Unsolicited poaching and conflicting information

[jakpetrov]

Jurisdiction

New York

I had secure employment in Manhattan and was contacted by and HR rep from a competitor through linkedin. The competitor promised more money for the same work. I went in for a meeting and was told by a manager that the work schedule could sometimes be as much as 60-70hrs a week. At that point I was not considering the new company, but I was also told that one of my old co-workers works for the new company and I could contact her with any questions. I e-mailed the old co-worker and she stated that she has never worked more than 50 hrs a week for the job I was being considered for and on average worked 45 hrs/week. I wasn't sure who to believe in this instance and the offer of more money won out. I accepted the job at the new company, leaving the stable job I had. After a year at the new company, I am still there and have worked 60+ hours the past couple of weeks and am starting to burn out and become worried. I am wondering whether or not the conflicting information between the two employees would be considered a deceptive business practice. I was also wondering that since an HR rep from the company approached me unsolicited, whether that gives me any leverage to leave the company with unemployment and a severance package of some type, since I was coerced into leaving a steady job that I could have retired from based on conflicting information by two employees from the new company.

 

[txls]

No and no. Apparently the person who hired you gave you accurate information. You were not "coerced". You were offered more money and you made the decision to go for it.

 

[jakpetrov]

No and no. Apparently the person who hired you gave you accurate information. You were not "coerced". You were offered more money and you made the decision to go for it.

Thank you for the info. I just want to make sure that getting two different estimates of the hourly commitments (one true and one false) would not be considered misleading?

 

[txls]

Well it was misleading but in my opinion since you had two different answers, it was on you to seek a third opinion. I just think you should have relied more heavily on the person who was doing the hiring. But let's say what if they both told you 45 hours. They could have changed that after hiring and simply said, circumstances have changed and we you to work 60. Nothing illegal about that. Now you can take your chances and quit and file unemployment and plead your case. There is never any guarantee on which way an unemployment decision will go.

 

[jakpetrov]

Well it was misleading but in my opinion since you had two different answers, it was on you to seek a third opinion. I just think you should have relied more heavily on the person who was doing the hiring. But let's say what if they both told you 45 hours. They could have changed that after hiring and simply said, circumstances have changed and we you to work 60. Nothing illegal about that. Now you can take your chances and quit and file unemployment and plead your case. There is never any guarantee on which way an unemployment decision will go.

Thank you for the quick response!

 

[ElleMD]

You were warned about the hours up front. You chose to ignore that warning. How is that your employer's fault? I'm likewise confused why you think the fact that they approached you first means they owe you anything.

Severance isn't required and for someone who has only been there a year, would be extremely unlikely. Unemployment isn't determined by your employer and if you quit, is very difficult to get.

 

[hrforme]

After talking to the coworker, did you bother to follow up with the HR person to confirm expected # of work hours? You made a choice that had consequences. And the expected work hours ARE in the original range as stated by HR.

 

[zddoodah]

I wasn't sure who to believe in this instance

So...faced with this uncertainty, did you ask further questions? For example, after speaking with the other employee, did you go back to the manager and report that the other person told you that she worked significantly fewer hours than the manager had told you and ask for clarification? A reasonable person for whom this was an important consideration would seek such clarification. However, since you did not indicate that you did this, I am forced to assume you did not.

I am wondering whether or not the conflicting information between the two employees would be considered a deceptive business practice.

First of all, a single incident does not make for a "practice." Second, what conflicting information are you talking about? The manager you met with told you "that the work schedule could sometimes be as much as 60-70hrs a week." Clearly, that was true. The second person you spoke with told you "that she has never worked more than 50 hrs a week for the job I was being considered for and on average worked 45 hrs/week." In other words, she told you about her own personal experience, and nothing in your post suggests that this information was not completely truthful. Just because your experience has been different doesn't mean that what she told you a year ago wasn't truthful. Third, you knew, at the time you took the job that this person's experiences were different than what the manager told you. However, you apparently never bothered to ask the manager about this, so any adverse consequences resulting from any inconsistent information is entirely on you.

I was also wondering that since an HR rep from the company approached me unsolicited, whether that gives me any leverage to leave the company with unemployment and a severance package of some type

No.

I was coerced into leaving a steady job

That's absurd. You most certainly were not coerced. You quit one job in favor of another because of more money. Happens every day. Sorry you now regret that decision, but it's no one's fault but your own.

 

[cbg]

Thank you for the info. I just want to make sure that getting two different estimates of the hourly commitments (one true and one false) would not be considered misleading?

If by "misleading" you mean "illegal", no, it was not.

 

[army judge]

was also wondering that since an HR rep from the company approached me unsolicited, whether that gives me any leverage to leave the company with unemployment and a severance package of some type, since I was coerced into leaving a steady job that I could have retired from based on conflicting information by two employees from the new company.

I have lived my life governed by many rules.

One of those rules is never to engage or participate in any unsolicited communication.

Another one of those rules is to own the consequences of any decision I made, good or bad.

Success generates further successes.

Contrapositively, failures proliferate themselves, too.