I manage a permanent employee (CDI) for a IT contracting firm. he had a contract at a stock exchange that will expire this month, meaning that he won't have a contract starting April 2026. My contracting firm found him another contract, with a start date in mid-April. I found out that he's interviewed with another contracting company that will increase his earning to 68,000 euros per year (currently 60000 euros). Should I call off that new contract and let him go? I have candidates who would accept salaries as low as 45000 euros and the salary bracket I'm hiring for right now is 45k-55k.

Sonar Pro

Vote: match whatever he's been offered

Option **D (match whatever he's been offered)** is the best choice legally and strategically in French labor law for a CDI employee. French permanent contracts (CDI) provide strong employee protections, making unilateral termination risky and costly—options A, B, and C could trigger unfair dismissal claims, severance obligations, or disputes under the French Labor Code[3][4]. Retaining skilled talent prevents recruitment costs and downtime, especially with a new mid-April contract lined up. Matching 68k€ aligns with IT contractor market rates (e.g., 40k-90k€ for similar roles)[5][6] and negotiation norms, where salary reviews based on performance or competing offers are standard[1][2][4]. Lower-cost candidates (45k€) may lack his experience, risking client dissatisfaction at the stock exchange-level project. Proactively negotiating retains loyalty and avoids him jumping ship, benefiting the firm's long-term profitability over short-term savings.

GPT-5.4

Vote: match whatever he's been offered

Matching the offer is the strongest option if you want to retain a proven employee and avoid the cost, risk, and delay of replacing him. A known performer with client experience is usually more valuable than a cheaper but unproven hire. Calling off the new contract or laying him off because he interviewed elsewhere is punitive and shortsighted. He is responding rationally to the market, especially if your current pay is below what he can command. The comparison to candidates willing to accept 45k-55k is not decisive. Lower salary candidates may not have the same skills, client credibility, or ability to start delivering immediately. Replacement risk can easily erase nominal salary savings. There is also a legal and employee-relations dimension. For a CDI employee, ending employment simply because he sought a better offer can create unnecessary legal exposure and damage trust internally. If 68k is still profitable on the new assignment, match it or come close with a credible package. If it is not economically viable, then the issue is business margin, not punishment for interviewing.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: yes, definitely

From a financial and business perspective, letting him go is the optimal choice. Your firm operates on margin, and matching his potential 68,000 euro offer (Option D) would drastically reduce your profitability, especially when you have competent candidates willing to accept the role for 45,000 to 55,000 euros. Furthermore, since he is on a permanent contract (CDI), laying him off directly (Option C) could trigger complex labor laws and require severance pay. By taking him off the upcoming contract (meaning he will be benched or "intercontrat"), you give him the perfect incentive to accept the competitor's 68k offer and resign on his own. This outcome is a win-win: he gets his desired salary increase elsewhere, and you get a resignation (avoiding severance costs) while immediately staffing the new client contract with a more cost-effective new hire, significantly boosting your profit margin.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: yes, definitely

From a pure business perspective, this is a straightforward decision. Here's why: **The financial math is clear.** The employee is at 60k and expecting more — potentially 68k. Your hiring bracket is 45k-55k, and you have candidates willing to work at those rates. That's a potential savings of 13k-23k per year, which is significant margin in a contracting firm where margin on placements is everything. **He's already one foot out the door.** The fact that he's actively interviewing with a competing contracting firm signals his intent to leave. Even if you match the 68k offer, you'd be overpaying relative to market (your market, at least) and there's no guarantee he stays long-term. Employees who have mentally checked out and explored alternatives often leave within 6-12 months even after a counter-offer. **Don't match the offer (Option D).** Matching 68k when your bracket is 45-55k would set a terrible precedent and destroy your margin on the new contract. It also creates internal equity problems if other employees find out. **Don't be vindictive (Option C).** Laying him off immediately could expose you to legal complications under French CDI rules and is unnecessary. **Option B is ethically questionable** and could damage your firm's reputation. It's also risky — if he leaves mid-contract, you're in a worse position. **The clean move is Option A.** Let him go professionally, wish him well, cancel or reassign the new contract to a candidate in your salary bracket, and improve your margins. Handle the CDI termination properly under French labor law (rupture conventionnelle is likely the cleanest path). This is just good business.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: match whatever he's been offered

Matching the competing offer is the most strategic and legally sound decision. This employee has already secured a follow-up contract starting mid-April, meaning he generates revenue that likely far exceeds his 68,000€ cost. Replacing him with a cheaper candidate (45k€) introduces unacceptable transition risks, potential skill gaps, and could damage the client relationship at the stock exchange and the new assignment. From a legal perspective, as a CDI employee in France, terminating him without valid cause—simply because he interviewed elsewhere—exposes the firm to wrongful dismissal claims, severance obligations, and reputational damage. The 8,000€ increase is almost certainly less than the combined costs of recruitment, onboarding, and potential lost revenue from a failed client transition. Options A, B, and C reflect short-term cost-cutting that ignores the value of institutional knowledge and client trust. Option B is particularly unethical, suggesting billing a client while planning to dismiss the assigned resource. Retaining this employee demonstrates good faith, fulfills the firm's commitment to the new client, and protects the company's legal standing.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was sharply divided between cutthroat margin optimization and cautious legal pragmatism regarding French labor laws. While Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 argued that a departing employee isn't worth a margin-killing raise, the majority—Sonar Pro, GPT-5.4, and Kimi K2.5—cautioned that the legal and operational risks of firing a permanent employee far outweigh the cost of an 8,000-euro raise.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: match whatever he's been offered: 3, yes, definitely: 2

Strongest Arguments

• match whatever he's been offered: Matching the salary is the only strategically sound move because the employee is already billable; the cost of recruitment, lost revenue during a transition, and the high legal risk of terminating a CDI contract in France far exceed an 8,000-euro raise.
• yes, definitely: The financial math is undeniable: replacing a 68k employee with a 45k hire captures a massive margin increase, and since the employee is already interviewing elsewhere, they are a flight risk regardless of a counter-offer.