> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
Certainly in the US in most states, employment is "at will", meaning the company can fire you for pretty much any reason at any time (ignoring protected classes and so on). Likewise, the employee can leave at any time.
If you accept the offer and then renege you've actually fulfilled your contractual obligation.
If the company wants more than that, they need to pay for it. They can lock you up for a period with a golden handshake. They can keep you with golden handcuffs.
You have a misguided view of ethics here. The employment contract exists to give both parties an out.
This reminds me tangentially of the ethics debate around foreclosure. Some smart people realized would do things like:
- deliberately not pay the mortgage to trigger foreclosure as they were underwater and presumably they lived in a "no recourse" state (meaning the bank could take the house and that was the end of it);
- they might do this simply to force a better rate or get the bank to settle on the owed debt at a level where they were no longer underwater.
Some argued it was your ethical responsibility to pay if you can. I disagree. The contract that exists between the lender and the borrower exists to lay out the rights and responsibilities of both parties, including a mechanism for terminating the contract.
From a purely ethical (and completely irrelevant) point of view I see this as holding banks accountable for shady lending practices. After all, it was banks and the lack of due diligence in lending practices that led to this situation.
You are under no obligation to spend several years working for your second or third choice employer just because you said you would.
Think about it this way. Imagine you said to your spouse "I said I'd marry you but that's because someone else said 'no' so I'm going to stick with it because I said I would". What would happen? Would your spouse thank you? Almost certainly not. Nobody wants to be a second choice.
An employer wants people who are excited to be working for them and enthused about what they're working on. It makes a happier employee and a better place to work. If you feel like you're trapped you'll simply mope around thinking about the other chance you gave up, helping nobody, including the employer.
Oh and as for the idea that you've crossed the employer, in my experience most people don't take this personally and, for those that do, you probably don't want to work for them anyway. Fact is, they'll probably forget who you are in a few days or less.
It might hurt your chances at working for that same company in the future but it probably won't. And if it does, considering you turned them down once, do you really want to work for them?
While I agree with almost everything you say here, I disagree with your view of the ethics involved. Just because something is allowed, it doesn't automatically become ethical.
If you accept multiple job offers with the intention of waiting for the best possible offer, you are actively lying to the other companies. Sure, it might be im(ex?)plicitly allowed by the contracts you sign, but that doesn't change the fact that you are acting unethically.
> Sure, it might be im(ex?)plicitly allowed by the contracts you sign, but that doesn't change the fact that you are acting unethically.
But why does that matter? The point is that it should be irrelevant. Ethical considerations are obviously not deterring these companies from exercising their offer strategies. Why should young graduates be made to feel guilty by also playing a counter-strategy?
Because it's about personal ethics. Simple as that. The fact that companies, or someone else, are not acting in accordance to ethics should not influence anyone's decision in that matter. If one wants to be a honest person, one should be that person regardless of what everyone else is doing.
You seem to be confusing "ethics" with "legal obligation". They are very different. Just because I can take an action that is legal does not make it ethical (see Wall St. for example). Conversely, there are cases where the "right" or ethical action may not be legal (e.g, peaceful protest).
> Certainly in the US in most states, employment is "at will", meaning the company can fire you for pretty much any reason at any time (ignoring protected classes and so on). Likewise, the employee can leave at any time.
You're mixing things up. Ethically speaking, if the company winds up having _cause_ to fire them later, that's a separate matter, and there's no ethic quandary.
Likewise, if the employee makes an effort to work there and decides to leave, there is no ethical issue.
If a company must engage in layoffs, a responsible company incorporates a severance as a means compensating the employee for the failure of the company to hold to their end of the bargain due to unforeseen circumstances or failure.
> If you accept the offer and then renege you've actually fulfilled your contractual obligation. If the company wants more than that, they need to pay for it.
One shouldn't have to pay for people to do what they say they'll do: if they accept the offer, barring some act of god, they should start work for the company.
You bring up mortgages as an example -- it's a poor one. In buying a house, you're stating the intention to pay for it. Ethically, you're on the hook -- if you fail to make payments, someone else will be left holding the bag.
The contract is merely a legal (not ethical) enforcement mechanism by which the bank may attempt to recoup their loss, in a country where we (rightly) have the 13th amendment that forbids slavery and/or debtors prisons.
> From a purely ethical (and completely irrelevant) point of view I see this as holding banks accountable for shady lending practices. After all, it was banks and the lack of due diligence in lending practices that led to this situation.
The bank is ethically culpable for shady lending practices, but _so are the people who accepted shady mortgages_.
What's more, is that those people drove up housing prices and made it that much harder for responsible buyers to own a home.
I actually agree with him. The point of "at will" employment is that usually firing happens if the employee has done something terribly wrong. Usually they are "let go" for "no reason." It avoids a potential legal mess. Well a reason is given but it is a safe reason "we are restructuring" and such. The real reason could be anything, heck it could be race or gender, as long as nobody puts that in writing it doesn't matter. It would take a long established pattern of lay-offs to prove that a certain group is targeted. But that's besides the point. The point is that the law is presented a "wonderful feature" to new college graduates -- "amazing, you have the freedom to leave anytime". I would guess that most often than not, it is used by companies to get rid of employees. BUT in this one instance, that law can (and should) be applied by the employee.
I really don't like how all of the sudden "morality" starts playing into in. Morality in such instances (mortgage payments and employment) is what is used by the more powerful entity to (company or bank) to keep in check those that are in a less powerful position ("it is immoral to stop paying your mortgage", "it is immoral to quit after 3 days").
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
I've made a long and rewarding career out of following moral principals, and my reputation has been invaluable in the ongoing growth of my career and (now) my own business.
It's simple to avoid being abused and taken advantage of without behaving unethically: don't make agreements you can't (or won't) keep, and make a genuine effort to help correct any situation you find abusive or untenable.
If you behave in the manner you're describing, don't be surprised when you find yourself primarily interacting with other people who do try to take advantage of you -- you'll attract them through your behavior, and will repel individuals who expect to trust the word of the people they work with.
Yes -- ask for more time. If they say no, then just don't accept the offer.
Honestly, nobody you want to work for is going to say "no" if you ask for a little more time, unless business constraints dictate that they truly can't afford to wait on the hiring decision -- which is, in itself either:
- A sign of either poor planning on their part.
or
- A demonstration of their low assessment of your value to their organization.
I agree. Basically if it they are establishing an adversarial environment right off the start, maybe they are not a good company to work at to begin with. I think the school recruiting office could at inform the students about such strategies and tell them to beware.
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
There is a middle ground of course. Not unbending personal morality above all else but rather a good faith effort to both stand up for yourself in safe ways and to stand by the interests of those who you want to stand by yours.
This is why I am not opposed to withdrawing acceptance of an exploding offer at the last minute. It's better for the employer and yourself if you quit then rather than two weeks into the job.
>One shouldn't have to pay for people to do what they say they'll do: if they accept the offer, barring some act of god, they should start work for the company.
You are missing the point nupark. What they said they would do is "I will work for you, and I will give you two weeks notice if I choose not to."
By your own criteria, they have fulfilled their obligation. Move on.
You will see a contract that says "Employee to start July 1st. Employment is at will. Either party may terminate with two weeks notice". You will think the first is the most important. The student might find the last clause most important.
When the student calls in January to give several months notice that they wont be accepting the offer, you have a fucking tantrum and say that the student is unethical and unprofessional. You will imagine in your head that the contract meant "Notice cannot be given until after employment has commenced". That this clause is not there will not bother you. Thats what you thought it meant, and by golly you are a man of your word, whereas this student is clearly a liar and a cheat, weaseling out of a contract with word tricks.
I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat. They then use that excuse to break any deal they chose.
"I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat."
In my experience, people who have very low opinions of everyone else (and those include the absolutists on both sides of this debate) are usually the least trustworthy people I have met.
Certainly in the US in most states, employment is "at will", meaning the company can fire you for pretty much any reason at any time (ignoring protected classes and so on). Likewise, the employee can leave at any time.
If you accept the offer and then renege you've actually fulfilled your contractual obligation.
If the company wants more than that, they need to pay for it. They can lock you up for a period with a golden handshake. They can keep you with golden handcuffs.
You have a misguided view of ethics here. The employment contract exists to give both parties an out.
This reminds me tangentially of the ethics debate around foreclosure. Some smart people realized would do things like:
- deliberately not pay the mortgage to trigger foreclosure as they were underwater and presumably they lived in a "no recourse" state (meaning the bank could take the house and that was the end of it);
- they might do this simply to force a better rate or get the bank to settle on the owed debt at a level where they were no longer underwater.
Some argued it was your ethical responsibility to pay if you can. I disagree. The contract that exists between the lender and the borrower exists to lay out the rights and responsibilities of both parties, including a mechanism for terminating the contract.
From a purely ethical (and completely irrelevant) point of view I see this as holding banks accountable for shady lending practices. After all, it was banks and the lack of due diligence in lending practices that led to this situation.
You are under no obligation to spend several years working for your second or third choice employer just because you said you would.
Think about it this way. Imagine you said to your spouse "I said I'd marry you but that's because someone else said 'no' so I'm going to stick with it because I said I would". What would happen? Would your spouse thank you? Almost certainly not. Nobody wants to be a second choice.
An employer wants people who are excited to be working for them and enthused about what they're working on. It makes a happier employee and a better place to work. If you feel like you're trapped you'll simply mope around thinking about the other chance you gave up, helping nobody, including the employer.
Oh and as for the idea that you've crossed the employer, in my experience most people don't take this personally and, for those that do, you probably don't want to work for them anyway. Fact is, they'll probably forget who you are in a few days or less.
It might hurt your chances at working for that same company in the future but it probably won't. And if it does, considering you turned them down once, do you really want to work for them?