I work in tech and we do it all the time. People leave for a different company and come back in a couple of years. We had one person start back with us, that quit 2 years ago to work closer to home, this past Monday. Better pay and better position. Its one of the only ways to get ahead and get paid up to market in this industry. Unless you're a genius or your daddy/husband is rich then you can be a ****tard asshole thats worthless and get positions well beyond your scope of knowledge and skills (janitor) over people much more qualified and able. But thats another story.
[Reply]

1. To seek an alternative career
2. No
3. It hasn't been an easy replacement
4. More appreciative of the job, from the sounds of it absolutely
5. Left on good terms, but during the final 2 weeks they slacked a bit
[Reply]

That was me 24 years ago. Left my paper for supposedly greener pastures, wound up hating it, 18 months later I was rehired at my former paper, in a different position (switched from sportswriting to editorial writing). Worked there another 13 years before leaving on good terms (and good thing I did -- they eliminated my position about 2 years later).
[Reply]

Sure. People leave on good terms for perceived greeener pastures.
[Reply]

In that circumstance for me, the employee comes back with their hat in their hand, appreciating the position they had with you and will probably be a better, loyal trooper.
[Reply]

That's exactly what would be expected.
[Reply]

If there is an open position, I guess I don't see any issue.

you already know them, how they fit in your environment. You already know if they're dependable, how hard they work, if they're a team player, if they meet deadlines.

In my experience when someone leaves you know pretty quickly if you'd want them back or not based on what you find when they're gone and if they were hard to replace. Sometimes the replacements are improvements...sometimes they make you appreciate the other guy.
[Reply]

It was basically the same.
[Reply]

Think of it this way:

Would you rather hire this person again with the possibility that they might leave again soon, or would you rather go through a normal hiring process to find someone else to fill the role?
[Reply]

I don't see anything wrong with that then. With the expectation that they'll be treated as a new employee.
[Reply]

Well if they did leave again shortly thereafter, I'd have to go through the hiring process regardless whether it's now or later. But I'd rather take the chance on someone who knows what they're doing right away.
[Reply]

i have and found out nothing changed and fired their ass all over again.
[Reply]

If the process of on-boarding isn't painful (thinking about having to go back through the process should they leave again), I would give them another go. If they're good a employee, it's worth the risk.

If you're a big company, you might see about helping with career investment.
[Reply]

You rehired someone that you fired? I think I see the problem.
[Reply]

If I think about all of my ex-employees, I'd probably hire about 20 percent of them back.

Among the other 80 percent, I'd divvy it up as ...

25 percent were good employees, but the company has evolved and their skills or their position are no longer needed. I'd never really thought about this before, but it's a big factor.
15 percent were fine workers but with limited upside in the company for various reasons.
30 percent weren't a great fit and it was better for both of us when they moved on.
10 percent were never a good fit and I had to terminate them, which I don't enjoy doing.
[Reply]