Decency and respect in general is a two-way street. If your boss is an asshole and the company doesn't give a single lonely shit you don't owe it "common decency".
It's not like that sort of company puts a single dime in "common decency" when time comes for layoffs or firing people, instead they get company security and their stuff shoved in a cardboard box.
If the company is decent and you're quitting because you've found a great job or you think you deserve a raise and they don't agree, sure put in your two weeks and everything. The article specifically talks about bad bosses though, so that probably ain't the subject.
If you're getting no respect back for the respect you put in, and you're not quitting despite your boss, the distinction is immaterial.
No it isn't. Decency and respect is a way you choose to conduct yourself.
I treat everyone with decency and respect. I choose not to associate with people that are immoral or toxic, but I will treat them with decency and respect because I will not let someone else's conduct dictate how I act. If your boss is bad, resign as soon as possible with 2 weeks notice and wipe your hands of it.
It's an interesting hack on quid pro quo that I recommend to everyone.
And then there's the "lying to a murderer"-type problem, where the apparent implication of the categorical imperative seems to be flat-out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_t...
A common statement of it is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". It has equivalents across human history and cultures. It says nothing about the actions of others.
There are some people who have preferences that you just don't like and they would do unto you in a way that they would want to be done unto but that you certainly do not.
I'm convinced the subtext of this rule says something very different than the text of this rule...
I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext says something much different. Or the whole thing is just plain wrong, but in an accidentally useful way.
If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation.
Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them.
The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.
So maybe 2 decades ago people bandied it about like they meant it and then still unironically said things like "I didn't like that movie, it was gay."
I'm simply saying the function of the golden rule is different than what you think it is.
The golden rule as a meme certainly has a function. I'm implying that it's the perception of the golden rules function that is flawed.
Look, I removed the 2 weeks notice and boom!, you are the person in the Article!
Seems to me Employees are walking off jobs due to being treated like shit for so many years.
We're complaining about someone who went from being a Lifeguard to a Pizza Delivery Driver. Let's not pretend that these are the types of jobs that need to be "resigned" from and that employers are treating these people with respect and dignity.
I’ve had shitty jobs including a stint at Walmart. You may leave without notice but the vast majority of people had the decency to tell their manager they were out. People working crap jobs have self respect and common decency too.
The ghosting is sending a message to people who value money over people. That to me is the undercurrent theme of all this. That is why it is a trend. The companies are not "people" they are entities and the managers are simply lever pulling proxies for the company.
They’re the ones who get yelled at by the customers for the crappy service and upper management for not being able to find someone to come in on zero notice.
I can guarantee that the one place the message doesn’t go is upper management in corporate.
This why a trend where labor is unreliable (in the old days it was a strike) will get people's attention.
This has very little to do with whether someone actually comes into work and everything to do with what they say or don't say.
2 weeks is a guidelines, and there are a lot of exceptions for the guideline. To be quite honest, there are some jobs where I'd give more than 2 weeks, and there are other jobs where walking up to the boss and saying, "I quit" is completely appropriate.
IMO, ghosting is (almost) never appropriate. I think the only exception are situations of personal safety or situations where contact with the employer would have legal consequences. In those cases, I'd get a lawyer involved ASAP to handle communication with my prior employer.
But, getting back to quitting with less than 2 weeks notice. If a situation is truly miserable, but people are generally reasonable, (IE, no personal safety or legal issues,) I think it's best to explain the situation. I certainly would never expect a miserable subordinate to stay.
I once quit a beer money job on short notice. There were a few things promised that weren't delivered, and a few expenses that weren't explained. I didn't feel guilty.
I could, with time, construct a story about how a greedy person harnesses that greed as a motivator to do great works for a society. Same with selfishness. They aren't pretty, but they can sustain someone as they complete a large, complicated project. Pettiness, I can't do that. Maybe it is possible, but I've only ever seen pettiness as an ugly (and worse, unproductive!) trait. It isn't something that can sustain long-term action.
Some bosses are worse than petty, so we're trawling the bottom of the trench of behavior here, but correct response for an employee is to show a little pride in their character and tell someone that they aren't coming back and wait a little bit. Going through life without being petty once is a tough but worthwhile goal, and if an employee wants to disrespect their boss being petty does not work. There are instances where no notice is appropriate, but they are pretty extreme.
Denends on the jurisdiction. In Alberta, notice period is governed by labour code and is not optional. Employers can choose to pay in lieu of notice.
I definitely don't require people to be heroes and take action. But, if definition of good behavior turns such actions into something bad, then the definition is wrong.
You should always act in a way that optimizes your own desirability as an employee or a person to be associated with in order to keep your options open. It's very rare to find yourself on a hill worth dying on, and to have that hill be clearly seen by others. For me, that standard is not letting an employee go to a funeral, or be at the birth of your child, or something timeboxed and will cause similar extreme emotional/mental pain and duress.
Of course, the flip side is to not have your internal judgments skewed by constant interactions with said boss or bosses. I'm guessing that's how you become a bad boss or employee over time.
People seem to forget that quitting with no notice also screws one's co-workers. And often times it's the "innocent" co-workers that are affected the worst. I've learned far too late in life that there is never a justification for being a jerk, especially as the unintended and unwanted side effects will reap subtle mayhem around you.
No. If you have a morality which says you can act as badly as the worst life throws at you, then your moral conduct isn't stable. You can't have a morality like that, and have something like human rights. Human rights are supposed to be inherent. You can't take them away simply because you're ticked off, or you're practicing tit-for-tat. You can't simply nominate yourself as judge, jury, and executioner.
If you would advocate for human dignity, you not only have to advocate for yourself. You have to do it for others. You have to advocate for human dignity for people you do not like, and for people who you might find offensive or who may even have offended you. If you don't, then you don't believe in human dignity as a principle. You just believe in dignity for yourself and what you can get through whatever power happens to be in your reach.
The important word here is "common". Precisely and pedantically, if you think it's only earned by some, then decency is uncommon for you.
There is indeed a common decency regression in the current tech workforce. It used to be, that not making an appointment, not making a phone call appointment, and the like were simply not done when it came to job interviews and the hiring process. Lots of tech professionals (as corroborated by people saying so here on HN) seem to think it's okay...stuff happens...maybe they just got busy.
Hiring and job interviews are serious business. People's livelihoods are an important issue. It's not the kind of place where it's okay...stuff happens...maybe they just got busy. An attitude like that just strikes me as lacking empathy and awareness of how one is affecting other people. That's not how I think good people behave.
(EDIT: I'm not talking about interviewees blowing off the call. I'm talking about interviewers! With great power comes great responsibility.)
After all, if I was scheduled to interview someone and they don't turn up, that just means I get a free hour to work on something more interesting!
As an interviewer, you are in a position of power. You have more responsibility for the treatment of the other party. My experience in the Bay Area is of interviewers blowing off phone appointments off.
You can also quit with no hesitation or mercy. However, basically no employers on earth will simply stop sending you your paychecks and let it sort itself out, office space style. Which is the equivalent here of 'ghosting' someone.
the examples used in this article were all poor. they picked obviously underpaid hourly positions where walk outs and no shows are not an uncommon exit method. hell in some areas and jobs you can walk out one month and get hired a few weeks or months down the road
Last three times I gave written two week notice I was detained immediately until a security guard could search my pockets and bag, confiscate my company id, and escort me out of the building. All times I was on very good terms with management up to the minute before that.
"I regret to inform you that I must terminate my employment, effective immediately." is the phrase I use now, mailed Saturday morning from the post office so it gets there Monday morning. Friday I stay late, clear out all my personal belongings, and commit-in all my in-progress projects.
Sure, the damage could already have been done, but it makes management feel better that they can eject you right then and there.