Hacker News Reader

Comment by arctangent | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

>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.

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.

Who the hell keeps downvoting nupark2? His comments are on-topic and well argued. If you disagree post a reply, don't downvote.

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.

We get where you stand on this. Many disagree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com