5 ms·

I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team yo

by nickff 6y ago

I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. If someone's just started, they're generally a net-negative, so the individual is both drawing pay and sucking resources. This is almost 'quitting in-place'. If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
> "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. How so? > If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees. I'm not sure what an ethical action from an employee would look like under this framework; quit and live without an income during any job search?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- filoleg 6y ago
  >How so? Yeah, I am confused by that one as well. If you are delivering value in the same capacity as you did before you started the job search (aka you ain't slacking and doing the bare minimum, with the rest overflowing onto the rest of engineers on your team), then how is it harmful or even noticeable to anyone at all?
janosett 6y ago
This is the risk with at-will employment in CA. The employer could very well decide after two days of you working there that they wanted to let you go -- there's no part of the contract keeping either side from ending things early. I don't think it's unethical to leave after a short amount of time given the employer has no equivalent expectation.
- nickff 6y ago
  Would you have a different expectation if the employment agreement specified severance compensation for the employee, or if the law required severance?
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    If the law required severance the law is also pretty likely to make requirements of the employee as well so things will still be equal - when I say pretty likely I mean in every case I have ever seen.
  - janosett 6y ago
    Yes, I would openly encourage different types of work contracts in California / the US. I'd commit, for example, to 1-2 year auto-renewing contracts. Probably would need a few conditions: * If I am terminated without breach of contract I still will receive full compensation (at least for some months). * Contract may not be broken related to any unexpected health issues. * No arbitration requirement if one side accuses breach of contract. Of course this would benefit me more than the employer :-)
- mathattack 6y ago
  It’s not unethical though it may take some explaining later on.
- stanrivers 6y ago
  I agree with this. However, I will say unless there is something major wrong with you or major at the company, you are now going to be fired very quickly. The company also doesn’t want that reputation. I work in finance and certain hedge funds have a reputation for cutting people quickly they don’t like. It attracts people that are ok with that and most stay away. That all said - you got to look out for you and your family and friends, so you got to do it sometimes. Just wanted to say that, most of the times, the feeling of a commitment to each other goes both ways during the honeymoon period between company and person.
  - 6y ago
whatever1 6y ago
Don’t throw the ethics word in the sole business that the employees have some leverage. Employers will let you go without a second thought about your family / health situation and you will be told that this is just business.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  Very true. My ex- was nervous about accepting a vet tech position for about a year before she started vet school. She was nervous because they "required"/"only wanted" someone who "was going to be there long term". I asked her: "They want you to make commitments to them that you will be there for a long term. Are they willing to make the same commitment to you? Or are you out the door the moment you are unneeded?" "Business is tough. But here at BlahCo, like we told you, we're a family. So like we required from you, we're keeping you on and paying you!" - hah, no. At least not the very very vast majority of the time, more like "Come in, close the door, have a seat".
stale2002 6y ago
> we should expect the same of employees. No we shouldn't. The reason being that this puts employees at a significant disadvantage compared to the multitude of companies doing much worse things. Obviously, there is always a line that one should not crossed. EX: don't do anything that is blatantly illegal. But taken advantage of at-will employment status, which is fully within someone's legal right to do so? Go for it. If the company is upset about it, then they should have offered better employment terms.
yosefjaved1 6y ago
I'm confused by the statement on ethics. What ethic is being broken by the employee, who is searching for a new job from a new company, while still under employment with his current company?
analog31 6y ago
I think the general theory is that the employee has the net disadvantage. If they lose their job, it's 100% of their livelihood, whereas for the employer, losing one employee out of a dozen or more is rarely an existential threat. Also, the employer has more power over the work environment.
TylerE 6y ago
How come almost no company that wants that kind of loyalty is willing to pay for it? Like, say, 6 months of guaranteed pay if you are let go for any reason non-criminal.
maximente 6y ago
capital can feel free to take a good faith first step by doing things such as sharing salaries, equity control, how much $ you would actually get were the company to be sold for $1B tomorrow, etc., or offering contractual employment (not at-will). until then, no thank you - if you are hoping to win people over by using warm-sounding moving targets like "ethics", well, hopefully we've seen enough of that to know better by now.
logicchop 6y ago
It is harmful to the team you're with, but there's no alternative right now. It is substantially easier to find a new position when you are currently employed, even if your stint has been brief. This is common knowledge, and as such self-reinforcing: if you quit, then apply somewhere else, the new place will assume you were forced out, since nobody on their own volition leaves a job before finding another one. So there's no way around it right now, so here's my advice: unless you are about to have a breakdown, never quit until you find something else.
kemiller2002 6y ago
When I was a manager, I had a rule that all my directs had to always be looking for new opportunities. If they find something better, I wanted them to leave. It made sure of 2 things for us: 1. We knew that anyone could leave at any moment, and we always planned accordingly. 2. We knew we had to keep people happy. If someone didn't like something, we had to change if possible or that person might leave. Conversations about having interviews and being contacted by recruiters became open, honest, and casual. There was no fear about someone might find out if you were looking, and people shared what they found out about talking to potential employers.
- derekja 6y ago
  Had a manager at Microsoft that made me do that. Thought it was really weird at the time, and certainly wasn't anything like a company policy, but here we are 20 years later. It's a story I tell my reports all the time and it just works so much better to be able to rely on everyone being around because they have decided they want to be.
mikestew 6y ago
If we expect startups and companies to act ethically... Oh, I gave up on that a long time ago. So where does that leave me in light of the second half of your sentence? I know where it leaves me: it leaves me in the place where employers pushed for "at-will" employment in the state legislature, and just like an employer might want me to train my replacement, I'm going to "not quit until something better is lined up". I'll still do the work that I was hired to do, but I'm not quitting until it suits my needs, just like an employer won't keep me around even one minute longer than suits their needs. Ethics don't come into play, these are the rules that have been foisted upon us while no one asked us our opinion on the subject. To argue ethics in this case makes me suspect manipulation at worst, naivety at best.
mancerayder 6y ago
>I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. And how about their bills? People have to pay for shelter and other things. There's ethics and there are material needs. Not everyone is a made man / woman.

by nickff 6y ago

pavel_lishin 6y ago

> "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. How so? > If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees. I'm not sure what an ethical action from an employee would look like under this framework; quit and live without an income during any job search?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
filoleg 6y ago
>How so? Yeah, I am confused by that one as well. If you are delivering value in the same capacity as you did before you started the job search (aka you ain't slacking and doing the bare minimum, with the rest overflowing onto the rest of engineers on your team), then how is it harmful or even noticeable to anyone at all?

janosett 6y ago

This is the risk with at-will employment in CA. The employer could very well decide after two days of you working there that they wanted to let you go -- there's no part of the contract keeping either side from ending things early. I don't think it's unethical to leave after a short amount of time given the employer has no equivalent expectation.

nickff 6y ago
Would you have a different expectation if the employment agreement specified severance compensation for the employee, or if the law required severance?
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  If the law required severance the law is also pretty likely to make requirements of the employee as well so things will still be equal - when I say pretty likely I mean in every case I have ever seen.
- janosett 6y ago
  Yes, I would openly encourage different types of work contracts in California / the US. I'd commit, for example, to 1-2 year auto-renewing contracts. Probably would need a few conditions: * If I am terminated without breach of contract I still will receive full compensation (at least for some months). * Contract may not be broken related to any unexpected health issues. * No arbitration requirement if one side accuses breach of contract. Of course this would benefit me more than the employer :-)
mathattack 6y ago
It’s not unethical though it may take some explaining later on.
stanrivers 6y ago
I agree with this. However, I will say unless there is something major wrong with you or major at the company, you are now going to be fired very quickly. The company also doesn’t want that reputation. I work in finance and certain hedge funds have a reputation for cutting people quickly they don’t like. It attracts people that are ok with that and most stay away. That all said - you got to look out for you and your family and friends, so you got to do it sometimes. Just wanted to say that, most of the times, the feeling of a commitment to each other goes both ways during the honeymoon period between company and person.
- 6y ago

whatever1 6y ago

Don’t throw the ethics word in the sole business that the employees have some leverage. Employers will let you go without a second thought about your family / health situation and you will be told that this is just business.

FireBeyond 6y ago
Very true. My ex- was nervous about accepting a vet tech position for about a year before she started vet school. She was nervous because they "required"/"only wanted" someone who "was going to be there long term". I asked her: "They want you to make commitments to them that you will be there for a long term. Are they willing to make the same commitment to you? Or are you out the door the moment you are unneeded?" "Business is tough. But here at BlahCo, like we told you, we're a family. So like we required from you, we're keeping you on and paying you!" - hah, no. At least not the very very vast majority of the time, more like "Come in, close the door, have a seat".

stale2002 6y ago

> we should expect the same of employees. No we shouldn't. The reason being that this puts employees at a significant disadvantage compared to the multitude of companies doing much worse things. Obviously, there is always a line that one should not crossed. EX: don't do anything that is blatantly illegal. But taken advantage of at-will employment status, which is fully within someone's legal right to do so? Go for it. If the company is upset about it, then they should have offered better employment terms.

yosefjaved1 6y ago

I'm confused by the statement on ethics. What ethic is being broken by the employee, who is searching for a new job from a new company, while still under employment with his current company?

analog31 6y ago

I think the general theory is that the employee has the net disadvantage. If they lose their job, it's 100% of their livelihood, whereas for the employer, losing one employee out of a dozen or more is rarely an existential threat. Also, the employer has more power over the work environment.

TylerE 6y ago

How come almost no company that wants that kind of loyalty is willing to pay for it? Like, say, 6 months of guaranteed pay if you are let go for any reason non-criminal.

maximente 6y ago

capital can feel free to take a good faith first step by doing things such as sharing salaries, equity control, how much $ you would actually get were the company to be sold for $1B tomorrow, etc., or offering contractual employment (not at-will). until then, no thank you - if you are hoping to win people over by using warm-sounding moving targets like "ethics", well, hopefully we've seen enough of that to know better by now.

logicchop 6y ago

It is harmful to the team you're with, but there's no alternative right now. It is substantially easier to find a new position when you are currently employed, even if your stint has been brief. This is common knowledge, and as such self-reinforcing: if you quit, then apply somewhere else, the new place will assume you were forced out, since nobody on their own volition leaves a job before finding another one. So there's no way around it right now, so here's my advice: unless you are about to have a breakdown, never quit until you find something else.

kemiller2002 6y ago

When I was a manager, I had a rule that all my directs had to always be looking for new opportunities. If they find something better, I wanted them to leave. It made sure of 2 things for us: 1. We knew that anyone could leave at any moment, and we always planned accordingly. 2. We knew we had to keep people happy. If someone didn't like something, we had to change if possible or that person might leave. Conversations about having interviews and being contacted by recruiters became open, honest, and casual. There was no fear about someone might find out if you were looking, and people shared what they found out about talking to potential employers.

derekja 6y ago
Had a manager at Microsoft that made me do that. Thought it was really weird at the time, and certainly wasn't anything like a company policy, but here we are 20 years later. It's a story I tell my reports all the time and it just works so much better to be able to rely on everyone being around because they have decided they want to be.

mikestew 6y ago

If we expect startups and companies to act ethically... Oh, I gave up on that a long time ago. So where does that leave me in light of the second half of your sentence? I know where it leaves me: it leaves me in the place where employers pushed for "at-will" employment in the state legislature, and just like an employer might want me to train my replacement, I'm going to "not quit until something better is lined up". I'll still do the work that I was hired to do, but I'm not quitting until it suits my needs, just like an employer won't keep me around even one minute longer than suits their needs. Ethics don't come into play, these are the rules that have been foisted upon us while no one asked us our opinion on the subject. To argue ethics in this case makes me suspect manipulation at worst, naivety at best.

mancerayder 6y ago

>I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. And how about their bills? People have to pay for shelter and other things. There's ethics and there are material needs. Not everyone is a made man / woman.