If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.
I don't think it's unethical to leave after a short amount of time given the employer has no equivalent expectation.
* If I am terminated without breach of contract I still will receive full compensation (at least for some months).
* Contract may not be broken related to any unexpected health issues.
* No arbitration requirement if one side accuses breach of contract.
Of course this would benefit me more than the employer :-)
I work in finance and certain hedge funds have a reputation for cutting people quickly they don’t like. It attracts people that are ok with that and most stay away.
That all said - you got to look out for you and your family and friends, so you got to do it sometimes. Just wanted to say that, most of the times, the feeling of a commitment to each other goes both ways during the honeymoon period between company and person.
We also hired a c-level exec who came aboard apparently having already accepted a different offer and came on for under a month to collect pay and get some juicy stock. Apparently they negotiated well and walked off very, very well paid.
Edit: not sure if I have a point there other than both employees and companies can be jerks. We should all be better.
At a previous job, I worked fairly closely with a sales representative who, it turned out, was working in sales “full time” for two different tech companies in different fields.
Needless to say, once he was discovered he was jobless (unless, of course, there were more undiscovered jobs out there).
If this continued for a while and you were happy with his work prior to discovering this, why let him go?
They talked about making him full-time. Negotiated an offer, relocation package, etc., all good. He set about selling his home, finding his kids new schools, etc. And then about a week before his start date, he got a phone call.
"The clinic has been sold to new owners. They are reviewing finances and rescinded any job offers, including yours. They will allow you 30 days to repay your relocation assistance."
Oh hell no. He lawyered up. He'd sold his home. Had a whole bunch of language in the employment contract that the new owners were unaware of, to ensure things went "smoothly".
He didn't end up repaying his relocation assistance. And his "new" "employer" ended up paying three months salary and the closing costs on his house for the inconvenience.
California at-will employment cuts both ways and requires neither employer nor employee to give notice.
Many employers will typically notify employees 30 days in advance of layoffs and provide severance on top of that.
Many employees give employers two weeks’ notice before quitting.
Some employers and some employees do neither, which is fully within the bounds of at-will employment in California.
How so?
> If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.
I'm not sure what an ethical action from an employee would look like under this framework; quit and live without an income during any job search?
Yeah, I am confused by that one as well. If you are delivering value in the same capacity as you did before you started the job search (aka you ain't slacking and doing the bare minimum, with the rest overflowing onto the rest of engineers on your team), then how is it harmful or even noticeable to anyone at all?
She was nervous because they "required"/"only wanted" someone who "was going to be there long term".
I asked her: "They want you to make commitments to them that you will be there for a long term. Are they willing to make the same commitment to you? Or are you out the door the moment you are unneeded?"
"Business is tough. But here at BlahCo, like we told you, we're a family. So like we required from you, we're keeping you on and paying you!" - hah, no. At least not the very very vast majority of the time, more like "Come in, close the door, have a seat".
Oh, I gave up on that a long time ago. So where does that leave me in light of the second half of your sentence?
I know where it leaves me: it leaves me in the place where employers pushed for "at-will" employment in the state legislature, and just like an employer might want me to train my replacement, I'm going to "not quit until something better is lined up". I'll still do the work that I was hired to do, but I'm not quitting until it suits my needs, just like an employer won't keep me around even one minute longer than suits their needs.
Ethics don't come into play, these are the rules that have been foisted upon us while no one asked us our opinion on the subject. To argue ethics in this case makes me suspect manipulation at worst, naivety at best.
No we shouldn't. The reason being that this puts employees at a significant disadvantage compared to the multitude of companies doing much worse things.
Obviously, there is always a line that one should not crossed. EX: don't do anything that is blatantly illegal.
But taken advantage of at-will employment status, which is fully within someone's legal right to do so? Go for it. If the company is upset about it, then they should have offered better employment terms.
Like, say, 6 months of guaranteed pay if you are let go for any reason non-criminal.
until then, no thank you - if you are hoping to win people over by using warm-sounding moving targets like "ethics", well, hopefully we've seen enough of that to know better by now.
And how about their bills? People have to pay for shelter and other things. There's ethics and there are material needs. Not everyone is a made man / woman.