3 ms·

I've seen this in the past, though it hasn't bitten me... I'm really against 'pre-emptive' hiring for this reason. Its not fair to mess with people's livings j

• willcipriano 4y ago
  The worst part is it isn't like they don't have another option. Could choose to hire a contractor or let people know upfront about the risk of the job not being there in a few months, but that would drive up the rates people would ask.
  • mech422 4y ago
    Yeah, and the new hire potentially turned down a long term job for something that evaporates before they even start...
• jlg23 4y ago
  > Its not fair to mess with people's livings... Given that this is the status quo, employees should adopt the same attitude. When working for an ethical employer, I'll work 48h/day if the situation requires it, but for everyone else, I'll bill them for the "quick question over the phone" outside of my agreed upon working hours; and I'll quit when someone else makes a good offer. Once a (spectacularly unethical) employer tried to pull the "think about the others in your team" stunt only to be amazed when I found them better jobs within a week and everyone else quit, too. I cannot say he learned from that experience, but I equally cannot say I regret my decision.