[nickff]

I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. If someone's just started, they're generally a net-negative, so the individual is both drawing pay and sucking resources. This is almost 'quitting in-place'.

If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.

[janosett]

This is the risk with at-will employment in CA. The employer could very well decide after two days of you working there that they wanted to let you go -- there's no part of the contract keeping either side from ending things early.

I don't think it's unethical to leave after a short amount of time given the employer has no equivalent expectation.

[sethammons]

A buddy of mine got a new job, quit the old one, showed up day one and was laid off immediately. Apparently their budget had changed. Oof!

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.

[FireBeyond]

A friend of mine, ex-IT, is now a Physician Assistant. He was an Alaska native, living outside Seattle. He had been doing a lot of contract work at a large Urgent Care in Alaska, and talked about it with his family.

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 They are reviewing finances and rescinded any job offers, including yours.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.

[macintux]

> 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.

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).

[icedchai]

How was he discovered? It would be easier to do this nowadays, given the whole remote thing.

[macintux]

The other employer found out, IIRC, through his LinkedIn profile and contacted us. Been several years though so I’m only moderately confident in that memory.

[ClumsyPilot]

I am conflicted abiut this - he was working full time at 2 places and performing adequately? Was he that good?

If this continued for a while and you were happy with his work prior to discovering this, why let him go?

[stanrivers]

I agree with this. However, I will say unless there is something major wrong with you or major at the company, you are now going to be fired very quickly. The company also doesn’t want that reputation.

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.

[blisse]

now or not going to be fired quickly?

[spectramax]

Nailed it. At-will employment in CA, so the employee can be fired or laid off instantly in an afternoon - happens all the time. But, they're generally expected (not required) to give 2-3 weeks notice. I always found this a bit asymmetric.

[mistersquid]

> But, they're generally expected (not required) to give 2-3 weeks notice.

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.

[FireBeyond]

Many companies in CA, while you absolutely do not have to give notice, legally, will refuse to provide a reference or employment verification or flag you as "not eligible for rehire", (most companies I've worked with lately don't ask for references, per se, but _do_ verify dates of employment and eligibility for rehire) including to prospective employers, if you do not.

[nickff]

Would you have a different expectation if the employment agreement specified severance compensation for the employee, or if the law required severance?

[bryanrasmussen]

If the law required severance the law is also pretty likely to make requirements of the employee as well so things will still be equal - when I say pretty likely I mean in every case I have ever seen.

[janosett]

Yes, I would openly encourage different types of work contracts in California / the US. I'd commit, for example, to 1-2 year auto-renewing contracts. Probably would need a few conditions:

* 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 :-)

[kevinpet]

You're equating legal obligations with expectations. Firing someone after two days because you realize you found someone better might be legal, but a company would be rightly criticized for doing that.

[eeZah7Ux]

This is absurd. Even with a beefy severance package, employees can face very serious risks after being laid off, while companies face minimal risks.

[mathattack]

It’s not unethical though it may take some explaining later on.

[kemiller2002]

When I was a manager, I had a rule that all my directs had to always be looking for new opportunities. If they find something better, I wanted them to leave. It made sure of 2 things for us: 1. We knew that anyone could leave at any moment, and we always planned accordingly. 2. We knew we had to keep people happy. If someone didn't like something, we had to change if possible or that person might leave. Conversations about having interviews and being contacted by recruiters became open, honest, and casual. There was no fear about someone might find out if you were looking, and people shared what they found out about talking to potential employers.

[derekja]

Had a manager at Microsoft that made me do that. Thought it was really weird at the time, and certainly wasn't anything like a company policy, but here we are 20 years later. It's a story I tell my reports all the time and it just works so much better to be able to rely on everyone being around because they have decided they want to be.

[pavel_lishin]

> "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with.

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?

[filoleg]

>How so?

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?

[whatever1]

Don’t throw the ethics word in the sole business that the employees have some leverage. Employers will let you go without a second thought about your family / health situation and you will be told that this is just business.

[FireBeyond]

Very true. My ex- was nervous about accepting a vet tech position for about a year before she started vet school.

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".

[mikestew]

If we expect startups and companies to act ethically...

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.

[stale2002]

> we should expect the same of employees.

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.

[analog31]

I think the general theory is that the employee has the net disadvantage. If they lose their job, it's 100% of their livelihood, whereas for the employer, losing one employee out of a dozen or more is rarely an existential threat. Also, the employer has more power over the work environment.

[TylerE]

How come almost no company that wants that kind of loyalty is willing to pay for it?

Like, say, 6 months of guaranteed pay if you are let go for any reason non-criminal.

[logicchop]

It is harmful to the team you're with, but there's no alternative right now. It is substantially easier to find a new position when you are currently employed, even if your stint has been brief. This is common knowledge, and as such self-reinforcing: if you quit, then apply somewhere else, the new place will assume you were forced out, since nobody on their own volition leaves a job before finding another one. So there's no way around it right now, so here's my advice: unless you are about to have a breakdown, never quit until you find something else.

[yosefjaved1]

I'm confused by the statement on ethics. What ethic is being broken by the employee, who is searching for a new job from a new company, while still under employment with his current company?

[maximente]

capital can feel free to take a good faith first step by doing things such as sharing salaries, equity control, how much $ you would actually get were the company to be sold for $1B tomorrow, etc., or offering contractual employment (not at-will).

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.

[mancerayder]

>I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with.

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.