Leaving an affiliate company

Thanks for your reply. What are the exceptional circumstances when oDesk is allowed to disconnect the user from the company? Basically my concern is that my affiliate contractors will want to start working for my buyers independently. How can I protect myself from this kind of activity?

The only exception I've ever heard of involved an AC whose entire provider company had been inactive on oDesk for a long time.

I understand your concern so I will forward your question to management for a more comprehensive answer.

That means that without my permission affiliate contractors will have to start a new profile if they would like to go solo? Can one have multiple accounts in oDesk?

It is a violation for an individual to have multiple user IDs and oDesk will take action against any user found to be doing that to get around the system.

We are currently taking a look at our AC policies. In the real world, people are free to leave their employers, and we should not restrict this on oDesk. That said, we fully understand the fact that Provider Companies need some assurances if you are to bring your employees onto the system.

Our preliminary answer is the following:

(1) ACs may leave their companies

(2) However, ACs may not work directly for their company's buyers via oDesk for some period of time, perhaps 6 months

(3) When an AC leaves a provider company, the feedback does not "count" towards their new profile. We will show the experience qualitatively in the profile, but the hours and feedback will not officially appear.

What do you think?

Michael, Director of Product

In the real world, employees don't usually receive detailed information on how much they are earning and this is the main issue, since it motivates an individual to do business themselves instead of giving profit to the affiliate company.

If an affiliate contractor decides to leave a company then his profile should be cleared of any assignments started during his employment at the affiliate company. This will discourage people from starting from scratch. It would be a great disadvantage for companies if you even only leave the overall amount of hours worked on oDesk.

I think it would be a brilliant idea to abstract the work logging and billing in case of affiliate providers.

Maybe it's just me and I should go towards fixed-price assignments which will solve a lot of these problems, but hourly projects are just ideal for projects with ongoing tasks which aren't too specific.

I agree with twasiluk. We have an AC who wants to leave, with all his hours, and join an Affiliate created by his wife. Therefore giving this new affiliate un-real history. How fair is that?

Michael, it's me again the rabble rouser. Let's think about this for a moment .  If I work for XYZ Company and that Company works with ABC Company and ABC decides they *really* like my work they can hire me away from XYZ.

If we're trying to replicate the *real world* as it was I think that putting a restriction on not being hired by the same buyer is going to encourage people to work *outside* oDesk system.

Second: If I work for XYZ and I leave there on good terms I'm  going to get a reference - it doesn't matter to them if I'm going to ABC my reference goes with me.

Sorry but I think this is a little unfair. If a person is completing tasks and getting their own feedback why would they lose that feedback going from an affiliate to a freelancer and/or why would they lose the ability to go to work for the same buyer?

So I'm a buyer (well at the moment I'm not) but if I have someone working with me and my client feels they are better filling their needs then by all means they should be working directly with my AC and that goes for whether I'm in the mix or not. And why should I get credit for my AC's work when they  did the work?

As a provider: I would be *very* upset with this restriction and it would encourage me to not join an AC relationship in the first place if these policies were in effect!

So there's my daily 3 1/2 cents (adjusted for inflation again)

Doreen

I didn't know that things were that harsh in the US. If your next post is 4 cents, I will be worried!
 

I thought Doreen was up to 10¢  already!  lol.

- Danalyn

Before you complain about rates, read all 4 parts of the oDesk Insider Blog's Make More Money series.

Of things I've written on here today I should be LOL

The situation you describe isn't possible in the real world, well at least in Poland. When you are employed you have to sign an agreement where you confirm you will not work directly / indirectly for the company's clients for some term (like 1-2 years).

I guess all I need to do is to have my employees sign that kind of agreement and I can consider oDesk my client and then I'm all set from the legal point of view and I don't have to count on oDesk to secure my business.

Doreen - why do you think the idea of a company trying to secure it's activities is unfair? I don't want to introduce my employees to oDesk and have them leave me after they decide they can harvest my commission for themselves... You always get that fabulous phone with a long-term contract, right?

This is exactly THE SAME as the agreement we have all signed with oDesk. You are not allowed to work with the buyer out of oDesk for a period of time (otherwise oDesk would loose it's 10% fee). This is similar to the relationship between an affiliate company and an affiliate contractor.

Thanks for the discussion guys, I have decided to draft an appropriate agreement for my employees that will be governed by local law.

Local laws vary - here in the US we can go to work for one person today and if they have a customer who decides we're a good fit they can literally hire us the next day.  I know it's difficult to lose employees but factually if you had a business here in the US you stand to lose them to a competitor or a client the very day they are hired. Personally, even though I consider myself a buyer on some transactions I'd rather see someone else given the opportunity to grow themselves than 'feathering' my nest as it were - but maybe that makes me the exception!

I don't see any reason to disallow competition and that's what leads you to believe that I don't see I don't believe in a company 'benefiting' from their employees, that's simply not true but here in the US (apparantly unlike Poland) we don't offer or have that type of security so I guess it never crossed my mind!  Frankly, I think that's a regional type of preference.

I just feel that competition is healthy and if we hire someone in the 'real world' we stand as much of a chance of them leaving in 3 months, 6 months, etc., and working for a competitor or even starting their own business so I guess I don't see oDesk as any different.

If your employee leaves your 'affiliate' on oDesk and you have clients who have worked solely with that person you stand as great a chance of them going with that person to another freelance site or even going completely out of the system.

So I guess I'm looking at this as a more 'big picture' thing - (A) do you lose when an AC leaves your employ and takes a client - yes (B) Does oDesk lose if you lose an AC and they take a client and *stay* at oDesk - no (C) if you lose the AC and the client decides to follow them outside of oDesk does anyone lose? Yes - oDesk does and frankly so does our community as it results in the loss of a client as well as a fellow provider.

Doreen

As an affiliate manager I'm waiting for fixed and firm affiliate leaving policies. I remember times when providers were allowed to join other affiliates and all their feedbacks and working histories were moved. Then providers were allowed to move only without feedbacks and history, etc.

I think when a provider decides to leave an affiliate, he should just create a new account. So neither feedback, no working hours would be transferred. That would be fair. oDesk should allow mutiple accounts for such cases.

In fact, it is impossible to detect mutiple accounts. You cannot detect mutiple accounts by user name or even education, because two persons from the same city may have the same name and same education, it is possible.

So I don't understand how oDesk is going to implement rule 2 (ACs may not work directly for their company's buyers via oDesk for some period of time). Provider creates new account, buyer hires him and how will you prove that it is the same provider, who worked for the same buyer before?

Could it be I'm missing something? When a provider works as an AC don't they accumulate their own feedback and contribute to the feedback of the parent company as it were?

Why would you not want them to have the benefit of feedback that they get based on their own work (if that's how it works)? That simply doesn't make sense to me.

If I do good work why wouldn't my feedback be valued ?? Doreen

This is how it works now: I train somebody and help to find job. Buyers hire fresh developer because he is in affiliate with an excellent history and feedbacks. Then I monitor and assist developer to make sure job will done properly and in time. Buyer is happy and leaves a good feedback at the end. Do you really think this feedback should belong to a provider after he decides to leave? If oDesk will decide that yes, it should, then I will have to stop training new developers. After new developers will get some good feedbacks and confidence in their professionality, all of them will leave and most likely continue to work for the same buyers. And if affiliates  will stop educate and involve new developers, then oDesk profits may suffer.

It sounds like we have regional differences on this but I'd like to share a story with you.  I went to work at a company many years ago and made a decent wage (not great but decent). They gave me my 'foot up' in that industry, they provided my training (as all good companies should). I developed my reputation for being a hard worker, thorough in my tasks and capable of taking on additional responsibilities.  Because of the 'mentality' in that company I was not given additional responsibilities.

Within 2 years I was actively looking for another job.  On my resume I included my work history with that employer as well as the experience and the training I received at that company. Clearly since I was searching for work in the same field, it was a better than 50/50 chance that I'd be taking customers with me who were comfortable working with me.

I landed a job at a competing firm.  They did in fact lose one or two of their customers as a result of my leaving that firm.  Here's the thing: are you suggesting that because I built my reputation and garnered my training at company 1 that I should not have been allowed to go to company 2 and still have a positive reference for the work I did there?

Basically you're suggesting that if a developer does a good job for you then he is required to work for you or leave without any work history.  Sorry, but here in the states deciding who you want to work for is a right - and if that means I'm working for someone who is now competing with you then that is really the breaks.

I fully understand your position. You've invested time, energy and money to train someone - but the fact of the matter is that *they* earned the right to utilize that training whether they continue to work for you or they work for someone else. 

If they have a reputation for good work why should that reputation not follow them? You are in fact suggesting that a well trained developer makes a personal decision to exercise their right to work for whomever they choose (or in fact work for themselves) that sure they can take their training with them (after all you can't take that back) but in effect you are forcing them to start all over from scratch without a reference.  I am sorry - I think that is personally an outrage. 

Whether I am working for you or working for me my reputation is my trade mark and you have no right to profit from my reputation once I decide I have outgrown your company or decide to strike out on my own.   You have every right to profit from my reputation while I work for you but as far as I'm concerned you're setting up a situation where you are no longer giving me the free choice of my own destiny when it comes to a reputation that I built. 

I guess I have no problem with the concept of restrictions on a buyer leaving you and going with the newly liberated freelancer but frankly, I think if they lose their feedback then that's simply not fair.  I understand full well protecting your client base.  But if you're telling me I can't take my feedback with me if I decide that you are no longer meeting my professional needs then you're holding my reputation hostage and basically creating an environment where I now have no choice but to stay working for you because to strike out on my own I have to start from scratch.

I feel very strongly about this - AC's *must* be able to benefit from their own feedback.  If you want to have oDesk put an agreement into place that forbids them from working with buyers you have while they were in your employ that's one thing - but frankly, feedback belongs to the person who earned it!

Doreen

See this is where you are wrong Doreen - you're looking at the situation from the view of your personal profits. If a client does business with a company, he is the client of the company, not your client! If you encourage that client to move over to your new company, you are doing nothing more than stealing the client from the company. This is exactly what we are trying to protect ourselves from. So what that you were hard working and had a good reputation. You were building the reputation of the company, that's what you were paid to do. You were building you're own reputation? For the companies money? Great stuff...

Whether I am working for you or working for me my reputation is my trade mark and you have no right to profit from my reputation

Of course companies have the right to profit from your reputation! Otherwise what are they paying you for?

Sorry Doreen, but you represent only the providers point of view and you should try to put yourself in an affiliate company's shoes.

You are incorrect as I'm both a buyer and a provider. I *do* see the issue with losing clients - my gripe about this is purely from the feedback aspect. 

I don't have *any* problem with you benefiting from the feedback I gain *while I work for you*. I do however have a problem with my feedback not going with me when I leave an affiliate.

I don't have a problem with you protecting your client base and if that's what I gave the impression of I apologize because that wasn't my intention.  My entire argment really is that if I leave an AC relationship (or I lose an AC) then they should have the right for their feedback to follow them.

And as an aside: I had a client (outside of oDesk) who I introduced to a person who was working for me at the time. They discovered that this persons writing style was much more in line with what they needed and asked if I'd consider having him work on this work on a regular basis. I set up with the two of them to simply work together. I didnt' lose any work because of it, in fact my client is getting more work done - my bottom line is that I need to do what's best for my clients and if that means that someone else is needed to do their work then so be it.

Again, I am *not* condoning a provider leaving acompany and taking clients with them - my contention is however that earned feedback is exactly that and should stay with the person who actually earned the feedback!!

Doreen

I have to ask you - why do you think it's fair that if I work for you initially and the buyers who hire me through you -  I complete the jobs for them - they leave good feedback based on my work - why do you think that it's fair I not have that feedback that is based on the work I did?? I am totally baffled by this attitude!!

As I already said, because without my help there would be no feedback. Also I agree with you that developers earned the right to utilize that training. They can pass tests on new accounts using training I gave and prove their professionalism.

I used to work as affiliate provider and when I decided to leave it,
I lost more than 6,000 hours of history, I had to start from the
scratch. I used to think that it was unfair, I would totally agree with
you at that time, with every single word. It was my job, it were my
feedbacks, my former boss made profit of my job and now I can't even
keep my feedbacks and history, why? But oDesk said "no, you can't. These
are our policies".

There's more important thing than rather subjective fairness, I'm talking about money. Existence of affiliates is profitable for oDesk, that's why oDesk should protect not only providers, but also affiliates. Affiliate providers can see their real earnings, they can leave affiliates, so I think allowing them to keep their feedbacks and history will shake balance. Of course, there will be affiliates as unions of equal providers, but no one would be willing to educate and train new developers. Training will become creating rivals for oneself.

Yes, maybe in some respect what we have now (feedback and history is not moved) is not completely fair, but without such rules many of the developers would never got their first job here.

If oDesk doesn't protect affiliates we are not interested in training new developers then. Why I should put my time and money to provider if he can just get it and start work directly with out any loses. We are not charitable organization. Any normal company work for profit. I think it's good idea to hide final rate for contractors, because it's like show to everyone inside all financial information of company. Also if developer would like to leave affiliate all feedbacks and hours should be not transferred. Why i should promote them and educate them and also help with task solutions and solving problems with customers and so on if my investment isn't protected?

Regards,
Roman Surikov
Ronas IT

To see this from both places but here's the thing:

If I go to work at IBM and I get all of my training at IBM providing I leave there under good recommendation then I'd get a reference when I leave.

I leave IBM and I go to Dell Computer and I use what I learned at IBM to further my career at Dell.  Let's assume I stay at Dell for 3 years and I leave there, again under good recommendation - now I go to Apple Computer.  I now use the reference from IBM and Dell to go to Apple and use the training from both to enhance my position at Apple.

Your model of hiring people, training them and them leaving them with (a) no reference (i.e. no transfer of hours or feedback;) (b) all the training you provided (because you can't take it away); (c) no 'leg up' because they can't prove that they did any work (see (a)).

Sorry, but there is just something inherently wrong with that.  Someone taught you how to program right? So you started someplace. 

You pointed out that oDesk should protect the company and I don't disagree with that - but frankly, you wouldn't have made the earnings that you did without that persons contribution so what about protecting them?

The fact of the matter is that you've earned profits based on what you taught people for as long as they have worked for you.  When they leave your company you stop making profits from their earnings - but to take away all of their history is just wrong - - and if they leave your company and start their own company that's called improving themselves and their position in life.

We all bring to each job our skills from prior jobs.  So for you to say

Sorry, that's called free market capitalism. 

BTW: Before you say I'm only looking at this from a providers perspective you're wrong - I have hired people here on oDesk - and I've left them feedback - I corrected their work, I taught them how to deal with clients and when my work with them was done they took the learning from me and put it to work for someone else.

Doreen

That's excactly what we are utilizing while requesting oDesk to make the changes in our interest.

First of all. I had experience leaving of affiliate here 2 years ago and I lost all my hours and feedback and test results.