this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3137 readers
471 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you start a 'permanent role' with them, having already secured a next role, then it is unethical. That means you know, going in, that this is not effectively 'permanent'.
However. Having already started with them, if you find a better role, there is nothing unethical about taking that unless it contradicts an enforceable employment agreement. Maybe the role wasn't what you thought, or someone else has valued you more highly (in remuneration, working conditions or other benefits). It goes both ways and incentivising retention is up to the business - it's the flipside of lay-offs.
Roles are not "permanent". They have a contract with agreed upon terms. If they want to lock in exclusivity for some time period, they can negotiate and pay for it. It's a transaction. Unless there are mutually agreed upon terms, the opposing side saying they want something doesn't make you planning not to give it to them unethical. If they had a contract term about this they'd be suing people, not whining about being treated unfairly by college graduates.
So much this. Fuck anyone calling positions "permanent" when they'd lay off your entire team post haste if it meant gaining 50 cents of profit.
Its absolutely not unethical, companies usually have someone to replace you before they even know if they'll fire you.
The only permanence is change.