Or….could it be that working for Gallagher isn’t such a cakewalk? Perhaps Gallagher doesn’t treat their employees well? Working for Aon was no picnic. Especially when Aon puts the stockholder first, and clients and employees are simply the means to make the stockholder happy.
Brokers are leaving Gallagher, AON, Marsh because of the way they treat employees and clients. I know. I was one of them. Let clients decide who they want to work with, not non–compete strangleholds. Ban non-compete agreements.
The disgruntled Employer-brokerages refuse to look in the mirror. It’s not a “story”. The employees, like me, leave their former Employers when they stop caring about the Clients and staff. Instead, the managers of those brokerages focus on acquisitions of other agencies and COST-CUTTING, all at the expense of adequate staff and proper servicing.
The departed employees have left after years of warning to the Employers on the service and staffing deficits, and after their sense of professional integrity would no longer allow them to remain in that environment.
The biggest hippocracy is against the clients. The past Employers speak of “owning” them. But these clients have legitimate business interests, that are unfairly impacted by the so-called “Employment Agreements” (with restrictive covenants that Corporations require individuals to sign to keep or receive a job) and that attempt to bar the clients from their most-trusted advisors.
The Employers rush to Court and argue that the Clients were theirs, as if the company name lured them there. But, it didn’t. It never does. Only the quality of the individual advisor, and his supporting staff, are important to the client. And no “playbook” is needed for a client to follow his advisor when he leaves the employer.
The Employers should look in the mirror. Fix their own houses. And stop disrupting the lives of former employees and their clients.
So recruiting new employees is against the rules now? That’s the biggest crock I’ve ever heard. And, the insured’s are free to change their broker to whomever they want. There should not be any rule against your employees and customers leaving when you’re not taking care of them. These “rules” you insinuate only serve to diminish the service being rendered.
Its not the recruiting that’s the problem or legal issue October. If you read the court proceedings from when this occurred in the past with Alliant you can surmise its the illegal theft of proprietary info, company work product, and encouragement to sue their ex-employer over their restrictive covenants that are the legal issues that led to the prior injunction. The lawsuit over the restrictive covenants has since been dismissed. One has to be careful when signing these types of agreements with a new employer as they can come back to bite. While this was another similar case, we will know the facts soon enough. The rules are there for a reason, say like when a company in China steals proprietary company info and makes their own product and sells it as their own. There’s a proper way to gain new employees and business, and there’s a an improper way.
The main problem with your China comparison is that there are no “company secrets” or other “special formulas” that are taken when an employee leaves for another Employer in the Insurance industry. They don’t leave with client lists or products. They know the products best, and the Clients who follow know that expertise.
And, there is Zero opportunity for a prospective employee to “be careful” when signing the Employment contracts. You seem to suggest that the individual has bargaining power over the Brokerage Corporation to negotiate the restrictive covenants. But they don’t. They are contracts of adhesion, and a discredit to the licensed insurance broker profession. There is no legitimate reason for Brokerages to be employers “at will”, but employees to be held hostage over their livelihoods and clients.
I wonder if one of the companies will be charged with Phishing. This is the fradulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as User Names, Passwords and Credit Card details by disguising as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. There is someone at Farmers Insurance in Cincinnati OH District Manager that did this to me. He has since been fired and then relocated to “The Power House” northwest of Dayton, OH and is still doing this to me. Hacks phones, emails, puts tracking devices in my vehicle and connected his remote and blue tooth to my ADT Security System. The Department of Insurance in OHIO Fraud and the Director do nothing to resolve or direct this issue.
Some of you see right through this and I agree 1000%. Let’s stop and be real. Any industry any location and any time. This is not simply a Brokerage issue or a new captivating trend.. Matter of fact this is not simply an Alliant Strategy nor is it a new strategy. It is time tested and detested but it is only their current strategy, not their invention and not their brand or claim to fame, tactic or any easy way to label them. Before we go down that path I think it is important to agree that yes, this impacts the market. For sure but it is not through the same foggy lens as those who object to this unfair practice but have no idea what it’s like to work for a firm would so easily ascertain. My call to arms on this issue would be this: If you have talent that is fantastic and you are doing well great, celebrate your success but if you lose sight of what that talent needs and they can be so easily swayed that they leave their moral compass (at the foot of their cubicle) and leave in such an organized single file fashion, is it really the entity that enticed them that is to blame? or is it the lack of value and future that the employees were so ready to ditch? Discarding you their employer should have been a difficult decision don’t you think? Dangle a carrot in front of an enlightened, empowered and happy employee and all you leave with is your carrot. By contrast, it isn’t hard to get a mass exodus when they forget what a carrot looks like and they don’t think one even exists anymore, there is no visible sign or path to such a thing and never will be. You want to stop unfair practices, I am all about it. Start from within and set the bar high folks. There are always going to be sharks circling, don’t spill any blood and all they will do is circle. They may be big and powerful but they will circle around until they find the vulnerable opportunities. Don’t give them any. Treat your talent well and they will stand by you, not feed the sharks by being plucked off one vulnerable employee at a time until you sue the sharks in court. Smart move to relocate to CA. With our non-competes and lack of enforcement of proprietary information, you can make the lawyer sharks very happy to drag these situations on for years. May the best employers and employee advocates win.
Or….could it be that working for Gallagher isn’t such a cakewalk? Perhaps Gallagher doesn’t treat their employees well? Working for Aon was no picnic. Especially when Aon puts the stockholder first, and clients and employees are simply the means to make the stockholder happy.
A good broker has no need to work for a large publically traded firm
Begs the question of why so many people want to leave Gallagher and other firms. The days of huge firms treating brokers well are gone
Brokers are leaving Gallagher, AON, Marsh because of the way they treat employees and clients. I know. I was one of them. Let clients decide who they want to work with, not non–compete strangleholds. Ban non-compete agreements.
The disgruntled Employer-brokerages refuse to look in the mirror. It’s not a “story”. The employees, like me, leave their former Employers when they stop caring about the Clients and staff. Instead, the managers of those brokerages focus on acquisitions of other agencies and COST-CUTTING, all at the expense of adequate staff and proper servicing.
The departed employees have left after years of warning to the Employers on the service and staffing deficits, and after their sense of professional integrity would no longer allow them to remain in that environment.
The biggest hippocracy is against the clients. The past Employers speak of “owning” them. But these clients have legitimate business interests, that are unfairly impacted by the so-called “Employment Agreements” (with restrictive covenants that Corporations require individuals to sign to keep or receive a job) and that attempt to bar the clients from their most-trusted advisors.
The Employers rush to Court and argue that the Clients were theirs, as if the company name lured them there. But, it didn’t. It never does. Only the quality of the individual advisor, and his supporting staff, are important to the client. And no “playbook” is needed for a client to follow his advisor when he leaves the employer.
The Employers should look in the mirror. Fix their own houses. And stop disrupting the lives of former employees and their clients.
This sounds like another black eye for Alliant. They need to play by the rules.
So recruiting new employees is against the rules now? That’s the biggest crock I’ve ever heard. And, the insured’s are free to change their broker to whomever they want. There should not be any rule against your employees and customers leaving when you’re not taking care of them. These “rules” you insinuate only serve to diminish the service being rendered.
Its not the recruiting that’s the problem or legal issue October. If you read the court proceedings from when this occurred in the past with Alliant you can surmise its the illegal theft of proprietary info, company work product, and encouragement to sue their ex-employer over their restrictive covenants that are the legal issues that led to the prior injunction. The lawsuit over the restrictive covenants has since been dismissed. One has to be careful when signing these types of agreements with a new employer as they can come back to bite. While this was another similar case, we will know the facts soon enough. The rules are there for a reason, say like when a company in China steals proprietary company info and makes their own product and sells it as their own. There’s a proper way to gain new employees and business, and there’s a an improper way.
The main problem with your China comparison is that there are no “company secrets” or other “special formulas” that are taken when an employee leaves for another Employer in the Insurance industry. They don’t leave with client lists or products. They know the products best, and the Clients who follow know that expertise.
And, there is Zero opportunity for a prospective employee to “be careful” when signing the Employment contracts. You seem to suggest that the individual has bargaining power over the Brokerage Corporation to negotiate the restrictive covenants. But they don’t. They are contracts of adhesion, and a discredit to the licensed insurance broker profession. There is no legitimate reason for Brokerages to be employers “at will”, but employees to be held hostage over their livelihoods and clients.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I wonder if one of the companies will be charged with Phishing. This is the fradulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as User Names, Passwords and Credit Card details by disguising as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. There is someone at Farmers Insurance in Cincinnati OH District Manager that did this to me. He has since been fired and then relocated to “The Power House” northwest of Dayton, OH and is still doing this to me. Hacks phones, emails, puts tracking devices in my vehicle and connected his remote and blue tooth to my ADT Security System. The Department of Insurance in OHIO Fraud and the Director do nothing to resolve or direct this issue.
Some of you see right through this and I agree 1000%. Let’s stop and be real. Any industry any location and any time. This is not simply a Brokerage issue or a new captivating trend.. Matter of fact this is not simply an Alliant Strategy nor is it a new strategy. It is time tested and detested but it is only their current strategy, not their invention and not their brand or claim to fame, tactic or any easy way to label them. Before we go down that path I think it is important to agree that yes, this impacts the market. For sure but it is not through the same foggy lens as those who object to this unfair practice but have no idea what it’s like to work for a firm would so easily ascertain. My call to arms on this issue would be this: If you have talent that is fantastic and you are doing well great, celebrate your success but if you lose sight of what that talent needs and they can be so easily swayed that they leave their moral compass (at the foot of their cubicle) and leave in such an organized single file fashion, is it really the entity that enticed them that is to blame? or is it the lack of value and future that the employees were so ready to ditch? Discarding you their employer should have been a difficult decision don’t you think? Dangle a carrot in front of an enlightened, empowered and happy employee and all you leave with is your carrot. By contrast, it isn’t hard to get a mass exodus when they forget what a carrot looks like and they don’t think one even exists anymore, there is no visible sign or path to such a thing and never will be. You want to stop unfair practices, I am all about it. Start from within and set the bar high folks. There are always going to be sharks circling, don’t spill any blood and all they will do is circle. They may be big and powerful but they will circle around until they find the vulnerable opportunities. Don’t give them any. Treat your talent well and they will stand by you, not feed the sharks by being plucked off one vulnerable employee at a time until you sue the sharks in court. Smart move to relocate to CA. With our non-competes and lack of enforcement of proprietary information, you can make the lawyer sharks very happy to drag these situations on for years. May the best employers and employee advocates win.