I understand that we (on Hacker News) tend to come from a startup perspective, so it makes sense where you're coming from. But in the context that Joel was describing, that's not a valid comparison. Surely Joel isn't recommending dropping a startup of one founder using this tactic (it would be better to say no early). He specifically mentioned Microsoft as an example.

If you as an individual got your offer rescinded at the last minute, that's a detriment to your career because you don't have time to make it up. If on the other hand you had 1/1000th of your offer rescinded at the last minute because you didn't give the other party a chance to consider other candidates ("give me an offer now" after the interview), well, sucks to be you but it's not so bad.

Similarly, if a startup that NEEDED one extra employee to fill a critical role suddenly lost that employee, that's an unfortunate tragedy. If on the other hand, Microsoft lost one college grad, that's just a rounding error.

I hope my explanation makes sense for why context is extremely important.

If a startup needed that one extra employee, they wouldn't have made the starting date months in advance and the decision period three days.

For that matter, I would not advocate signing for a job starting months away at a company that can be made or broken by one junior level employee unless your risk tolerance is extremely high.

If it's wrong, it's wrong, whether you do it to your best friend or your worst enemy.

A big company can absorb the cost of a schedule slip or missing an opportunity to hire a great alternative candidate.

That doesn't make it any more right to break your word.

I like Cicero's answer to the question of when it is OK to break your word. Updating for the modern world... Suppose someone gives you a gun and you promise to give it back when requested. Then the individual goes insane and then comes back to request the gun back. In that case (Cicero uses a sword but same story) Cicero says you have a moral obligation to break your word. I can't imagine you'd disagree with that and give back the gun to someone not mentally fit to handle one. So there are cases where it is morally right to break one's word.

Now, two points I would make: 1) I think it is always better to assume good intentions than bad, but I have been scammed by others in this regard in the past, though fortunately for not a huge amount of money. So keep your eyes about you when you enter.* This means among other things looking at the people who work in a specific environment and actively look for trouble signs.

* Keep your eyes about you when you enter

Be watchful always, be wary always

For you never know when need will be

To fight the hidden foe in the hall

-- Havamal, 12th century Icelandic poem

2) In the event where someone is patently dishonest, (and there are signs to watch for here, for example anyone who accuses everyone else of being dishonest....), then I see no moral obligation to treat them better. I am not a Christian. I feel that it is perfectly acceptable to pay back lie for lie.

3) Key question during an interview: Ask the hiring manager when they'd need a decision by. If the recruiter moves up the date, you know the recruiter is lying.

Your Cicero example is quite interesting. On one hand I too feel that it is not moral to break your word, but in the given example I would break my word and not give the gun back.

In an effort to reconcile these positions, I would argue that my agreement with the original gun-owner contained the unstated understanding that it would only be returned if he was mentally fit.

These sort of 'clauses' if you will are inherent in any agreement we make. It is understood that "I'll return the book to you on Tuesday." also contains the qualifier "assuming, of course, that: a meteor doesn't impact the earth, my car doesn't break down, the US doesn't enter nuclear war....etc."

Still, I don't feel that agreeing to work for a company does not include the understanding that I'll work for them "as long as I don't get a better offer elsewhere."

However, you may argue that it does, and I guess I'd have to give it to you in that case. It's just that...my own agreement wouldn't. By making this proposition I'm basically allowing anyone to break any contact by saying "well, my agreement contained this unstated understanding which lets me do ____". I think that most times the agreement is fully understood between both parties though. There are definitely examples where the line gets fuzzy though, which is why it's so important to communicate so that everyone is on the same page.

Usually each situation is unique and people tend to analyze the situation by themselves and take the best course of action on a case by case basis: people are free to judge if the recruiter represents a small company trying to juggle their single hire position or if they try to bait you in accepting a lower number by making the offer time-restricted.

You don't do to your worst enemy things you do to your friend. It's your (and everyone's) choice to do otherwise if you prefer a simple and implicit option every time. But "morality is people’s privacy, whenever you use morality in an agreement to bind other people should do something, you first of all, is immoral, you’re just a sanctimonious hypocrite." (Linus Torvalds - http://www.netxt.com/an-interview-with-linus-torvalds-despis... )

What part of the article are you speaking to here?