take action

mindset blog

Employers seeking to protect their assets through litigation

Mindset Group - Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Wednesday’s Australian Financial Review (Workspace) and Recruiter Daily, both reported a similar story about “Employers cracking down on restraint-of-trade breaches”.

The stories were the results of recently released information from Harmer Workplace Lawyers, which discussed a sharp rise in the number of legal cases filed over the past six months as companies seek to aggressively challenge claims from outgoing employees, and stop their client base from leaving with departing employees.

“Tougher economic conditions usually result in an increase in litigation, and that is exactly what we have seen recently. During the boom times, often employers had been willing to sign ‘blank cheques’ in order to settle claims quickly, or they tended to disregard breaches of restraint of trade conditions. Now, however, they appear to be prepared to litigate more vehemently,” said Shana Schreier-Joffe, Partner at Harmers Workplace Lawyers.

The articles also discussed the expectation that 2010 will bring in a raft of workplace legal challenges from two main sources:
  • employers trying to protect their client base as employees depart for new positions through enforcement contractual restraint-of-trade clauses, and 
  • employee instigated litigation for bullying, harassment and discrimination, as the new Fair Work Act comes into force from 1 January 2010.
To view the full Recruiter Daily article click here.

“Low-balling” Clients and how to Negate the Effects

Mindset Group - Tuesday, November 24, 2009

By Aaron Dodd, Operation Director of the Mindset Group

In 23 November's Recruiter Daily Daryl Keeley, MD of specialist recruiter MACRO commented that “Low-balling” clients damage recruiters’ reputations. He is right of course, but the issue is more directly related to the contingent recruitment model.

If a recruiter is retained they are done so on a project fee basis, incorporating staged payments. The fee is negotiated up-front and is usually based on a percentage of the EXPECTED final salary package. The very act of up-front negotiation ensures that both the recruiter and the client are very aware of the salary on offer. There is no room for surprises down the track at offer time, so the low-balling scenario will not exist and the recruiter’s and client’s reputations will not be compromised. Further it commits both parties to a ‘shared risk’ model. Under the contingent model, all the risk lies with the consultant, hardly an equitable fair contract!

The other point to note is that if a client is offering a very low salary for a role and will not change their mind or their offer, why accept the assignment in the first place? If the role is going to be impossible to fill (or retain an effective candidate in) why do work that you ultimately won’t be paid for? It will make better use of time to use that non-billable time to find better new clients than to spend billable hours doing unbillable work recruiting for roles that can’t be filled due to low salary offers.

In summary therefore the Daryl Keeley’s accurate consequences of low-balling can be effectively negated with the retained model and a more selective approach to the work a recruiter actually takes on.

recent posts

tags

archive