I re-hired an employee … who promptly quit again

A reader writes:

An employee’s resignation has changed my opinion of her dramatically and I’m not sure if I’m being unfair. Can you help me recalibrate my instincts?

An employee on my team, “Ariel,” was originally hired for a different team, working under “Ursula.” Due to Ursula’s micromanagement — complaints everyone else working under her shared — Ariel resigned. Shortly thereafter, Ursula left. At that point, we re-hired Ariel for a vacant spot on my team.

Ariel returned about three months ago. Upon returning, she received a significant raise from her previous salary, while many people who had never left the company received no annual raise this year.

Last week, Ariel submitted her resignation, giving slightly less than two weeks’ notice. She says she received an opportunity she couldn’t turn down, with a huge raise and a chance to build and lead a team. She hadn’t given me any indication she was unhappy.

If you don’t count the two months she was gone between resignation and re-hire, Ariel worked here for a year before leaving. If you only count from the re-hire, she job-hopped after three months, including two vacations (travel planned before she was re-hired) and a sick leave lasting the better part of two weeks. She is also leaving less than a month before the biggest tradeshow of the year for our industry and was spearheading the planning and execution for this show. We are a very small team and will have to spend a lot of extra money on professional production help for the tradeshow due to her departure.

I want to be happy for Ariel’s great new opportunity — an opportunity that I’m sure her work here helped her prepare for. She really does great work and deserves to advance and grow. But isn’t it awfully unprofessional to accept an offer — with a large raise — and leave not even a full quarter later, leaving your team in the lurch? Should it affect my opinion of her if I’m ever asked for a reference for her? Do you think I made a mistake supporting the re-hire of someone who resigned previously at all?

I answer this question over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.

{ 185 comments… read them below }

  1. Chairman of the Bored*

    Employees are not in the wrong to look after their own best interests; as employers definitely aren’t going to do it.

    If the only way that employees can get a significant raise is to quit their job and the re-hire then the company shouldn’t act surprised when employees opt to leave for greener pastures.

    The solution to people leaving for more money and better opportunities is to proactively give them more money and better opportunities within the organization. If an employer can’t/won’t do that then they’ve implicitly accepted that their best talent probably is not going to stick around.

    1. Lauren*

      Exactly, be happy for Ariel. It costs nothing to be happy for someone. OP should stop worrying about her unprofessionalism since it’s legit not a thing in this case. She was collectively there a year, which is normal in a lot of places to leave after a year. She may have had every intention of staying, but OP already stated that people who stayed get nothing so no need claim some big faux pas when you as the employer isn’t keeping up with salary and advancement elsewhere.

      1. Princess Trachea-Aurelia Belaroth*

        Add to that, that he had probably started a job search during the time she was resigned, and could easily have just been following those leads to their conclusion, and it’s not surprising that she left a job she had already once disliked enough to quit for something better.

        1. Still breathing*

          I came here to say exactly this. She was job hunting when she left, and we all know you can get an interview anytime from days to a year after applying, and sometimes the offer can take months and months too. She probably applied for several stretch positions while she was gone, and unless you brought her back to replace Ursula, she was probably wise to take a manager spot elsewhere. And let’s face it – if business tanked the day after the trade show, you’d fire or lay her off without a second thought. Let it go and be happy for her. You don’t have to hire her a third time, but you shouldn’t tank her reference.

    2. LTL*

      Yeah, what struck me was “many people who had never left the company received no annual raise this year” and Ursula’s micromanagement (which was an issue for at least 9 months, if I have my timelines straight).

      Perhaps this is an otherwise great organization to work for but based on the details we have here, my first thought reading was “did Ariel decide the bridge was worth burning in part because the company doesn’t value its employees?”

      I may be veering into advice column fanfic but I wonder if Ariel resigned without a job lined up because she couldn’t take working under Ursula any longer, came back after Ursula because she needed a job, then left again when a great opportunity showed up (as opposed to going back to OP’s company Ursula-free with the reasoning “its not great but its better than unemployment”).

      Of course, OP knows best how likely that is.

      I admit I’m personally a bit wary of employers punishing people for leaving too early when jobs are linked to survival. It’s not as if most people can simply afford to remain unemployed so they’re going to go after the best option there is at the time- which means they may not actually want to work for you but are making the best of a bad situation. I understand the employer’s perspective but in an ideal world, I don’t think references should be sullied based off of a short stint (assuming that the short stint wasn’t listed as a reference but a potential employer reached out to them anyways). Of course, a pattern of job-hopping is telling and I think that’s what employers should really focus on if early leaving is a concern.

      1. I really need a username*

        Yup – “Ursula left.” Not Ursula was fired or was managed out or was pushed to retire. Nope – they knew she was a bad manager and watched people leave rather than deal with her. People who stay don’t get raises. Ariel knows she has to leave to continue salary increases and career growth. That’s not an environment I would stay in long-term unless I was addicted to the other benefits of the position that I was positive I couldn’t find elsewhere. And even then, I’d be *real* easy to lure away and would probably be on the lookout, just in case.

      2. Underrated Pear*

        Right?? I am not blaming OP herself, and I do feel like OP is allowed to feel frustrated/annoyed/etc that she’s now in a difficult and stressful position. But Ariel is not the problem here. Reading this letter another way, what I hear is, “My company allowed a terrible manager to make employees miserable to the point where they quit their jobs. Then we gave a generous raise to a new hire while not giving anything to current employees. Now I can’t understand why my employee isn’t more loyal.”

        Now, that last sentence is overly uncharitable towards the OP, who sounds appropriately self-aware (kudos for recognizing that it’s always hard to see through a clear lens regarding work transactions when we’re put in positions that have made us upset and stressed). But the point still stands.

    3. Meep*

      My first thought was she came back and found even with Ursula gone, the work environment was still highly toxic and not worth the pay bump, because happy people don’t stay no matter how much money you throw at them.

      1. Dust Bunny*

        This. I rather suspect that Ursula was a symptom more than a cause.

        We don’t have an a**hole problem at my workplace because we fire them. We don’t shift them around or wait for them to retire.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        I think this happens a lot, in and out of work: You convince yourself that the problem is This One Thing Outside Your Control and then it’s resolved! Everything will be great now! And it turns out it wasn’t This One Thing, TOT was just a convenient dumping ground for all your frustrations.

        1. oceanteeth*

          That really makes sense. There are a lot of nice things about my previous job and I would love to believe that if ThatOneGuy finally got fired everything would be great there, but as much as I hate that guy even I have to admit that’s not fair. Both HR and the entire engineering management chain we both were in decided it was fine for him to treat me like dirt for a year and a half until I finally fled. Firing him wouldn’t be a terrible idea but it would also be like trimming the tops off the weeds in your garden instead of pulling up the roots.

          I can’t fault Ariel for wanting to believe things would be better with Ursula gone and I also can’t blame her for realizing that Ursula was a symptom, not the root cause.

      3. Alex*

        A person at my company got a 15 percent raise this year and then left for a company that pays him less than the rate BEFORE that raise. It was worth it to him to escape the job he was “stuck in and didn’t sign up for” (his words, he was pushed to fill a position that didn’t exist when he was hired that was only very peripheral to his actual job)…

    4. Panny Fack*

      “The solution to people leaving for more money and better opportunities is to proactively give them more money and better opportunities within the organization”

      Like hiring them back with a raise?

      1. BuildMeUp*

        …No, she shouldn’t have had to leave the organization and then come back in order to get a raise, and the people who didn’t leave should have also gotten raises. And it doesn’t sound like Ariel got a promotion when she returned, so she’s still getting better opportunities by leaving.

      2. tamarack and fireweed*

        Well, no. As opposed to reactively offering them a raise only after they’ve been ready to leave you behind.

    5. Koalafied*

      Yeah, I wouldn’t consider it a “raise” if you terminated your existing salary agreement and renegotiated salary upon returning. It’s telling that they won’t raise the existing employees’ pay to be commensurate with what they’d have to pay a new hire if the existing employee left, and frame it like Ariel was “given” a “raise,” like it was a reward the company was gracious enough to give, instead of what it presumably really was – the market value of the role and the amount they had to pay to secure a strong candidate.

    6. tamarack and fireweed*

      Yup!

      And even without the weirdness around no one else getting a significant raise, I would consider a manager petty if they they react to an employee’s decision to leave by providing a less enthusiastic reference, or any reference less positive than the employee’s work deserves. Leaving a job is not a negative attitude. Any new prospective employer can evaluate work history from the resumé and interview.

      (I did once something similar, and I don’t think I was unprofessional at all – in fact, I am taking professionalism very seriously. Though not in a preemptive fashion that would jeopardize my career! My story is:

      – Jan-March: While working for company A I was exploring jobs in a very different location, different country, different environment, mostly for personal reasons. I apply for three jobs in this location. One is an immediate rejection; one gets me an interview but they make it clear that an international hire via a multi-thousand mile move isn’t their preference; the third interviews me, it goes well, but then I hear nothing more.
      – May-June: Company A is making reductions in force. They end up giving me warning of a potential lay-off (legally required / normal process in the country where company A is located).
      – August: Lay-off becomes reality. I go job searching.
      – September: I get an offer from company B, same location and (nearly same) industry as company A. It’s quite a bit more money and responsibilities. I accept the offer.
      – October: The hiring manager that interviewed me in the spring for the far-away job comes back and asks if I’m still interested. We start talking.
      – November: I decide to jump ship even though I ~90% like it at company B and have a great relationship with my co-workers. I go to my management and tell them about the situation. I use words like “life-changing” and “cannot refuse” and say I’m sorry.
      – January: I quit at company B. Everyone wishes me luck (at least outwardly). I’ve educated my co-workers about the differenc between Antarctica and the Arctic and assured them I would be living in a house, not a futuristic research pod encased in eternal ice…
      – February: International move, and I start my job, about a year after I interviewed.)

    7. tamarack and fireweed*

      Yup!

      And even without the weirdness around no one else getting a significant raise, I would consider a manager petty if they they react to an employee’s decision to leave by providing a less enthusiastic reference, or any reference less positive than the employee’s work deserves. Leaving a job is not a negative attitude. Any new prospective employer can evaluate work history from the resumé and interview.

      (I did once something similar, and I don’t think I was unprofessional at all – in fact, I am taking professionalism very seriously. Though not in a preemptive fashion that would jeopardize my career! My story is:

      – Jan-March: While working for company A I was exploring jobs in a very different location, different country, different environment, mostly for personal reasons. I apply for three jobs in this location. One is an immediate rejection; one gets me an interview but they make it clear that an international hire via a multi-thousand mile move isn’t their preference; the third interviews me, it goes well, but then I hear nothing more.
      – May-June: Company A is making reductions in force. They end up giving me warning of a potential lay-off (legally required / normal process in the country where company A is located).
      – August: Lay-off becomes reality. I go job searching.
      – September: I get an offer from company B, same location and (nearly same) industry as company A. It’s quite a bit more money and responsibilities. I accept the offer.
      – October: The hiring manager that interviewed me in the spring for the far-away job comes back and asks if I’m still interested. We start talking.
      – November: I decide to jump ship even though I ~90% like it at company B and have a great relationship with my co-workers. I go to my management and tell them about the situation. I use words like “life-changing” and “cannot refuse” and say I’m sorry.
      – January: I quit at company B. Everyone wishes me luck (at least outwardly). I’ve educated my co-workers about the differenc between Antarctica and the Arctic and assured them I would be living in a house, not a futuristic research pod encased in eternal ice…
      – February: International move, and I start my job, about a year after I interviewed.)

  2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

    I think you should just be happy for Ariel. I hope that’s where you end up once all the initial feelings have been processed.

    One can’t control when an opportunity arises. I also wouldn’t hold her quitting on Ursula against her; if the company had provided better management from the start, she wouldn’t be leaving after being rehired; it’d just be a great opportunity after a year.

    1. jm*

      that’s a really good point. there’s no indication that anything was done about ursula, despite multiple complaints. the language in the letter sounds like she left of her own accord, which indicates the workers weren’t looked after.

      1. pleaset cheap rolls*

        This also jumped out at me:

        “while many people who had never left the company received no annual raise this year.”

        1. Autumnheart*

          And why didn’t they? That’s my question. Not whether Ariel got a raise undeservedly.

    2. Velawciraptor*

      And when you combine the poor management that allowed for an Ursula with the fact that employees of this company apparently have to leave to get a raise, one has to wonder how functional the management of this company is. It’s entirely possible that she came back because she thought that with Ursula gone, the disfunction would be gone as well. And that when she saw that the problems ran deeper than Ursula, the other position proved too attractive to turn down.

      It seems that LW should perhaps look inward before getting irritated with Ariel.

      1. Sun Tzu*

        My thoughts exactly. Employers should provide a good work environment and a good salary to keep their rockstar employees, not just complain when they leave. Perhaps the old company could have listened more to gauge whether Ariel was happy and provide her an opportunity to give there “a huge raise and a chance to build and lead a team”. But we know that the only way to get a big raise is to change company.

        I’m 200% with Ariel.

      2. Autumnheart*

        That’s what I thought too. Ariel worked under a known micromanager for most of a year until she resigned, then got hired back under the agreement that she’d get paid more, and have her planned vacation accommodated. Sounds pretty normal… Now she’s leaving for a much better job opportunity.

        No offense, but it sounds like this company underpays people, doesn’t give bad managers the boot, and thinks they’re doing you a favor for not making you come to work sick. This sounds pretty much like the kind of job you leave after a year for a better opportunity. Instead of thinking of ways to sandbag Ariel’s future reference, maybe consider taking a page out of her book and looking for a better job with more pay.

    3. fposte*

      I think Ariel made a reasonable choice, but it’s fine for the OP not to be happy about it; it’s okay for her to be annoyed at being inconvenienced. I just wouldn’t hang onto this at length; chalk it up as one of those things.

      1. onco fonco*

        Yeah – LW is in a crappy situation, I don’t blame her at all for being irritated. It’s bad luck! But that’s all it is. Ariel can’t be expected to pass up a truly great opportunity for the benefit of her current employer, no matter what’s gone before. This is one of the suckier realities of doing business.

    4. MCMonkeyBean*

      “I hope that’s where you end up once all the initial feelings have been processed.”

      Fully agree with this–I definitely understand feeling annoyed and frustrated right now, as it’s always annoying to be suddenly short-staffed. But of course Ariel should take the job that’s a better opportunity and higher pay! It’s not reasonable to expect her to have turned that down.

      Feel annoyed right now, then try to let that pass and be happy for her and don’t let this sour your whole opinion of her.

  3. mcfizzle*

    I agree with Alison – it’s a bridge burned, but I couldn’t call it “unprofessional” at all. Just a consequence of her decision to leave.
    Also – I do see why you’re left in a lurch and thus, why you are *not* happy with her right now.

    1. Anita*

      Companies need to remember that employees think of the worker/employer relationship as transactional. They have seen (or been themselves) easily cast off when the company doesn’t need them anymore. It is only natural they think the same toward their employer. I hired hundreds of people in my career. I re-employed only two. One I didn’t regret and the other I did. My resolve to not re-hire would be absolute in this job market to avoid the experience you just described. Is the employee wrong to do what she did? Nope. Her skills are her business. She can do whatever works best for her with that.

      1. The_artist_formerly_known_as_Anon-2*

        Depends on the industry and the circumstances, Anita. In IS/IT (computer work), I’ve seen people fired or chased out the door, only to have the affected employee approached hat in hand by management to come back. This often occurs when they fire someone and there’s no qualified replacement in the queue.

    2. Aquawoman*

      The question is what to do if asked for a reference and I think the thing to do if asked for a reference is tell the truth–she left at a critical time after 3 months that included X days of leave (probably a month).

      Given the whole picture, I honestly have doubts about Ariel’s good faith in taking this job in the first place. It’s quite possible that the opportunity she couldn’t turn down happened during the job search she never stopped because she didn’t intend to stay.

      1. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Or it was one of those jobs she’d interviewed for that had a hiring freeze or other “this postion may not happen” moments. At those times we have to assume the interview was chasing a phantom and move on.
        But for Ariel, this phantom manifested into a concrete offer months down the line.

      2. Forrest*

        I wouldn’t characterise that as “not good faith”. We all need to earn money: taking a job is a promise to work for money, not to forsake all other opportunities.

    3. Teapot Repair Technician*

      I suspect I might have burned a bridge with a former employer, but I didn’t realize it until many years later when I applied for another job there and got no response. Oh well, I got a job somewhere else instead.

      Burning bridges isn’t great, but it’s also not the end of the world, and not something that should be avoided at all costs.

  4. AskAnEmployee*

    Ariel was presumably an at-will employee when she was re-hired and if the organization needed to let her go for whatever reason, they surely would have done so, so I think OP is just completely off base here. Ariel is not required to stay on for any set amount of time just because you “re-hired” her, and thinking that someone should forego a great opportunity for themselves in this scenario is a bit weird. OP seems to think she did Ariel a favor by rehiring her and that Ariel somehow took advantage of that by getting a new job (“I want to be happy for Ariel’s great new opportunity — an opportunity that I’m sure her work here helped her prepare for”), showing one of the fundamental problems most bosses/employers have — acting like paying people in exchange for them doing work for you is doing them a “favor.”

    In any case, if OP wanted to ensure Ariel stayed for a set amount of time, there’s a way to do that contractually, but you lose the flexibility that employers demand by making everyone at-will.

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      Eh, it’s not about her being required to stay for any length of time, but people are allowed to have opinions about what employees/employers do. An employer isn’t obligated to keep you for any length of time either, but you’d be entitled to be annoyed if they let you go after a month. Likewise, a manager is entitled to be annoyed if an employee leaves after a month. It’s not the Worst Offense Ever, but it’s reasonable to have feelings about it.

      1. CmdrShepard*

        Alison does it change the answer at all that Ariel was not with the company for a year during the first stay? My understanding was that between the date of first hire and the end date of the second tenure the total time was one year.

        First time with the company before resignation: 7 months
        Time away from the company: 2 months
        Second time with the company: 3 months

        1. Can Can Cannot*

          Any reference check would probably go something like this: “Would you hire Ariel again if you had a chance?” Followed by “No, absolutely not.”

      2. The_artist_formerly_known_as_Anon-2*

        And, it’s also important to note ….

        Even if you’re in a position in which you’re being paid well, and you’re happy —

        YOU’RE A FOOL – if the phone rings, and someone claims that he has some opportunity that might suit you well, if you don’t at least LISTEN. Almost always, in my career, I said “thanks but no thanks for now.”

        But you never know what you might be turning down if you don’t listen.

      3. LTL*

        OP’s feelings are entirely valid, but at the same time, I don’t think it warrants mentioning in a reference. “She was rehired and quit after three months” is going to come across negatively regardless of whether OP intends to share it in a factual manner.

        An employee leaving after three months is incredibly annoying, but it’s not comparable to letting someone go after three months. Losing an employee is not the same as losing your livelihood.

        1. STG*

          I dunno. I think you are taking it too personally because you went to bat for a raise.

          She did good work for you. She gave you notice. She checked all the boxes. Sure, be annoyed about losing an employee but I don’t think you should be annoyed with her nor should it effect your reference. Honestly, I’m not even sure why people are viewing this as a bridge burned situation. Her agreeing to return didn’t come with a contract to stay for a predetermined amount of time.

  5. Middle School Teacher*

    I mean, people don’t necessarily leave work because they’re unhappy where they are. Sometimes amazing opportunities just happen.

    That being said, if nothing was actually done about the bad manager, OP should think about why that was and how to solve it.

    1. Rayray*

      I agree.

      I’m content with my current company and job. I got a sideways move into a position I like more after about 8 months and got two pay raises. I only just hit my year mark in July. I like the company culture and have been treated amazingly compared to past jobs.

      That being said, if I got another offer that came with a higher salary and comparable benefits, I’d have to take it. Cost of living has skyrocketed much more than wages and ultimately I need to make a living.

    2. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

      That was me at my last job. I enjoyed it, liked the team, was decently compensated, etc.. Then a recruiter hit me up on LinkedIn with a unicorn, as if I had written my dream job description and got to pick my ideal boss (and oh my is she my ideal boss) for $20K more. Had that not happened, I’d be happily trucking along at the old gig, but I seriously couldn’t say no (and am even more happy now – if that is possible!). Sometimes things just happen

  6. I'm just here for the cats*

    I know that this is an old letter but how much do you want to bet that this job that landed in her lap was something she applied for before she was rehired? Like the company was delayed in the hiring and so Ariel took this job again and then a few months later gets the call from the other company.

    It might not have been possible, but if I was in Ariel’s position I would have asked the new company if I could have more time to wrap up the trade show. Especially if they had delayed the hiring process. I think a good company would see that she is dedicated to her work. Presumably they would want her to give them the same kindness in the future if/when she leaves.

    1. Person from the Resume*

      That’s my read too. She was job hunting; the “great opportunity” just took 3-4 months to complete the process and hire her.

      It’s kind of an unprofessional move to keep job hunting and interviewing after you accept an offer, but maybe it was amazing and her “dream” job.

      1. Chairman of the Bored*

        “It’s kind of an unprofessional move to keep job hunting and interviewing after you accept an offer”

        Once an employer hires me is it unprofessional for *them* to keep looking for ways to eliminate or outsource my position?

        1. Person from the Resume*

          Actually if they hire you and then outsource your position within a few months, yes, they never should have hired anyone in the first place.

          Don’t be a dick, @Chairman, when someone accepts a new job they’re expect to stay for a year or two. Not a lifetime, not a career, but more than a few months. It doesn’t sound like the offer was any kind of bate and switch and it sounds like it was decent market salary.

          1. Chairman of the Bored*

            No employer ever: “We can save $X by dissolving our internal benefits group and outsourcing that function to a third party; but should hold off on that change because we just hired somebody in benefits 3 months ago and she expects to stay for a year or two.”

            It’s not being a “dick” to acknowledge that large employers provably have no loyalty to their own workers, and therefore don’t have any right to loyalty from those same workers.

            1. Purple Cat*

              Actually, the company I work for DID hold off on filling an open position (and we really weren’t sure why) until several months later it was announced those jobs were being consolidated several states away. So, yes, *some* employers do do the right thing and won’t hire somebody they KNOW they’d let go in short order.

              1. Anoni*

                They weren’t thinking of the person they might have hired, they were thinking of the waste of time and money it would be to hire someone and train them. Meanwhile, your group was probably short staffed and you were all taking on more work to cover that open position. That’s not doing the right thing; that’s a purely business decision.

                1. Boof*

                  You have a very adversarial view of employers – some behave this way but plenty do consider the impact of their decisions on the lives of employees.

            2. MadisonB*

              My old employer hired a secretary, laid her off after five months because of impending financial catastrophe that had nothing to do with her, and then rehired the same position again eight months later. If there were individuals who said “hey, this isn’t right” at any point in that process, the organization’s bottom line had the final say, full stop. I’ve never been well-served by doing an employer a favor. Ever. I may like my coworkers, I may respect/get along with my managers, but the organization as an entity is usually ruthless. Maybe I’m cynical, but the references game drives my loyalty/decision-making at this point in my work history, i.e., “If I do X, can I still get a reference from Manager B?” As it is, Ariel already has another job, and I would be surprised if she’ll long be needing a reference from this 1-year job.

              (And, in general, but putting so much faith and responsibility on the shoulders of a 1-year employee who’s already quit once doesn’t speak well of the organization’s ability to plan and assess risk.)

        2. KayDeeAye*

          Right after they hired you, Chairman of the Bored? Yes, it would. This actually happened to a guy I know – that is, hired to fill a position that was eliminated a few months later. It was unprofessional (and just downright wrong) to hire someone for a job that surely someone in the chain of command must have had known or strongly suspected was not long for this world.

          Now if it’s a couple of years down the line, that’s different. Whether you’re an individual or a company, you can’t read the future, and everybody has to do what’s best for him/her/them/itself, keeping in mind that everyone should be as professional and ethical as possible.

          But I digress. I understand why Ariel is leaving, but I understand why the OP is unhappy and why this bridge might be considered burned – or at least scorched. There is no bad guy here, as far as I can tell.

          1. Autumnheart*

            I was hired at a large national bank (FTE tech position) where they took 8 full weeks to complete the interview process, hired me, let me cool my heels for 2 months because they had a use-or-lose vacation policy and the office was a ghost town from Thanksgiving through New Year’s, then got fined by the SEC two months after that for shenanigans, and had to eliminate $90M worth of overhead to pay it, some of that being my job. I think I did about two weeks’ worth of actual work in the 4 months I was there.

            I also had multiple contract jobs where the company in question would lay off contractors one month because bad quarter, then hire for exactly the same position two weeks later (but not consider any of their previous contractors, I guess we had bad quarter cooties). I also know plenty of people who were hired for a job, or spent weeks going through the interview process, who then promptly got laid off or ghosted because the information about the layoffs was siloed from the people responsible for hiring? I guess? I truly cannot understand the logic. It costs money to perform a hiring search and bring candidates in to interview and on-board. You’d think someone in the financial office would be able to direct their subordinates to stop hiring for open positions in areas that are on the chopping block. Guess not.

        3. CmdrShepard*

          I think the more comparable example would be for the company to hire someone and keep interviewing for the same position, and 3 months later they find a way better candidate at a lower pay rate (or even the same rate) and fire the first candidate and hire the new one. Yes that would absolutely make the company unprofessional, burn a bridge and I would tell everyone not to work there.

        4. Anthony J Crowley*

          Our organisation at the minute is only hiring people on short term contracts because we are going through a restructure and there may be job losses. People who start now may be extended, but also, if job cuts are made, maybe they won’t be. It’s not perfect but it’s the most honest way to do it.

        5. Colette*

          If you started a job and were laid off 3 months later because the employer decided to eliminate your job, would you ever apply for another job there?

          A company that hires someone for a role that they are actively trying to eliminate is pretty sketchy, and it’s reasonable for applicants to consider that.

      2. Teapot Repair Technician*

        It’s kind of an unprofessional move to keep job hunting and interviewing after you accept an offer

        I plead guilty.

        I started a new job a few months ago, but after months of habitually checking the job boards everyday I saw no reason to stop. If a great opportunity comes along, I won’t hesitate to pursue it.

        The expectation that I should not have a wandering eye is reasonable in a personal monogamous relationship, not a professional relationship.

        1. Colette*

          You absolutely can leave a few months after starting – but it’s important to realize that you will burn a bridge and, if your current manager finds out you’re still looking, you may be forced to leave before you want to.

          1. Anoni*

            For the majority of us, those bridges aren’t as important as we’re led to believe. If you’re somewhere for just a few months, it’s unlikely you’d put it on your resume. Or, if you did, it would be easy to explain you realized the work isn’t a good fit, etc. Most people have more available references.

            1. Colette*

              Sure, but you’ll probably be marked as “do not hire” at the company, and if the hiring manager moves to another company, you may not get hired there, either. References aren’t the only thing you risk.

              1. Autumnheart*

                At a company that keeps Ursulas around even as Ariels leave in droves, that doesn’t sound like much of a loss.

    2. Junior Dev*

      Right! Some hiring timelines are ridiculous — I once didn’t hear back from a company at all for about 6 months, then got a call saying they’d scheduled me for an interview the following week. That’s extreme but it’s quite possible she put in her application to the other place right before accepting the job back.

      1. kiki*

        Yes! After I finished school applied for a bunch of roles within the span of a month. I was hired at one of those jobs the next month. I was still hearing back from companies I applied to 6 months later. That’s one of the things I dislike most about job hunting– you don’t receive all the offers you will receive at once, so you don’t know if accepting the first offer that comes to you is really the best idea.

      2. Zephy*

        I applied for a position seven months before being contacted for an interview at the place where I currently work. (I’ve since been promoted into another role here.) I didn’t even remember applying when I got the interview request, I just happened to be randomly checking my email on my phone as I was walking into a movie theater (remember those?).

    3. TWB*

      This is what happened to me. The job I am at now, I applied and went through the process and then was abruptly told they “weren’t moving forward” with my application. I was devastated because the one on one with my manager went really well and we had an almost instant rapport.

      With EI about to run out, I accepted another position at a different company. Six weeks later, my phone rang with the manager of HR telling me they had resumed the hiring process for the position and if I was still interested, she would move on to calling my references and presenting an offer.

      I felt AWFUL having to tell the boss of where I was that I was leaving. Especially after only six weeks. Six years later, I still feel guilty. But it was a choice between staying where I was (which frankly, I hated) and risk the dream job position never becoming available again, or leaving the current boss in the lurch. I had to do what I felt was best for me. Even if I hadn’t hated where I was, I still would have made the same decision..

  7. Susie Q*

    Honestly, if the roles were reversed, the company would do the exact same to Ariel. The minute Ariel became not needed to the company, she’d be let go regardless of her needs and situation.

    1. Chairman of the Bored*

      Bingo.

      An employer isn’t going to hesitate to downsize somebody a few months after hiring them because it would be “unprofessional” not to keep them around for a year or whatever.

      Also, employees end up “in the lurch” all the time when they lose their jobs and can’t pay their rent or electric bill etc. This doesn’t stop employers from laying them off regardless.

      Turns out that works both ways, go figure.

    2. CmdrShepard*

      Sure if Ariel became not needed to the company they would let her go, but this is not the same situation. I think the more accurate reverse situation is, OP’s company offered the job to Sebastian their top candidate head and shoulders above the rest including Ariel, Jane tells the company they can’t make a decision yet, so OP hires Ariel. 3 months later Sebastian comes back and says he is available to work for OP’s company at a much lower pay rate than Ariel, OP’s company fires Ariel to hire Sebastian. Most decent companies would not do that, and if they did everyone would agree that even though the company did what was in their best interest what they did was a bad thing.

      If the company did hire Ariel and 3 months later let her go because they realized she is not needed everyone would agree the company acted in bad faith and should have planned better, would hold it against the company.

      Neither side would be wrong for doing what is in their best interest but that does not mean it can’t or shouldn’t be held against them.

      1. Aggretsuko*

        Ooooh, I got Ariel-fired (I was most recent hire) so my old job could hire Sebastian. I would have lasted in that job forever, Sebastian as far as I know didn’t last long. Well, that was on them.

    3. Richard Hershberger*

      For that matter, it is likely that were the LW in Ariel’s shoes, they would do exactly the same thing. This huffiness is entirely about being inconvenienced, not about Ariel doing anything wrong.

      1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

        Yeah, I chuckled when I got to “isn’t it unprofessional to leave for a big raise” what? no it’s not. We all have families to support and bills to pay.

        1. fposte*

          I don’t think that’s what the OP was asking, though–the OP is the one who hired Ariel with a big raise, so she’s asking if it’s unprofessional for Ariel to leave that job for another job so quickly. Basically, it’s “I put in a lot of work to get her more money and now she’s leaving. Is that wrong of her?” The answer is still no, but it’s understandable that the OP isn’t delighted.

          1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

            Ohh, you’re right. I read “But isn’t it awfully unprofessional to accept an offer — with a large raise — and leave not even a full quarter later” as all referring to offer #2 (which did come with a large raise). You are right that what this says is “Isn’t in unprofessional to first accept one offer (with a large raise) and then, not even a quarter later, to accept another?”

          2. Alex*

            Well, but let’s be honest here… from the fact that she got a “huge raise” when being rehired, just to be offered another “huge bump in salary” from the new position mostly tells me that she most likely was pretty harshly underpaid in her initial stint with OPs company to begin with.

            1. Autumnheart*

              I’m assuming that the salary that Ariel received when hired for the 3-month position was the one they were offering in order to attract candidates. It’s not like they were like, “Oh, please don’t leave, we’ll give you a big raise if you stay,” because that didn’t happen. They were fine with it when Ariel quit the first time.

              1. Autumnheart*

                But also, if Ariel was making more as a new hire than someone who had been working there at least a year, that’s a problem. Good thing Ariel did quit, because I’m sure morale would be tanking like crazy if that news got out.

      2. fposte*

        I think that’s a good differentiation. It’s understandable and okay to be a little put out about being inconvenienced, but that doesn’t mean anybody’s done something wrong. Think of it as the workplace equivalent of road construction.

      3. KayDeeAye*

        I don’t think “huffiness” is a fair description. That’s pretty dismissive of the OP’s feelings. Of course the OP is annoyed – who wouldn’t be? But of course Ariel is well within her rights to leave for a better job. I don’t see any reason to make either the OP or Ariel the bad guy here.

    4. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

      Came here to say this. Yep, it’s a crappy situation for the company to lose a key employer right before an event they’d expected her to be the key person for, because somebody else offered a large raise and a better career path. But it would’ve been just as crappy (if not more) of a situation for Ariel, if tomorrow the company decided it would be better for them economically to lay Ariel off, and if Ariel had large medical bills, school bills, or other big expenses coming up. Except in the second case, no one would be asking “isn’t it awfully unprofessional for Company to lay their employee off not even a quarter after, leaving her in the lurch?” That’s corporate America. It comes with the territory. I was taught very early in my career to never be loyal to a company, because a company is never going to be loyal to me, or any other employee. Or, as another of my favorite quotes goes, “it was business. Nothing personal.”

    5. Rayray*

      Yep. Anyone who has been burned this way can tell you.

      My last boss tricked me into moving my car out of the pay garage and when I came
      Back to get the things she asked me to drop off on my way home, I instead was handed a severance check and asked to hand over my parking and building badges and that was it. 5:00 PM on a Friday.

      1. Anoni*

        True, but Ariel still should be putting her needs ahead of the company’s because ultimately the company will put its needs ahead of her. Anyone who would turn down a great raise and the chance to build their own team and go into leadership because their current company is so nice would be pretty strange.

        1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

          +1000 to that last sentence. Also, it’s not like she can turn this offer down today and come back for it a few years later, when she feels she’s paid her dues at OP’s company. IME, the offers to build your own team and to go into leadership, or to otherwise get a major boost to your career, drain very quickly as you get older and, uh, more stagnant in your career. She really meant it when she said the offer was too good to pass up. I’ve said those words to people before as code for “I can’t tell you why I’m really leaving” (as did some of my departing coworkers, rather transparently), but in this case it really does sound like it was that good of an offer.

      2. Susie Q*

        True but all companies will put the company’s need above any individual employee’s need. Therefore employees need to do the same.

  8. NYC Taxi*

    Ariel needs to do what’s best for her and owes you nothing. It’s too bad it happened at a critical time with an upcoming trade show, but how understaffed is your company that one person leaving causes such upheaval? That’s an organizational issue, not Ariel’s issue. She may not have been unhappy – she could have been headhunted, had the process rolling before starting, or saw the job notice and couldn’t pass up the opportunity. And what if she was unhappy? What were you going to do for her? If she was unhappy most likely she would have been planning her exit regardless of actions you would have taken.

    1. EPLawyer*

      What if she was unhappy?

      You should be having 1:1 with your reports so you KNOW what is going on with them. Not to ferret out if they are job hunting but to make sure they are getting the support they need and the opportunities they need to grow. If she left to start her own team, you should have KNOWN that was one of her goals. You should have had a plan in place to get her that OR let her know it was not going to happen at that company while realizing that meant she would leave.
      A managers job is to proactively make sure that people are getting what they want out of their jobs, not wait for an employee to let you know they are unhappy.

  9. Annie J*

    This letter in bodies and attitude buy some managers and I can’t stand it, the idea that employees should be grateful for even having a job and that employers only hire them out of the goodness of their hearts, and because of this the employee owes loyalty to the business.
    As others have said, the employee in this instance needs to look out for their own best interests, especially in the US way in some parts, employers can fire someone just because they don’t like the colour of the employees shoes, the OP doesn’t own aerial, I’m curious to see if other staff members will quit in the hopes of being retained with a large bonus.

    1. Rayray*

      Agree. I bet Ariel get bad for dipping out so soon, but if a better offer came to her, should she really have passed on it in the name of loyalty? Especially when companies will drop employees like it’s nothing?

      We work to sell our labor for money. We work so we can afford to live. If she got More money from the new job, it’s a no brainer. Cost of living is rising faster than wages can keep up with in the USA and she probably did what she had to do.

  10. Long time reader, first time commenter*

    “Leaving you in a lurch” is not a reason to resent someone leaving. If Ariel got a better opportunity then she is right in taking it. I’ve found that often when I’ve left a job it’s been at an inopportune time for them – it’s often when we’re short staffed and have big projects coming up. And while I do feel bad for leaving at that time, it’s actually the perfect time for me to depart as it’s when I’m most overworked and burnt out. I think the better question here is “How can we make this a more appealing workplace for the long term?” Companies should look to improve their own shortcomings and then they’ll better understand why opportunities elsewhere may be more appealing.

    1. mousekatool*

      I am leaving my current company at a really inopportune time for them explicitly because I’m burned out, stressed, couldn’t sleep, etc. I feel very bad for my boss and coworkers, but I told them repeatedly I had too much on my plate and they didn’t take anything off and just added more. I gave them 3 weeks notice so while I feel bad, I had to do the right thing for me. This company just laid off 90% of the people I worked with for 9 years, sorry if I don’t feel the same level of commitment that I once did.

      1. Long time reader, first time commenter*

        I recently did the same. And, I am wondering (based on your screen name) if it might be the same company… I also felt like a mousekatool by the end of my tenure. Regardless, I applaud you making the move that’s best for you!

      2. Anoni*

        This. I am looking, have a few good leads, and if anything works out to an offer, I will be heading out. It will be really bad timing for my employer because they’ve been ignoring the burn out rate, staff turnover has increased dramatically, and it’s possible I’ll be the only person left of the three who do my job by the end of the week. I’m also in line to move into a manager’s position in the next couple of months. But that doesn’t mean I won’t go if the right opportunity comes along.

  11. Observer*

    What really struck me about the question is this:

    But isn’t it awfully unprofessional to accept an offer — with a large raise — and leave not even a full quarter later

    Why on earth is the OP calling out the raise as somehow making the resignation more unprofessional? Are people supposed to overlook finances as a matter of “professionalism”? To me the large raise is something that actually makes this LESS problematic. Because this is a job that is not just a little bit better, but provides two very significant advantages that she would be unwise to ignore.

    1. Yorick*

      The large raise was in the job that OP gave her, not the new job that she left for. OP is saying that she secured a much higher salary for Ariel when she was rehired and then she left after 2 months.

      1. Richard Hershberger*

        There were two raises. Ariel got a raise when she came back, and it getting more money yet, at her new job.

        1. Bostonian*

          I had to reread it, but I’m pretty sure the OP is talking about the initial offer here in the quoted statement.

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            Yes, they are saying there “we gave her more money, so how can she leave us now?” But while the new amount they offered may have been more than she was earning before, that doesn’t automatically make it enough to stay if the next job offered even MORE more money!

    2. EPLawyer*

      well yes, we aren’t supposed to work for somthing so crass as MONEY. We are supposed to be PASSIONATE about our work, or the mission of the company or just be grateful to have any job. The fact we work to pay our bills is NOT supposed to be brought up in professional company.

      1. fposte*

        But that’s not what the OP is annoyed at. She’s frustrated that *she* got Ariel a raise and Ariel still left. It’s easy to misread, and I think that’s why a lot of people are doing it.

    3. LabTechNoMore*

      This really stuck out to me too, the resentful attitude OP has towards the employee for the raise. As if it’s Ariel’s fault that no one else got a raise that year, rather than being management’s problem.

      1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

        That part was interesting. So there has been resentment about Ariel getting a raise when she came back, when her teammates who’d stayed under Ursula hadn’t gotten one? well, Ariel and her unfair(?) raise are now gone. Problem solved!

      2. onco fonco*

        Yeah – if everyone deserved a raise and only Ariel got one, that isn’t Ariel’s doing! I mean, I get that LW feels the company pushed the boat out for Ariel to get her back, but this is resentment in the wrong direction. If everyone deserves what Ariel got, that’s a company problem, not an Ariel problem. A race to the bottom serves no one.

    4. nonprofiteer*

      Well, was it really a raise? Or was she hired back at market rate, or for a somewhat different role at somewhat different pay? I’m not familiar with “raises” for people who aren’t current employees.

      1. MadisonB*

        This is a great question.

        Context matters a lot. For example, if Ariel was originally making $25K and was hired back at $35K, then left for a job where she’s now making $45K, that’s a big deal. But, sure, in this hypothetical, OP got Ariel a big raise….but I would not be loyal to an employer for $35K per year unless there was one hell of a benefits package. (I’m not saying this is the case or these are the numbers. But I think it’s worth thinking about. It’s all relative.)

  12. Chc34*

    At my old job we’d had someone in an intern-like role who we hired full-time. On the last day of her first full-time week, she quit because she’d been offered a much better opportunity somewhere else. My director was PISSED, but, like, I don’t blame the intern! It was something she’d applied for during her internship when there was no guarantee she’d get a full-time job with us. Sometimes things happen like that and yeah the timing might suck, but you can’t blame people for taking what they’re offered.

    1. Witch*

      Lol. I got jerked around as an intern by a company who claimed they wanted to hire me. I really should’ve been applying at other places in the meantime, but I was young.

      The company did, in fact, fire me and I really like them so it worked out. But it was one of those things that makes a relationship between employer and employee inherently unequal.

  13. Colorado*

    Gotta file this under shit happens and move on. I am loyal to an incredible company I work for but in less than 24 hours we went from feast to famine based on some unfavorable clinical data and layoffs occurred immediately. That’s the life of pharma dev, I know what I signed up for and thankfully this time I was spared. So it definitely works both ways..

  14. Andy*

    > She says she received an opportunity she couldn’t turn down, with a huge raise and a chance to build and lead a team.

    I find this valid. That is not opportunity one would pass.

    > Upon returning, she received a significant raise from her previous salary, while many people who had never left the company received no annual raise this year.

    People job hop, because it companies reward it. Staying long is not rewarded, it punished by having your concerns ignored. The people putting up with micromanagers are not rewarded either. For that matter, bad managers are not treated as an issue that needs to be solved either.

    1. Andy*

      To elaborate, if company has a manager everyone complains about, then people who got hired into that team have a right to leave fast. The company should deal with manager issue in that case instead of relying on people being afraid to leave.

      Also, my experience is that bad managers are dealt with only when good people start to leave and after multiple new hired left. People staying and complaining is quite rare to be rewarded with improvement in management.

      1. Annie*

        Absolutely, in fact the story the OP tells proves this, why does aerial who has only worked for the company for a year at this point the only one to get a raise presumably there are other employees who are just as hardworking and have worked at the company longer, even others who worked under the same manager Ursula.
        when I say to people that you shouldn’t be loyal to a company, it’s not because I have some vindictive streak but rather because companies genuinely don’t seem to care about loyal employees at all, they will take advantage, beg borrow and steal as much time as possible and very rarely give raises because they figure they’ve got a good deal going and they don’t want to mess it up, yet they will expend a great deal of effort and money in acquiring new employees, for some bizarre reason.
        I think it’s akin to cell phone providers who have all the best deals for new customers, and nothing for those who have been with them for many years because they assume such people will keep on paying them.

    2. Rayray*

      “ People job hop, because it companies reward it. ”

      Evidence: Ariel got a raise and the other employees who have been there the whole time did not.

    3. ecnaseener*

      Yeah the raise thing is….not in the slightest bit Ariel’s fault. If OP chose not to give anyone a raise and funnel all that money into wooing Ariel back, that’s on them. You take a risk and sometimes you lose. Give all your workers cost of living increases at least for goodness’ sake.

  15. The_artist_formerly_known_as_Anon-2*

    1) Good for you for recognizing that you had a problem with “Ursula”. However, if there was a high degree of discontent with her, and people were quitting, and you recognized that, even after people were leaving, good. The fact that you were willing to hire Ariel back is ALSO a good thing – it’s better to rebound and save your organization than to “stick to your guns” and damage it further.

    2) Ariel – however, is to be lauded here, for doing what we used to call in the 1980s = “taking care of number one”. Way too often, I read in here “oh even though I’m two months behind on my rent and my car was repossessed, I feel so guilty about leaving (situation poverty) for (situation where I can pay my bills).” exaggeration but you get the point .

    Yes, I’d be upset over the timing – BUT – do remember that people will look out for themselves, as they should. Whether the opportunity was “in progress” when she came back – or it just came up, it’s all good for “Ariel” and you should wish her the best of luck.

  16. JennyBird*

    I am probably too bitter to answer this objectively but put yourself in Ariel’s shoes: how excited would you be to go back to a place that allowed poor management to force you out of your job? In my experience, loyalty to an employer is rarely reciprocated in kind. If a good opportunity arises it is best to go for it even if the timing is not great.

    It’s fine to be upset that someone is leaving at a bad time but I would not let it sour my opinion of an otherwise good employee.

  17. CommanderBanana*

    It’s entirely possible – if not probable – that she wasn’t unhappy, but did in fact get a new opportunity with a huge raise and management opportunities that she couldn’t turn down. And bringing up her vacation and sick leave sounds petty and like you’re bean-counting.

    That being said, I’m in conference planning and it is generally considered an industry no-no to quit right before a big event if you can avoid it. Leaving less than a month before a big event could be, in this industry, considered a red flag by other employers, but it just sounds like she found a better opportunity and took it.

    If you’re thinking of giving her a negative reference because she left for a new job, don’t. That’s going to backfire and bite you later when it leaks out – and it will – and your other employees think twice about giving notice before leaving.

    1. Larry Gossamer*

      Yeah, I think if I were Ariel’s shoes, and the new employer was okay with waiting a couple more weeks, I’d stick around to do the trade show as a sort of thank-you for being re-hired and exactly to not burn this bridge. The new employer should look at it as a sign that Ariel will wrap things up nicely when it comes time for them to leave.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        I definitely would – and if you’re going to another organization where you’ll be doing conference planning, they should understand why you have to wait until after an event wraps.

  18. Name*

    I recently hired a Sr. Manager level role. We postponed her start date at her request for “family reasons” – then she quit less than 3 weeks after she started. She clearly had been continuing to interview after accepting the position with us. So, ok, she can do what is best for her. But bridge burned, and I will never hire again or recommend her to anyone in my network. And I have a large network. It was a critical time sensitive role, she knew that, and we went out of our way to be accommodating to her needs. Playing us like that set us back months. If she didn’t want it, she shouldn’t have taken it.

    1. Long time reader, first time commenter*

      Name, I did this once in my career when I was very young and did not know any better. I agree it’s unprofessional and I wouldn’t do it at this point in my life, but also – a man’s gotta eat. Sometimes you take a position that isn’t what you want (personally and/or financially) because you need the work, and you’re willing to burn that bridge if needed when a better option does come along. I certainly understand the hard feelings on your part, but turning down your offer and “holding out for the job I really want” doesn’t put food on the table. So, sometimes employees have to make hard choices that best accomplish their longer term career goals.

    2. Aggretsuko*

      Right, that sort of thing sucks, but she could have been waiting on the better job to come through and it did–3 weeks late. She probably started interviewing before your job.

    3. Decor*

      I understand your frustration, but this reaction is deeply petty. It’s business. People work in exchange for money, which allows them to do things like be fed and housed. I doubt very much she set out to inconvenience you, and I’d bet the other role was more suitable for her, including in terms of remuneration. She may also have deeply disliked your workplace and/or management style. She owes you nothing.

      1. Name*

        I do spent real effort when I’m contacted about references, and also helping people in my org with their career development and building their own network. When I am applying for jobs, and when I’m advising/coaching others who are applying for jobs, accepting one means pulling out of other active interview processes. I wouldn’t hire someone and then 3 weeks after they start decide I like the runner-up candidate better and fire the first one.

  19. Chaordic One*

    When I worked in H.R. we had a similar situation. The employee in question had been kept on in spite of having a large number of medical problems over the period of a couple of years and she never really did contribute all that much during her last couple of years at the organization. Her co-workers rallied and put in a lot of extra time and effort filling in for her and doing the work that she couldn’t because of her illness. When she finally recovered, shortly after returning to work she resigned to take a better job and TPTB were pissed, not just her managers, but also her co-workers.

    A couple of year after that, in my low-level HR job, I received an inquiry about her work at the organization. I assume she had applied for another job. I verified her job title, her dates of employment, and, in answer to the only other question I was allowed to answer, said, “No, she was not eligible for rehire.”

      1. Chaordic One*

        I guess it is the risk you take anytime when you quit one job to take another. Depending on the job offer, it is probably almost always worth it to leave one job for a better one, and I hope it won’t be seen as a red flag by prospective employers. Allison has provided some good scripts for dealing with questions like this if they come up in interviews.

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      The employee in question had been kept on in spite of having a large number of medical problems over the period of a couple of years and she never really did contribute all that much during her last couple of years at the organization.

      Well, I think it’s a good thing that the company did not try to get rid of her due to medical problems, and depending on what they were I can’t say I’m surprised she wasn’t able to contribute much during those years. And while I can see it being irksome for her co-workers to put in a lot of extra time to help out, only for her to leave, I also don’t think she was in any way in the wrong to accept a better job.

    2. Gingerblue*

      That’s… rather awful. If you’re ever seriously ill and not treated as 100% disposable, you’re then obligated to stay with the same company forevermore out of, what, a sense of feudal obligation?

    3. can-relate*

      Wow. Really?

      How long did this employee work for the company, all up? Like, was she there for ten years, and sick for the last two?

      What period of time following her recovery would it have been acceptable to you for her to leave for another job? A year? Two? Five? Ten?

      The new role she moved to, did it pay her better? Assuming you are US-based, did her new role provide her with better benefits, including better medical insurance? Did her illness leave her with large medical bills, or did the insurance you provided her with mean she did not incur any costs?

      And, with all due respect, in your “low-level HR job”, do you actually know what this person’s co-workers thought, or are you just relying on either gossip or conjecture?

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but unless there is a hell of a lot of detail and context missing here, you are not the good guy in this story. You actually did something pretty low, especially if you were the decision-maker regarding her eligibility.

  20. Budgie Buddy*

    Yep, OP doesn’t have to “Feel happy” for Ariel. She needs to be professional and polite. It’s normal to feel a bit testy when someone quits out of the blue and also causes a ton of stress on your end. Feel what you need up feel, just keep some perspective.

    I mean, if your romantic partner dumped you because they were propositioned by a dream mate who was sooooo amazing and fulfilled them in ways you legit never could—you’re allowed to feel less than thrilled, right? All relationships can end at any time, that’s just the deal, but being rejected never feels great. Just because those unpleasant feelings are more normalized in a romantic context doesn’t mean they only happen there.

    1. MCMonkeyBean*

      Professional relationship by there very nature should NOT be as personal as romantic ones. Those scenarios are not remotely comparable.

  21. Person from the Resume*

    My question for the LW is how much of this was a “rehire”? It sounds to me that Ariel quit her job in another department and then applied for a job in your department. That’s a new job; she didn’t get raise, she got a salary that was deemed acceptable by both of you.

    It was up to you as the manager if you wanted to approve a bunch of vacation for a new hire who was just learning her new duties. OTOH if the big trade show precludes her from taking time off surrounding it, it may have made sense to get her vacation in early. But that’s on you as the manager.

    I think if you’re asked to give a reference, you can honestly say that she worked for you less than 3 months so you can’t comment much on her work especially if the big trade show was her major output.

    And if this was a rehire where corners were cut in the hiring process and you just called her up and offered the job, that’s different, but you can still think of it as her only working for you in that role for less than 3 months.

    1. Wisteria*

      For a lot of companies, being hired back after leaving, whether voluntary or involuntary, whether in the same department or in a different department, is defined as a “re-hire.” So if LW says Ariel was a re-hire, it probably means in that sense.

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        Yes, I left my company and then came back less than a year later to another team and am considered a “re-hire.”

        But I agree with the point that even though I make more money than I did before I wouldn’t call it a “raise.” It’s a different salary for a different job.

  22. Total*

    I think Ariel certainly had a right to do what she did. Taking her at her word, an offer she couldn’t refuse came her way. She really had to look out for herself at that point.

    Having said that, I think the LW can quite reasonably feel annoyed by this, just on the short time back in the job.

    (The counterpoint — that companies can and will fire people at will is true, even after a really short time, but it’s also a right that we would criticize them exercising.)

  23. Mental Lentil*

    two vacations (travel planned before she was re-hired) and a sick leave lasting the better part of two week

    AND she got a huge raise!

    Ariel is the hero we all need right now.

  24. Khatul Madame*

    The story may have been that Ariel was heavily recruited to return and she gave in despite not loving the company – the money was good and maybe she had no comparable options at the time. As for the good pay rate LW arranged for Ariel and being angry about that – this is totally LW’s guilt about not being able to get raises for her other staff. I have been in this situation (ask for raises for the existing people and receive exactly bupkes) and it feels awful, but it’s absolutely not Ariel’s fault.
    Lastly, less than 2 weeks notice is less than ideal, but the LW has had some time to backstop. Ariel most likely could not have stayed 5+ weeks longer to prep and run the trade show.

  25. anon for this*

    “Upon returning, she received a significant raise from her previous salary, while many people who had never left the company received no annual raise this year.”

    Companies are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong to do this, I’ve seen it happen and it builds major resentment. The employee isn’t wrong, the company is. Give everyone significant raises for goodness sake.

    1. irene adler*

      Yep!

      I’m sensing an upcoming exodus by those who “never left the company” and “received no annual raise this year”.

      They may even believe that their annual raise went to Ariel to lure her back.
      (I recognize this is not what happened. )

      1. Autumnheart*

        Even “Hey, we’re willing to pay new hires more than people who’ve been with the company a while” is a morale-killer without any other context. A company that does that is asking for high turnover and a brain drain. Pay your people.

  26. Dust Bunny*

    So this company apparently didn’t get rid of a problem manager and quite possibly drags its feet on giving raises, and the LW is miffed that Ariel bailed again? Sounds like this might be a pervasive company culture issue and Ariel was glad to cut out when a better long-term prospect came up. As she should have.

    LW if your company is inconvenienced by people leaving they need to mitigate the problem by addressing out-of-line managers and compensating people appropriately.

  27. froodle*

    So, the company was willing to let Ursula micromanage and make her report’s lives a nightmare to the point where Ariel quit, and that’s fine, but Ariel gets a better job elsewhere and that’s somehow unprofessional? Pppfffffffffffttttt.

  28. onco fonco*

    This is a thing that happens around hiring. People who need a job are usually looking at multiple jobs! And sometimes you’ll hire someone for whom you WERE the best option available, but then another employer with a slow hiring process gets back to them with a dream offer. It’s deeply annoying for you, and you’re entitled to be unhappy about it, but in the sense that a problem you thought you had sorted out has just popped up again, even bigger and more urgent. That can happen for so many reasons, though! New hires turn out to be awful, or an employee has an accident, or a baby, or an offer they can’t refuse. You don’t have to love Ariel right now, you definitely don’t have to rehire her again if she applies in the future, but it would be unfair to let this colour how you see her as a professional.

  29. D3*

    The subtext that Ariel is not grateful enough for being rehired, getting a raise, time off, etc is really, really off putting.
    Especially given this company:
    – Tolerated a bad manager to the point people quit
    – Didn’t give employees raises this year
    – Thinks time off for travel is something that employees should feel indebted about.
    Ariel didn’t show the company anything less than the company showed her. I’m so over companies that have the attitude that employees should have gratitude or loyalty to a company that doesn’t have either for the employees.
    You want employees to stick around? Create good working conditions. Pay fairly. Show THEM loyalty and gratitude.

    1. Meep*

      It is an old-school mindset. We have a VP who is like this. She told everyone that “we” (or more often “she”) paid for this guy’s PhD, his house, his car, and his wedding all without basis. He had a full ride and came from wealthy family. His parents paid for all these things, but because we gave him a job worth peanuts, he should be begging to lick the soles of her feet.

      I was very clear when I went back to school that I was paying for MY degree. She still tries to tell people that “she” is paying for it. I am not even using money I EARNED from the company. Same when it was time for me to buy a house. When I finally got a raise after 3 years, she had “fought for it” and the owner wanted to give me less. Never mind, she had been trying 6 months previously to get me fired so she could take my paycheck as a raise for herself. -eye roll-

      It is never her fault when people find better jobs, though, because she “advocated so hard” for them.

  30. Workfromhome*

    I dont think Ariel did anything wrong and he only person whos burring a bridge is the LW

    “She hadn’t given me any indication she was unhappy.” Why would she? Many people complained about the former manger micro managing while she was there and nothing was done about it. People were unhappy and complained with no result. Why would you expect her to tell you she’s unhappy if its already proven nothing will be done?
    “Ariel returned about three months ago. Upon returning, she received a significant raise from her previous salary, while many people who had never left the company received no annual raise this year.

    Last week, Ariel submitted her resignation, giving slightly less than two weeks’ notice. She says she received an opportunity she couldn’t turn down, with a huge raise”

    Why wouldn’t she do that? From the company behaviour she is unlikely to get another raise at said company. There were no annual raises this year. The only person she knows of that got a raise was her. why did she get a raise? because she left so the only hope of a future raise is tah dah…to leave!

    “She is also leaving less than a month before the biggest tradeshow of the year for our industry ”

    Well she’d only been back 3 months maybe less with the vacation etc. would you give the preparation of the biggest trade show of the year to a new hire even if they had experience outside the company) who had only ben on the job 2 or 3 months? or would you give it to an experienced employee giving them 6 moths to prepare if you didn’t hire Ariel back would you have had a replacement for her, had time to train he replacement and give them the job of the big trade show in a less than 4 month span? Or had ou not hired her would you have been shorthanded trying to prepare for the trade show anyways?

    The company is a “very small team” so small in fact that losing one person requires the company to “spend a lot of extra money on professional production help for the tradeshow “. sounds like a lot of very important work for people who dont even get a cost of living raise.

  31. Meep*

    I had a coworker who left a grand total of three times. They kept promising him changes, but never actually followed through. The grand change? Getting a manager that actually wanted to manage. That was two years ago and we lost our only manager two weeks ago due to burnout. I would maybe look internally first for what you can fix. It is the only thing you can change about the situation.

  32. Emily*

    Ariel was really underpaid previously if she was able to get two significant raises in such a brief period of time. That may have been part of why she left — not just for more money, but also to not be working at the company that was fine doing that to her and was only even willing to partially remedy that to get her back. I’ve been there, and it’s demoralizing.

    1. KWu*

      This here. She got a huge raise even above the increase to return, and she probably knew that people who hadn’t left hadn’t gotten raises at all. There’s no reason to stick around for long in that kind of environment.

  33. Observer*

    Another thing that stood out to me was describing her leaving the job the first time as “job hopping”. Sorry, leaving a toxic manager is NOT job hopping. The fact that you describe it that way says something about your attitude which may help explain why she was even open to listening to this job that turned into what sounds like a genuinely good opportunity.

    The fact that everyone else working under her shared a complaint about Ursula, but she was not gotten rid of, also says some things about your organization. She may have come back thinking that things were changing, only to realize that things had NOT changed much. And, I have to wonder how much animosity or negativity from other staff she was getting? That’s a very valid reason to leave, as well.

    OP, I get you are annoyed. And no one like being left in the lurch. But I hope that you’ve taken some time to think about the whole situation and improved as a manager / moved on to a better employer that has helped re-set your expectations.

  34. Anonymous pineapple*

    Ok, so if Ariel had turned down the new opportunity out of a sense of loyalty and gratitude to you for re-hiring her, and then a few weeks or months later the decision came down from the C-suite to lay her off due to outsourcing/a merger/reorganization, then what? Would you tell them that they couldn’t get rid of her because she had only been working there a few months since the re-hire and would be left in a lurch? Or would you give her some platitude about how “it’s not personal” and “decisions like this are never easy to make”? Maybe pat yourself on the back for having given her a short opportunity that would help her in her next job without even knowing that she passed up a dream job for you? “It’s just business” goes both ways, especially when you admit to running yours in such away that people who stay don’t get raises.

  35. TennisFan*

    I completely agree with Allison’s response so just adding a bit more for flavor. Going by the three questions asked by the OP:
    Was it unprofessional?: No. For better or worse, hiring/quitting/firing is considered transactional within U.S. business culture, and the term unprofessional, in my opinion, is a mismatch for that type of interaction. The transaction Ariel made is likely exchanging her positive reputation with you and your company for another opportunity. That’s a reasonable choice on her part, and it’s reasonable for you not to consider hiring her again in the future based off this interaction.
    Should if affect your opinion, if asked to give a reference?: The nature of this question is somewhat subjective so I can see people having a range of responses. Asking for a reference is partly a personal interaction, which can make it a bit tricky to navigate. In your shoes, if she asks you for one, I might point out that you only have limited firsthand knowledge of her performance and clarify whether that will be sufficient for what the employer will be looking for. Maybe she doesn’t have another better option though. If you decide to agree, I’d focus on sharing information that objectively reflects her performance. If you’re not sure you can do that, I wouldn’t agree to be a reference.
    Did you make a mistake rehiring a past employee?: The way this question is originally worded by the OP, I think supports too broad of a conclusion. Past employees come back to companies frequently. I don’t think it’s predictive usually of their future success at that company. In addition, there are a lot of specific circumstances to this employee’s situation. Could you consider checking into your team’s hiring process and confirming it’s fully reflective of accepted best practices? Can’t hurt. But I’d be wary of bringing the baggage of past employee experiences to future hiring decisions, because maxims like that tend to get disproved quite often.

  36. Ampersand*

    I can’t imagine someone who worked for you for a max of 6 weeks is going to attempt to use you as a reference in the future. If they did, it would (presumably) be to speak to work they did before you were their supervisor, which I don’t think it would be unprofessional to decline. I think the “bridge burned” here is a reference from a direct supervisor at this company.
    Note: I would feel differently if the OP has been the direct supervisor previously but I don’t understand that to be the case.

    1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

      Oh, absolutely. And I guarantee that Ariel realizes this, and won’t be giving OP as her reference anyway. Did she need OP’s reference to get her new job? no. Then she won’t be needing it at her next. FWIW, I would decline to be a reference in this situation too; if not for any reason other than that it was only a max of six weeks. But she really is not likely to ask.

  37. Beautiful, talented, brilliant, powerful musk-ox*

    Maybe I’m getting bitter in my old (uh…mid-thirties) age, but I’m getting really tired of companies thinking that salary bumps are favors or deserving of loyalty pledges. You either pay someone what their work is worth or you don’t. I understand that this situation is frustrating, but presenting the salary increase the way it was written about in the letter is just icky. Okay, you gave her a salary increase compared to her previous agreement with you. What does that have to do with her leaving?

    Maybe the intent was just, “Here’s all the things I did; should I have done more to retain this employee?” but it comes across as, “Here’s all the things I did; isn’t this employee ungrateful and unprofessional for not pledging loyalty to me?” and that’s just the wrong attitude to have when managing and employing people.

  38. Clever Girl*

    This comment is probably too late to be seen by anyone, but my reaction to this was basically: HAHHAHA would you really expect her to turn down a better job that paid significantly more and gave her the chance to develop new skills because there was a trade show in a month? You are delusional if you think that’s a reasonable expectation. None of your employees owe you loyalty because you “gave them a job”. They are doing work for you, and you are in turn paying them a (hopefully fair) compensation for that work. Their work benefits you and you are paying them for that. You aren’t doing them a favor by hiring them, and you need to get over that attitude right now.

    1. Former Employee*

      I saw your comment because I am even further behind in my reading!

      I would add that given the usual “last hired/first fired”, if the company had lost a contract and had to do a layoff, it’s very likely that Ariel would have been out the door.

      Loyalty seems to be expected from employees to the company, but the company always has a solid business reason for why they can’t be loyal to their employees.

Comments are closed.