where "ok".

At some point a guy from HR told me: 'you must stop sending employees from companies X,Y,Z to testing, we have a deal with them that we don't take each other's people' 0.o

The deal was not only no to stop "poaching" but when someone form those companies applied to a job posting they would call up the other companies HR and told them about it.

And there was more than 10 of companies they told me about that where forbidden.

Imagine all the people that applied for job at some company not knowing that their boss, the HR etc. would know about it.

[sbisker]

That actually crosses the line from “unethical” into “unlawful collusion”. If you’re talking about a Valley company, they all got hit for this some time ago: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/tech... And if it’s not a Valley company, well, there’s likely a similar lawsuit to be had. Sorry to hear about your experience.

[yourapostasy]

If these are US company on US territory naked no-poach agreements in place, they are black letter law flatly illegal [1]. "No-poach agreements are naked if they are not reasonably necessary to any separate, legitimate business collaboration between the employers."

I would be extremely surprised if these are wet-ink-signed naked no-poach agreements.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/division-upd...

[wolco]

Please name the corp and list of 10 if possible-

[TheCoelacanth]

It's reasonable for them to want to avoid conflicts of interest. They act as an agent of the employers and don't want to get into scenarios where they can't do a proper job of representing their client's interests.

It's seems counterproductive to blacklist them for behaving ethically just because it worked against you in one scenario. No recruiting agency is ever going to act in your best interests because you aren't the one paying them. One that behaves ethically is about the best you can ever hope for.

[paulgb]

In the instance that LordKano reached out to them, they were acting as an agent of the company he was applying to, not the company he currently worked for (even if they had an ongoing relationship with that company). By discarding a qualified applicant, they unethically prioritized their relationship with another client over the company they were supposed to be acting as an agent of in that instance.

[JackFr]

Unless you have special knowledge of the contracts signed, you really can't say that. It's likely the second company was well aware of the restriction. And it seems like the OP felt he was wronged more than the second party.

[paulgb]

If the companies had a contractual agreement that their recruiting agency would block each other's employees from applying, that sounds like a non-poaching agreement of the sort that Apple and Google were fined hundreds of millions for.

[JackFr]

I'm pretty sure they weren't fined. I believe they were sued and settled with no admission of wrongdoing.

[paulgb]

Ah, you're right, I was mixing up the DOJ action (not involving a fine) circa 2010 with a later civil suit [1]. In any case, it cost them hundreds of millions.

1. https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tech-companies-are-payi... (adding to the confusion, Venture Beat incorrectly calls it a fine)

[LordKano]

There are so many recruitment agencies in this town that I am not disadvantaged by not working with them.

Their behavior wasn't ethical. They didn't approach me. I found their job posting and approached them.

[youeseh]

FWIW, that is not how all agencies operate, unless they are under a contractual obligation.

For example, some agencies only limit themselves to not representing a previously placed candidate if they are still the role where they were placed by the agency. Outside of that, if a candidate wants to move from one client company to another, the agency may even act as a catalyst, especially if the candidate would be a great fit for the new role.

[pnw_hazor]

I wonder if they disclose such policies to companies they represent.

"We will do everything in our power to find you the employees you need, unless it might make one of our other clients unhappy."

This would be a disqualifying conflict of interest for a law firm.

[jpxw]

Frankly their actions don’t seem particularly unreasonable to me.

[auggierose]

LordKano's reaction doesn't seem unreasonable to me, either.

[LordKano]

I understand why they did it.

My decision to make them persona non grata was about not rewarding them for behavior that negatively impacted me.

[BossingAround]

To be denied a career opportunity just because the gatekeeper is biased is unreasonable if you ask me.

That's why I strongly prefer reaching out to companies without any middlemen. The more people are involved, the worse for me.

[oarabbus_]

It seems like a prudent business decision on the agency's part, to be honest, rather than some kind of underhanded anti-employee move.

[wolco]

Until he applies directly and cuts out the agency if that's possible.

[thebluehawk]

Agreed. Like it sucks, but I can't fault any of the actors in this story. They are all just looking out for themselves.

[redisman]

You can usually search a important blurb from the job posting combined with the geographic info to find the posting or something very close to it.

[vmception]

Look Moses, the promised Hill we can die on, as foretold!

[giantg2]

Sometimes the B2B contracts restrict the organizations from hiring each other's employees. This is pretty common. My company has at least two partnerships where these types of conditions are present.

[JoshTriplett]

> Sometimes the B2B contracts restrict the organizations from hiring each other's employees.

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-offer-415-million-to-...

[giantg2]

That is because they are competitors, so this becomes an anti-trust case.

The scenario I'm talking about when you bring in a company as a partner. For example, we work with TCS and the contract states that we can't hire their employees and that TCS can't hire our employees, at least not to work within the partnership. We partnered with another company and as part of that contract we are transferring people them with the promise that we will not hire them back for a year or two depending on their position.

[mypalmike]

Reason #239 to avoid recruiting agencies.