Facing personnel problems (in this case, the star RB of the Detroit Lions, Jahvid Best, was suffering from a concussion), the Lions and Philadelphia Eagles engaged in a common practice - the trading of employees.  However, the trade had an uncommon result.  According to ESPN,

Detroit's trade with Philadelphia that exchanged seldom-used veteran running backs Ronnie Brown and Jerome Harrison has been voided.

Two league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that the trade was voided because Harrison has previously undisclosed health issues.

Brown arrived in Detroit but never got to practice.

Lions spokesman Bill Keenist said the team would have no further comment.

The Eagles announced Tuesday they dealt Brown to Detroit for Harrison and an undisclosed pick in the 2013 draft. Detroit wouldn't confirm the move because the franchise doesn't until deals are done.

The Lions were looking forward to adding Brown to a backfield that might be without starting running back Jahvid Best for a while. He had his third concussion Sunday in a loss to San Francisco.

Certainly, it was unlikely Detroit was trying to pull a fast one on the Eagles, particularly since most trades of this nature are contingent on the results of a physical.

However, it got me wondering why we don't see trades among employees more often outside of the sporting arena?  Could Ford make a play for a senior accountant at Chrysler?  Could Amazon be angling for an up and coming software engineer at Google?

Certainly, a number of things limit the possibility of such trades in the business world, such as:
1) Size of organizations - the sporting arena have limits on the number of employees to possibly cover.  There are only 30 Major League Baseball teams, with roster limits during the season of 26 players.  There are only 32 NFL teams, with roster limits of 53 players.  Organizations with 1,000+ employees were make such scouting very difficult

2) Transparency of performance - Pro athletes performance are on display on a regular basis.   Turn on the television on Sunday afternoons in the Fall (particularly on DirecTV) and you can see how an employee with another organization is performing.   It is tough to see how Bill in accounting is doing at another organization.

However, what would the business world look like if such trading became commonplace?  Would workers be more anxious knowing they could possibly be moving to another organization at a moment's notice?  Would that increase or decrease performance levels?  Would it create a whole new cadre of performance scouts evaluating talent at other employers?  Could it address potential staffing imbalances, as one organization may be flush with sales professionals while another could have extra HR managers?  Who would create the Trade Value Chart  that would assess comparable value of different charts?

And, would we see trades like we've seen in Major League baseball where players have been traded for a set of bats or a turkey?

I'm not sure I want to wake up tomorrow knowing that I've been traded to Lawrence University for a fax machine and a set of Bic pens.

You remember this guy, don't you? Bueller? Bueller? Yes, it is Ben Stein...actor, former speechwriter for Nixon and Gerald Ford, true renaissance man. Well, when he is not pitching Clear Eyes or FreeScore.com, he is writing detailed economic screeds. This week, at the American Spectator, he gave his thoughts on the current economic maladies and the lessons we should learn from them (link here).

The money portion was his thoughts on the unemployed:

"2. The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say “generally” because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day’s work. They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job. Again, there are powerful exceptions and I know some, but when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative. To assure that a worker is not one of them, he should learn how to work and how to get along -- not always easy.

(This brings to mind an idea I have long had: that high schools and colleges should have a course on "how to get along" and "how to do a day’s work." This would include showing up in clean clothes, smelling well, having had a good breakfast, dressed in a businesslike way, calling the other employees "sir" or "ma'am" and not talking back. This would include a teaching of the fact that the employee is not there for amusement, but to help the employer make money and to get a job done. It would include the idea that once you are at work, you are not at play. It is an idea whose time has come.)"

Taken to its logical conclusion, shouldn't Ben really be praising HR Departments around the country? Through their awesome skills of talent evaluation, the HR managers have culled those with "poor working habits" and "poor personalities" from the ranks of the employed in their organization. I'm sure those at work reading this from their computer are pleased that they no longer have to put up with those "overbearing and unpleasant personalities" who add "negative utility" to the job. Isn't the workplace now a better place? Isn't everyone happy, satisfied, and more productive now that those bad apples are no longer crowding our cubicles? Isn't GDP skyrocketing?

C'mon, Ben, show HR some love!