IT Services Jobs - Switch The Employer and Work for The Same Client?

NoPetNoKid on 01/03/2018 - 23:33
Last edited 01/06/2018 - 13:20 by 1 other user

It is very common in IT (I guess, in all other sectors too) to switch the jobs after few years if not months and get a better remuneration.

I have heard about a friend who works in IT and switched to a different company to work on a similar profile. In her new job, she was allocated to a project where she had to work for the same client for which she worked in previous company.

Her previous employer (manager), contacted the HR in her new company and made sure that she can't work for the same client for at least 6 months.

Fortunately, she got another project with another client.

I am wondering what would have happened if there were no openings with any other client?
Would she have to be on bench until another project opportunity knocks?
Did she has any Legal Rights to continue the work with the same client?

Education & Work

Comments

  • bluesky on 01/03/2018 - 23:44
    +3

    It could have been stipulated in the employment contract your friend had signed with the former employer. In it, there might have been non-compete clause that specifies she cannot work with their clients for a period of time etc.

    • jv on 01/03/2018 - 23:45
      +2

      It could have been stipulated in the employment contract

      It usually is…

      • bluesky on 01/03/2018 - 23:46
        +3

        Also, if the non-compete clause is too restrictive, it is not enforceable anyway.

        • jv on 01/03/2018 - 23:50

          the non-compete clause is too restrictive,

          how?

        • bluesky on 01/03/2018 - 23:52
          +1

          @jv: Employment lawyer can help. I once naively signed an employment contract that has a very restrictive non-compete. When I left and was threatened, I engaged an employment lawyer. And was freed of the clause.

        • jv on 01/03/2018 - 23:55
          -2

          @bluesky:

          And was freed of the clause.

          Maybe for you they couldn't be bothered… But for those quite senior with a lot of inside knowledge, I'm pretty sure they'd pursue it…

        • bluesky on 01/03/2018 - 23:59
          +2

          @jv: It was a pretty dragged out case … I was senior - built their signature product, which was deployed internationally.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 08:21
          +1

          @jv:
          I was also told this by my lecturer at uni. The companies are just covering their bases, making sure their staff can't be poached. Though if it's unreasonable, then it's unreasonable. 90% of the time they are not gonna be bothered.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 14:34

          @jv:
          They cant.
          Once you stop working, and they stop paying you, the contract is terminated and is thus non-enforceable.
          Any company that tries to enforce it is usually bluffing.

          What happens with executives is they are still employed and paid in full for the time they are in the non-compete period of their contract.
          Their access to all systems is removed, they're not allowed contact with other employees, customers, suppliers, etc, so they are cut off from the company in a way.
          It's commonly known as gardening leave.

        • jv on 02/03/2018 - 14:56

          @Drew22:

          the contract is terminated

          I don't think so…

        • gimli on 02/03/2018 - 16:16

          @jv: we already knew that…

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 16:58

          @jv:

          Fine. See if I care.

          I'm pretty sure we've had this argument before.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 17:43
          +1

          @jv:
          “Unreasonable restraints are unenforceable as it is contrary to public welfare that a person should be unreasonably prevented from earning a living in whichever lawful way he chooses and that the public should be unlawfully deprived of his services.” Buckley v Tutty (1971)

        • jv on 02/03/2018 - 22:00
          -1

          @tshow:

          Unreasonable restraints

          Why is it unreasonable?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 22:32

          @jv:
          Why is it reasonable?

        • jv on 02/03/2018 - 22:59
          -1

          @tshow:

          I'm not the one claiming it's unreasonable…

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 23:15

          @jv:
          I'm not the one claiming it is reasonable…

    • NoPetNoKid on 01/03/2018 - 23:55
      +1

      Probably yes, it might be the reason.
      I know some people from her former company who switched their jobs and still working for the same client.

      It seems it depends on the managers (from the former company) if they let it happen. They might see some risk sometimes.

  • jv on 01/03/2018 - 23:46
    +1

    Did she has any Legal Rights to continue the work with the same client?

    Not if it was in her contract.

  • airzone on 01/03/2018 - 23:53

    Some managed service providers have an anti-poaching clause in their contract..

  • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2018 - 23:55
    -4

    should be happy she has a job

    • follow on 02/03/2018 - 00:03
      +4

      TELL ME ABOUT IT! BACK IN MY DAY YOU WORKED FOR ONE COMPANY AND YOU STUCK WITH THEM THROUGH THICK AND THIN! YOU LOOK AFTER THEM AND THEY LOOK AFTER YOU. THEN YOU RETIRE. THESE HOES AINT LOYAL

      • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 00:34
        +1

        why you yelling for?

        • SBOB on 02/03/2018 - 07:07
          +7

          He's old and his hearing aid is broken..

        • Colombian on 02/03/2018 - 10:35
          +1

          come again?

  • NoPetNoKid on 02/03/2018 - 00:04

    Non-compete or Anti-Poaching clause in the contracts - Ain't those clauses stealing the opportunities from the candidates?

    If we consider the worst cases, these may cause depression and what not.

    • bluesky on 02/03/2018 - 00:11

      As long as it is reasonable, it is fair enough. But when it is oppressive and leaves a person without livelihood means for a prolonged period, then it can be challenged.

      E.g. if a clause says you cannot work in a particular neighbourhood for 3 months, it seems fair. But if it says you cannot work worldwide for an extended period of time, then clearly it is oppressive. Seek legal advice when that happens.

    • follow on 02/03/2018 - 00:13

      what about the business? say you work for a law firm. gather many clients during the years under the business and then decide to go on your own or join another company. the business will loose many clients. goes both ways

    • Ryanek on 02/03/2018 - 08:18

      If you were a business owner, would you be happy if an employer then worked for a competitor with all the knowledge of your business?

      • SBOB on 02/03/2018 - 09:12

        happy? no

        but if you're only competitive advantage is 'knowledge of your business' then there might be other problems :)

        • Ryanek on 02/03/2018 - 09:16
          +1

          It is not uncommon for someone to leave and taking clients with them.

      • BuyOrNot on 03/03/2018 - 15:16

        If you are an employee, would be happy with a lower salary when you can get a better salary?

        The original employer always has the option to increase the salary/benefits of the employee.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 17:36
      +1

      I think is best we leave the cause and effect relationship between legal restraints and mental health as two separate issues. It is readily apparent you have a poor understanding of both and this would detail your own discussion and make you look disingenuous.

  • Almost Banned on 02/03/2018 - 00:39
    +1

    Restraints of trade are against policy policy and prima facie unenforceable - unless they are aimed at protecting a legitimate business interest, and are crafted to do no more than is necessary to protect that interest.
    So, firstly, was there a restraint, and secondly was the restraint enforceable?

    • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 17:38

      Finally some fundamentals.

  • TransportPosters on 02/03/2018 - 08:52

    Consider personal ramifications also. I've seen a few people leave company A and join company B to work for the same client get badmouthed in the industry by their prior boss. Their names also come up at Xmas parties and get dragged through the mud when their ex-colleagues get drunk and say too much.

  • SlickMick on 02/03/2018 - 11:41

    It can sometimes be pretty unethical: eg a company poached a consultant from the managed services company working for them, then cancelled their contract.

    But not always: my wife was working for a company who cancelled her contract because they decided to outsource.
    My wife took a job with that same managed services company.
    The managed services company let my wife go (seemingly a "make a position for my mate" type scenario), their service level plummeted, and the original company cancelled their contract and hired my wife back.
    So sometimes apparently it just happens through stupidity. (Well I can't see any other moral to this story??)

  • rbrb on 02/03/2018 - 19:14

    I’m in IT and move jobs every 18-24 months. It’s the only way to make decent jumps in your career and your salary. There are loads of jobs out there if you have the right skills.

  • nikey2k27 on 02/03/2018 - 20:15

    My friend left a gov job in IT 6 months went back into the same role as service company gov put replace all staff they sacked. she 70,000 pay rise.

    • Colombian on 03/03/2018 - 11:26

      huh? It seems I need to improve my English skills.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join