4 ms·

I have to disagree: It may be legal and in your self interest, but I don't think you should reneg on your offer. You should treat others the way you want to be

by MarkMc 12y ago

I have to disagree: It may be legal and in your self interest, but I don't think you should reneg on your offer. You should treat others the way you want to be treated, which means honouring the email agreement. And if you do withdraw your offer to company x, don't complain if company y withdraws its offer to you. If you stick with company x then show them the job offer from company y at your next salary review. It is great leverage in negotiating a higher salary.

barry-cotter 12y ago
He's not dealing with pre Lou Gerstne IBM, or a Japanese keiretsu. He's dealing with a company that has no loyalty. I appreciate that you may remember a time when company loyalty wasn't the punchline of a joke but noon under 30, probably noone under 40 did.
- davelnewton 12y ago
  You don't know anything about the company and its "loyalty", you're guessing. (Unless you're not, in which case, you should disclose that you have inside information.)
chc 12y ago
It is not usually the employee who sets the deadline on the offer, so I don't believe this moral equivalence is real. If a company does not want this situation to come up, it is at liberty to give a deadline that's long enough for the employee to consider other offers and make an informed decision. A company that attempts to rush an employee to accept an offer before others come in is attempting to exploit the employee's feelings of responsibility to the company's advantage. I do not think people are obligated to allow themselves to be exploited in this way.
- notahacker 12y ago
  In the absence of any insinuation by the OP that the first company put any pressure on them to accept the offer within any time frame at all it's pretty wild speculation on your part to accuse them of "exploiting" them. (it's just as easy to assume the latter... that the first offer was accepted because it was perfectly reasonable and the second company was slow to make an offer and poor at communicating. If the second company did take a surprisingly long time to make an offer that's actually another variable to take into account; possibly representing organisational problems or a preference for other candidates at their end)

by MarkMc 12y ago

barry-cotter 12y ago

He's not dealing with pre Lou Gerstne IBM, or a Japanese keiretsu. He's dealing with a company that has no loyalty. I appreciate that you may remember a time when company loyalty wasn't the punchline of a joke but noon under 30, probably noone under 40 did.

davelnewton 12y ago
You don't know anything about the company and its "loyalty", you're guessing. (Unless you're not, in which case, you should disclose that you have inside information.)

chc 12y ago

It is not usually the employee who sets the deadline on the offer, so I don't believe this moral equivalence is real. If a company does not want this situation to come up, it is at liberty to give a deadline that's long enough for the employee to consider other offers and make an informed decision. A company that attempts to rush an employee to accept an offer before others come in is attempting to exploit the employee's feelings of responsibility to the company's advantage. I do not think people are obligated to allow themselves to be exploited in this way.

notahacker 12y ago
In the absence of any insinuation by the OP that the first company put any pressure on them to accept the offer within any time frame at all it's pretty wild speculation on your part to accuse them of "exploiting" them. (it's just as easy to assume the latter... that the first offer was accepted because it was perfectly reasonable and the second company was slow to make an offer and poor at communicating. If the second company did take a surprisingly long time to make an offer that's actually another variable to take into account; possibly representing organisational problems or a preference for other candidates at their end)