6 ms·

> 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 p

by cletus 15y ago

> 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?

jcstauffer 15y ago
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).
rcfox 15y ago
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.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > 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?
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    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.
nupark2 15y ago
> 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.

by cletus 15y ago

jcstauffer 15y ago

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).

rcfox 15y ago

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.

rdtsc 15y ago
> 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?
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  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.

nupark2 15y ago

> 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.