Whatever iPad mobile theme is being used here, please DO NOT use it on your own website.
It is not usable, the font is too small, and frequently crashes my iPad.
Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
91–100 of 140 posts
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 m…
> 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…
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.
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#93A 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 prosp…
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 m…
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfnmwACXvBg
-G
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 nee…
> 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 eff…
> You're mixing things up.
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.
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#95[deleted]
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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…
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.
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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…
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.
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 nee…
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 t…
> 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?
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 eff…
> You're mixing things up. 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 th…
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.
Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>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.