25
submitted 20 hours ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/usa@midwest.social
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] taldennz@lemmy.nz 15 points 19 hours ago

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.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

[-] voxthefox 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
25 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2935 readers
539 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, 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