A lot of people are viewing this from the employer, which I guess makes a certain amount of sense, but as a potential employee that's not your problem.
The simple fact is that as an employee you should be looking out for yourself. Period. That means pushing back on a hard deadline that will exclude you from trying to get your dream (or simply preferred) job.
If the company won't budge and you're unsure of your prospects then yes by all means accept it, go to the other interview and, if you get it, bail on the other one.
For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they might not (and I've had it happen where they haven't).
If your "safety employer" is a large company don't even give it a second thought. Microsoft or Yahoo will offer hundreds of jobs. Not everyone is going to show. It's factored in and the companies won't die if you don't show up.
Be more careful when it comes to small companies but, as others have noted, smaller companies may be in a situation between getting 0 employees and getting 1. That's a big difference from getting 199 or 200.
Ultimately though, the company's problems aren't your problems, particularly if they exploit your inexperience and relative lack of negotiating power to force you into making a premature decision. That company will have interviewed other people. It will simply extend an offer to the next person on the list.
If they can't get someone to join them they're either not offering enough compensation or they're simply not desirable employers. Neither of which is your problem.
A lot of people are viewing this from the employer ...
I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they might not (and I've had it happen where they haven't).
If a company rescinds their offer due to no fault of your own (e.g, misrepresentation), then it's just as unethical as you rescinding your acceptance of the offer.
If you're not sure, then simply do not accept the offer. They'll either wait (or they won't), but it's the only ethically sound decision available, and you will avoid the possibility of making a bad name for yourself.
I'd certainly remember someone that accepted an offer and then backed out without cause. Nobody responsible does this.
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
I keep my word when I'm dealing with people. With people my word is bond.
With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties.
If you sign a contract promising to begin work on a certain date and there's no penalty for changing your mind, then it's OK to change your mind. If they wanted a firmer commitment than that then they could write in a penalty clause to cover that circumstance. Of course, you'd be entitled to ask for more from them in return for this commitment (e.g. increased signing bonus).
You may let down a few people at the first company if you change your mind and take another offer, but if you're a manager at a company then you should be well versed in dealing with the mild disappointment arising from an individual choosing to act in their own interest rather than the interest of the company.
>With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties.
Exactly, companies of all kinds can and do legally lie to your face, and write something entirely different down. It's not ethics, it's business. Every buy a car? Nothing the salesperson says has any legal bearing at all.
A company is made up of people. If you treat a company unethically the consequences are suffered by people, not by some imaginary entity that only exists on paper. The only difference is that you may not always know who they are.
Yes, companies and salespeople can lie legally - but not ethically, and that's what we're talking about here.
With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties.
Companies are comprised of people. If you break your word and cost the company money, you're costing those people (and the investors) money.
As a business owner, I find it very frustrating how some people's morals seem to not apply to their dealings with corporations. I wonder if it's a lack of familiarity with how businesses are run, and the ease of treating the company as a faceless entity.
You may let down a few people at the first company if you change your mind and take another offer, but if you're a manager at a company then you should be well versed in dealing with the mild disappointment arising from an individual choosing to act in their own interest rather than the interest of the company.
Acting in your own interest is fine. Acting in your own interest contrary to your word is not.
If working for the company is not in your interest, don't accept the offer. It's as simple as that -- nobody's feelings will be hurt. If you need more time, say so. If the company won't offer you more time, don't accept the offer.
However, if you accept the offer and then renege, the people involved are likely going to have a validly poor opinion of your professionalism, ethics, and maturity.
By reneging on an offer you may cost the company time but you almost certainly won't cost them money.
More than likely they'll go to the next candidate on the list that they've already interviewed. If there are no other candidates... sorry but that's not the employee's problem.
Personally I'd be more concerned with people who start, work a few months and then up and leave because something better came along. By that point they really have cost you time and money. You've invested in them.
But before they even start? The investment (and thus the commitment) is minimal.
If you've applied for a visa on their behalf, you may be out of pocket (which I'd have a problem with). Relocation expenses? You can pursue recovery of those. If you used a recruiter, a candidate who reneges won't cost you (typically the recruiter must given partial refunds on commissions should the employee leave in the first three months).
As for not accepting in the offer in the first place, this is fine in theory and certainly fine for someone who has experience and is in demand. A new graduate is at a severe disadvantage and may think it's either accept this or get nothing.
If someone reneges on working for you it's typically a minor inconvenience.
If an employer reneges on an employment contract it can often be devastating (personally, professionally and financially) for the candidate, particularly if the typical recruiting season is over and they've declined other offers.
This is not a meeting of equals. When one party is dealing with survival and the other with inconvenience, sorry but you're just going to have to suck it up that some people will accept offers and then renege on them later.
> By reneging on an offer you may cost the company time but you almost certainly won't cost them money.
Where do you think the time comes from?
> But before they even start? The investment (and thus the commitment) is minimal.
That's not your decision to make with their money.
> This is not a meeting of equals. When one party is dealing with survival and the other with inconvenience, sorry but you're just going to have to suck it up that some people will accept offers and then renege on them later.
I don't think ethical conduct differs based on the degree of harm: Stealing $20 from Bill Gates would still be stealing.
I do agree with a lot of what you say. But an individual is very much at the mercy of a corporation, which has vastly more resources and more experience of this kind of thing.
Also, a company isn't the same thing as the individual shareholders. They can have the company enforce stricter employment contracts and offer bonuses on signing if they wanted/voted to.
In my view, I don't think you are reneging on an agreement to commence work for a company if you change your mind before that date. Perhaps someone with some legal experience in this area could clear this up.
What I am absolutely certain about is that no individual should feel obliged to go through with what would be a comparatively "onerous contract" willingly.
If a contract does not specify a penalty for changing your mind then you are not only free to do so but, IMHO, obliged as a free human being to take up any better offer in the interim.
> If you break your word and cost the company money, you're costing those people (and the investors) money.
There is nothing even remotely immoral about costing a company (and their investors) money. If there were it would immoral to launch a competing company.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with costing a company money. There's also nothing wrong with costing a person money - for example: if I make a bid at an auction it causes another bidder to pay more.
The point is that you should treat others like you want to be treated. Do you want people to break their word to you? If not, don't break your word to them, even if they have formed a group which is legally recognised as a company.
Also consider that it is possible for a single person to form a 'company' to run his business - is it OK to break your word to this person? Or only when he takes on a business partner?
Its true that if I put a gun to your child's head and tell you that I'm going to kill her unless you agree to take my job, and you agree, then you gave me your word. Its also true that you genuinely had the choice of saying yes or no. It just that if you had said "no" there would be pretty negative consequences. Would you argue that in this case, had you said "yes", that you should be required to keep your word? Or that you are morally obligated to keep your word? Some fierce word-keepers argue "yes you should". In which case you may stop reading, but probably stop posting too.
Otherwise, let us agree that "I gave my word" is not a moral absolute and we are now debating about degree.
> I'd certainly remember someone that accepted an offer and then backed out without cause. Nobody responsible does this.
Except when the cause is "they pressured me and didn't want to give me time to compare offers, so I trust my instincts, delayed, and what do you know? Indeed their offer was much worse, no wonder they resorted to those tactics, good thing I didn't actually sign anything yet and I could still go for the other job" in which case it sounds like a very responsible person.
Of course some companies prefer employees with a little bit less backbone, which is exactly what they would have gotten away with if it weren't for that meddling Spolksy! ;-)
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
How far does your word go though? You can (in general) quit a job anytime you want right? So, you could go to work for them for a single day and then quit and that would be fine? But you can't decide a day before you start that you want to go work somewhere else?
I don't think these things are as cut and dried as you might think.
> 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?
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.
> 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?
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.
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).
> 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.
I actually agree with him. The point of "at will" employment is that usually firing happens if the employee has done something terribly wrong. Usually they are "let go" for "no reason." It avoids a potential legal mess. Well a reason is given but it is a safe reason "we are restructuring" and such. The real reason could be anything, heck it could be race or gender, as long as nobody puts that in writing it doesn't matter. It would take a long established pattern of lay-offs to prove that a certain group is targeted. But that's besides the point. The point is that the law is presented a "wonderful feature" to new college graduates -- "amazing, you have the freedom to leave anytime". I would guess that most often than not, it is used by companies to get rid of employees. BUT in this one instance, that law can (and should) be applied by the employee.
I really don't like how all of the sudden "morality" starts playing into in. Morality in such instances (mortgage payments and employment) is what is used by the more powerful entity to (company or bank) to keep in check those that are in a less powerful position ("it is immoral to stop paying your mortgage", "it is immoral to quit after 3 days").
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
I've made a long and rewarding career out of following moral principals, and my reputation has been invaluable in the ongoing growth of my career and (now) my own business.
It's simple to avoid being abused and taken advantage of without behaving unethically: don't make agreements you can't (or won't) keep, and make a genuine effort to help correct any situation you find abusive or untenable.
If you behave in the manner you're describing, don't be surprised when you find yourself primarily interacting with other people who do try to take advantage of you -- you'll attract them through your behavior, and will repel individuals who expect to trust the word of the people they work with.
Yes -- ask for more time. If they say no, then just don't accept the offer.
Honestly, nobody you want to work for is going to say "no" if you ask for a little more time, unless business constraints dictate that they truly can't afford to wait on the hiring decision -- which is, in itself either:
- A sign of either poor planning on their part.
or
- A demonstration of their low assessment of your value to their organization.
I agree. Basically if it they are establishing an adversarial environment right off the start, maybe they are not a good company to work at to begin with. I think the school recruiting office could at inform the students about such strategies and tell them to beware.
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
There is a middle ground of course. Not unbending personal morality above all else but rather a good faith effort to both stand up for yourself in safe ways and to stand by the interests of those who you want to stand by yours.
This is why I am not opposed to withdrawing acceptance of an exploding offer at the last minute. It's better for the employer and yourself if you quit then rather than two weeks into the job.
>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 are missing the point nupark. What they said they would do is "I will work for you, and I will give you two weeks notice if I choose not to."
By your own criteria, they have fulfilled their obligation. Move on.
You will see a contract that says "Employee to start July 1st. Employment is at will. Either party may terminate with two weeks notice". You will think the first is the most important. The student might find the last clause most important.
When the student calls in January to give several months notice that they wont be accepting the offer, you have a fucking tantrum and say that the student is unethical and unprofessional. You will imagine in your head that the contract meant "Notice cannot be given until after employment has commenced". That this clause is not there will not bother you. Thats what you thought it meant, and by golly you are a man of your word, whereas this student is clearly a liar and a cheat, weaseling out of a contract with word tricks.
I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat. They then use that excuse to break any deal they chose.
"I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat."
In my experience, people who have very low opinions of everyone else (and those include the absolutists on both sides of this debate) are usually the least trustworthy people I have met.
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
It gets tricky. If you're a publicly traded company, do you prioritize keeping your implicit word to your stockholders, or to the guy who might or might not come work for you, maybe?
"I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period."
In general I agree. But what is the limitation? "I will work for you" is filled if you quit half way through your first day on the job and that's far worse for the employer than if you bailed out in advance.
"If a company rescinds their offer due to no fault of your own (e.g, misrepresentation), then it's just as unethical as you rescinding your acceptance of the offer."
I am going to say here that someone giving an exploding offer based on when you say your other interviews are is at least guilty here. I would argue that if someone does this, they entirely deserve what they get.
Using pressure tactics on a new grad doesn't sound too ethical to me. The only person gaining if the new grad accepts is the recruiter. The company will gain a disgruntled employee and the employee will have lost a better offer.
Backing out could certainly spike your chances of getting a job with the jilted company in the future, but unless your in a tiny field where everyone knows everyone, no one else will know. Just don't list that company on you're resume.
On the ethics debate, all I'll say is it reminds me of 'The Shining' where Jack, as he's working himself up to kill his wife, argues that her suggestion to leave the hotel is an ethical no-no because his employers have placed their trust in him.
"Do you have any idea what a moral or ethical principal is?" -- Jack Torrance
It would be like the a professional basketball player refusing to intentionally foul Shaq because they feel that hitting someone is simply immoral. I respect your desire to "Keep your word, period" and I also respect someone who refuses to hit someone in a sport. But you are simply putting yourself at a disadvantage to the team you are playing against.
The simple fact is that as an employee you should be looking out for yourself. Period. That means pushing back on a hard deadline that will exclude you from trying to get your dream (or simply preferred) job.
If the company won't budge and you're unsure of your prospects then yes by all means accept it, go to the other interview and, if you get it, bail on the other one.
For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they might not (and I've had it happen where they haven't).
If your "safety employer" is a large company don't even give it a second thought. Microsoft or Yahoo will offer hundreds of jobs. Not everyone is going to show. It's factored in and the companies won't die if you don't show up.
Be more careful when it comes to small companies but, as others have noted, smaller companies may be in a situation between getting 0 employees and getting 1. That's a big difference from getting 199 or 200.
Ultimately though, the company's problems aren't your problems, particularly if they exploit your inexperience and relative lack of negotiating power to force you into making a premature decision. That company will have interviewed other people. It will simply extend an offer to the next person on the list.
If they can't get someone to join them they're either not offering enough compensation or they're simply not desirable employers. Neither of which is your problem.