Capitalism’s A Bitch

[Bag of Mostly Water]

Note to all capitalists: When you hire someone as a temporary contractor, not only can you let them go at any time, but they can leave after fulfilling the terms of their contract. See, this contractor thing works both ways. If there is sufficient competition for employees that they can get a better job, they will. That’s how capitalism works – competition is what drives business forward; survival of the fittest.

So, don’t be surprised when I tell you I’m leaving six weeks into a 12 week project because another employer is offering me a full-time position with significantly greater pay and with benefits. Our contact says I can leave with two weeks notice. I’m fulfilling the terms of the contact. If the situation were reversed and the project funding was eliminated, you would have no issue letting me go immediately – never mind two weeks notice.

Don’t yell at me about how hard it will be to replace me. Tough shit. I got a better offer and I’m taking it. That’s how capitalism works. If you want loyalty, hire permanent employees, not contractors.

[Slithy Tove]

Originally Posted by Bag of Mostly Water

That’s how capitalism works – competition is what drives business forward; survival of the fittest.

Huh? I thought capitalism meant I get some gimmic rolling, then let the peons with no initiative do all the scut work while I go home to a big house full of big toys and a wife with big tits. Oh wait - that's consumerism.

[Darth Panda]

On behalf of capitalists everywhere, I approve of your decision to take a higher paying job.

[otternell]

I would say if they want loyalty then offer top positions, wages, conditions and benefits. My state is right to work, so even as a full time employee, if I get a better offer, I'm gone.

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Bag of Mostly Water

Don’t yell at me about how hard it will be to replace me.

So, your current boss thinks "Please save me some hassle by giving up your chance at a full time position to work for us for less money until we cut you loose in a month and a half" is some kind of convincing argument to stay? Excuse me while I snicker.

*snicker*

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by Bag of Mostly Water

Don’t yell at me about how hard it will be to replace me.

Doesn't seem like it would be hard. Just offer you a permanent position at a higher wage than your job offer. That might be expensive, but it's not hard.

[Alessan]

I dunno. Contract or not, quitting in the middle of a project is a bit of a dick move. It certainly won't help your reputation.

[elbows]

I'm sure it's going on his permanent record,

Good for you, you did the right thing, I think. Especially in this economy, especially if you have a family counting on you.

And don't think, for even one second, that he wasn't trying to play you and intimidate you into staying, entirely for his benefit and regardless of the cost to you. I'm glad you didn't go for it, keep up the good work!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I dunno. Contract or not, quitting in the middle of a project is a bit of a dick move. It certainly won't help your reputation.

I think it depends on the circumstances. Personally, I would probably see if I could negotiate with my new bosses to start after the current project was done-- ideally, they would admire the fact that I wanted to finish rather than quit. But if the relationship with the current employer was already shaky, then fuck 'em. Capitalism, like life, is a bitch. Or so I hear.

[purplehorseshoe]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I dunno. Contract or not, quitting in the middle of a project is a bit of a dick move. It certainly won't help your reputation.

Reality bites. Life's a bitch, and then you die. Sometimes, the dick move is the smart move.

Originally Posted by elbows

I'm sure it's going on his permanent record,

Good for you, you did the right thing, I think. Especially in this economy, especially if you have a family counting on you.

And don't think, for even one second, that he wasn't trying to play you and intimidate you into staying, entirely for his benefit and regardless of the cost to you. I'm glad you didn't go for it, keep up the good work!

Concur. Bullying is not just a middle-school thing. Good for you for not bowing to his intimidation.



ETA: congrats on the new job!

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I dunno. Contract or not, quitting in the middle of a project is a bit of a dick move. It certainly won't help your reputation.

Bullshit.

I guess me getting laid off in the middle of a contract could be considered a dick move too and it probably didn't help the reputation of the company I was working for (at least with me), but they didn't seem to care and the investors were happy the program was cut. In fact, analysts far and wide lauded the company for trimming waste and not one person outside the company commented on it being a dick move...

This stuff goes both ways and loyalty to a company or project is misplaced these days. Companies are only "loyal" to a project, employee, or contract as long as they are making some minimum level of profit, and sometimes not even then. Employees, contractors or otherwise, should use the same calculus to determine whether they stay in position or not. If Bag of Mostly Water can make more profit elsewhere and can improve his/her lot in life, leaving in the middle of a contact is the smart thing to do and NOT a dick move. It's business, not personal, just business.

[Cat Whisperer]

Good for you, OP. I quit in the middle of a really bad office assignment once, to go to a once in a lifetime opportunity job. The temp agency actually threatened to sue me! Holy God, where do you get balls that big? Like all temp work isn't exactly as you stated, they kick me out with zero notice for no reason at all if they feel like it, and I also have the right to walk away if I feel like it. Employers, man. {Shakes head wonderingly.}

[New Deal Democrat]

Unless you are supremely talented and well educated the employer is in the driver's seat. Once I had to sign an agreement not to accept a job with a competitor of my employer for six months after leaving the company. Who would hire me? A competitor of my employer. That is where my experience was.

[mhendo]

There is a significant subsection of the American population who seem to believe that companies and corporations are justified in making rational business decisions based on issues of profitability and economic gain, but that individuals should disregard those issues in favor of moral calculations about "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad."

For these folks, a company laying off people when times are tough demonstrates sound business practice; a person leaving a job in the middle of a project demonstrates selfishness and a poor work ethic.

There has been similar thinking in evidence during the mortgage crisis, where banks that foreclose on people who miss mortgage payments are just taking care of business, but people who walk away from underwater mortgages and leave the property to the bank (as provided for in the mortgage contract) are labelled irresponsible and selfish.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I dunno. Contract or not, quitting in the middle of a project is a bit of a dick move.

In some cases, yeah, but if this were the kind of project where the OP quitting in the middle would be a dick move, why'd they give him a contract that allows him to quit with two weeks' notice?

[yojimbo]

A contract is a contract. If you are following the terms laid out in it then fuck'em.

If they wanted you there they should have locked you into the term of the project. They didn't do that as they wanted to give themselves an out.

Congrats on the new job.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

In some cases, yeah, but if this were the kind of project where the OP quitting in the middle would be a dick move, why'd they give him a contract that allows him to quit with two weeks' notice?

I'd go even further and argue that, where two parties engage in a contract to do business like this, using the term "dick move" is not only inappropriate, it is completely irrelevant, because it injects into this business arrangement a presumption that the parties can and should be held up to conditions that are not explicitly set out in the contract.

If your contract allows for termination on two weeks' notice, then terminating on two weeks' notice is neither a dick move nor an admirable move. It is simply abiding by the terms of the contract; nothing more, nothing less. It's not like terminating the relationship is some minor, nebulous issue that might have been forgotten when the contract was negotiated; it is a condition central to the relationship, and the conditions of termination were clearly laid out in the document.

Don't ask someone to sign one set of conditions and then expect to guilt them into doing the exact opposite of what you've spelled out in the contract.

ETA:

I'd be interested to know what other types of conditions Alessan believes should be implicit in contracts, even if they are not actually spelled out. What magical formula should we use to calculate whether conforming to the terms of the contract is a "dick move" or not?

[control-z]

The best you can do is leave things in as good of shape as you'd like if you inherited the job. Don't burn your bridges.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I dunno. Contract or not, quitting in the middle of a project is a bit of a dick move. It certainly won't help your reputation.

If you want people to finish out your projects, you should hire them for the duration of the projects. The OP's prior employer has nobody to blame but itself; I doubt the OP demanded that the contract include an opt-out clause.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'd go even further and argue that, where two parties engage in a contract to do business like this, using the term "dick move" is not only inappropriate, it is completely irrelevant, because it injects into this business arrangement a presumption that the parties can and should be held up to conditions that are not explicitly set out in the contract.

Every contract includes some implied terms. It's a firmly accepted principle of contract law.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Every contract includes some implied terms. It's a firmly accepted principle of contract law.

Are those implied terms ever found to require the exact opposite of what is set out in the explicit language of the contract?

If the contract says the relationship can be terminated with two weeks' notice, how many courts do you think would accept that the implied terms included a requirement not to terminate the relationship?

[Skammer]

I agree that I'd first see if I could finish the project and then start the new job. More out of solidarity with my co-workers than loyalty to my employer. But assuming that's not an option: tough shit to you, I'm outta here.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'd go even further and argue that, where two parties engage in a contract to do business like this, using the term "dick move" is not only inappropriate, it is completely irrelevant, because it injects into this business arrangement a presumption that the parties can and should be held up to conditions that are not explicitly set out in the contract.

If your contract allows for termination on two weeks' notice, then terminating on two weeks' notice is neither a dick move nor an admirable move. It is simply abiding by the terms of the contract; nothing more, nothing less. It's not like terminating the relationship is some minor, nebulous issue that might have been forgotten when the contract was negotiated; it is a condition central to the relationship, and the conditions of termination were clearly laid out in the document.

Don't ask someone to sign one set of conditions and then expect to guilt them into doing the exact opposite of what you've spelled out in the contract.

ETA:

I'd be interested to know what other types of conditions Alessan believes should be implicit in contracts, even if they are not actually spelled out. What magical formula should we use to calculate whether conforming to the terms of the contract is a "dick move" or not?

Just want to say that I concur 100%. A contact is a contract, and unless you're stretching the spirit of the contract beyond reasonableness, "dick move" just doesn't come into play.

[Rachellelogram]

Go you! If they don't want contractors leaving before the end of a project, then they need to make that a stipulation when the original contract is signed... fucking duh. Loyalty and security go both ways. If they rewrote their contracts, they'd have to trade the ability to shut down projects willy-nilly for the security of knowing you can't leave mid-project. If he doesn't like that trade-off enough to put it in the form of a legal contract, then fuck him very much.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Are those implied terms ever found to require the exact opposite of what is set out in the explicit language of the contract?

It's possible. For example, wage, hour, and working conditions law will be read into an employment contract even if it specifically provides that they do not apply.

[Darth Panda]

Your relationship with your employers is an economic and should be driven by the economics. If you have a better opportunity, you should take it. If that really injures your employer, they have the option of making you a counter-proposal, which you may reject or accept. As someone who is both an employer and an employee, I just don't see an issue here.

eta: not really an employer, a manager - but my point here is that if my employees leave, it makes my job more difficult, but I don't begrudge their decision, that would make no sense.

[msmith537]

If everyone just up and quit their job for a higher paying one, we would end up with a race to the top with everyone living in mansions and driving Rolls Royces.

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'd go even further and argue that, where two parties engage in a contract to do business like this, using the term "dick move" is not only inappropriate, it is completely irrelevant,

Not if you plan to ever do business with them again.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

If you want people to finish out your projects, you should hire them for the duration of the projects. The OP's prior employer has nobody to blame but itself; I doubt the OP demanded that the contract include an opt-out clause.

We don't have slavery in this country anymore. You can't, as a practical matter, force someone to work a job they don't want to do. I doubt Bag of Mostly Water would have signed a contract where he would incur significant financial penalties for quitting early.


I really don't get all the "fuck you employer!" attitude. How bad can the company be after 6 weeks? All they did was hire the OP for the duration of a specific project.

That said, I don't think the OP did anything wrong, but you can't blame the company for being a bit annoyed. But shit happens and sucks to be them. What's he going to do? NOT take a permenent job for more pay and better benefits over a short term contract? That's one of the reasons they hire contractors. To be able to replace one of the meat-based units with another meat-based unit.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by msmith537

We don't have slavery in this country anymore. You can't, as a practical matter, force someone to work a job they don't want to do. I doubt Bag of Mostly Water would have signed a contract where he would incur significant financial penalties for quitting early.

Did you miss the part where it was a 12 week contract?

[yojimbo]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I really don't get all the "fuck you employer!" attitude. How bad can the company be after 6 weeks? All they did was hire the OP for the duration of a specific project.

I think a lot of the ire is because the OP was yelled at.

This isn't a thread saying, hehe I fucked the man, yahoo. It's about doing the right thing for yourself and not breaking the deal you had to begin with and getting yelled at for doing it. Fuck him

[OtisCampbellWasRight]

Contract employee and manager here. Whenever an employee gives notice, if they have value within the company, the textbook reaction of the boss is always "This couldn't happen at a worse time..." then talk Mom's apple pie and rainbows.

OP, You are a contract employee, i.e. a hired gun. If they want to keep you badly enough see if they can make a matching counteroffer. Under normal circumstances you never accept the counteroffer, cuz that just gives the employer time to replace you at THEIR leisure. Then dump you unceremoniously. This doesn't apply to your case considering the short duration of the project. By all means DO NOT burn a bridge with the old company. Your skill is a marketable commodity; treat it as such and don't let this become personal. "Dick moves" toward "the company" are a fallacy.

Best case scenario: finish the 12 weeks (at the enhanced rate) then take the new offer.

[BubbaDog]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Did you miss the part where it was a 12 week contract?

Actually yes I did. Still missing it. He said it was a 12 week project under a contract where he could give two weeks notice.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You also seem to have missed the part that I was arguing the OP was perfectly within his rights.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Did you miss the part where it was a 12 week contract?

That's not how it works. I'm currently in a 6 month contract. Apparently companies contract managers now. "Hi! I'm your manager! I have no idea who you are or how your company works, and I'm technically not your boss and can't fire, promote or give you performance evaluations and I won't be here in six months...can you send me this report?" Anyhow, I digress.

The "contract" is the company will pay me an hourly rate for six months, not that I'm an indentured servant for that time. Either of us can terminate the contract at any time. Courtesy dictates I give 10 days notice, but I don't have to. They can also extend the contract or convert me to a full time employee. As it happens, I also get health benefits because legally I'm a W2 through whatever agency they went through.

I'm also potentially in a similar position to the OP as I'm being courted by a former employer for a full time permenent position.

There are pros and cons to both jobs, but my decision and the timing will ultimately be based on which position (if either) I think will provide the greatest benefit in terms of compensation, career, work/life balance and other factors.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The point is that it's only a 12 week contract. I doubt the OP would have strongly objected to being locked in for such a short time, in exchange for the relative job security.

[The Devil's Grandmother]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I really don't get all the "fuck you employer!" attitude. How bad can the company be after 6 weeks? All they did was hire the OP for the duration of a specific project.

Most companies don't get too bad in 6 weeks, but 6 weeks is plenty long enough for a manager to go horn-sproutingly insane.

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by msmith537

. I'm currently in a 6 month contract. Apparently companies contract managers now. "Hi! I'm your manager! I have no idea who you are or how your company works, and I'm technically not your boss and can't fire, promote or give you performance evaluations and I won't be here in six months...can you send me this report?" Anyhow, I digress.

This is....wow, I guess I must laugh. It is funny, though it's pretty freakin sad, too!

[Alessan]

I don't believe in loyalty to companies or corporations. That's ridiculous.

What I do believe in is loyalties to individuals, like the individuals at the company the OP worked with for six weeks. There people, who have done the OP no wrong, are now screwed because the person they were working with bailed on them. It's not just the managers and owners, it's the ordinary employees who had come to rely on the OP who were effected, and where I come from, making other people miserable is what's known as a dick move.

That's not to say that what the OP did was illegal, or even wrong, or that I wouldn't have done the same thing under similar circumstances - it's just that I wouldn't have gloated about it, is all. Business is business, but there's such a thing as being a mensch.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I really don't get all the "fuck you employer!" attitude. How bad can the company be after 6 weeks? All they did was hire the OP for the duration of a specific project.

And then, according to the OP, when he availed himself of the terms of the contract to quit with two weeks' notice because he had a much better job offer, they yelled at him for quitting because of how hard it would be to replace him.

Not cool. If somebody is leaving my employ in a contractually legitimate way because they've found another opportunity that will be much better for them than anything I'm willing to do for them, I shouldn't try to scold or guilt them into staying. Any employer who does that is IMHO quite entitled to a few "fuck yous" on an anonymous messageboard.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Alessan

There people, who have done the OP no wrong, are now screwed because the person they were working with bailed on them.

Which part of the "yelling at him about quitting because of how hard it would be to replace him" did you not understand?

He's not gratuitously gloating "Ha ha, I bailed on you and now you're screwed!" Rather, he's saying "Don't yell at me you jerks, I'm perfectly within my rights to quit for the sake of a better opportunity, and if you don't want your workers to quit on you then you need to offer them more attractive terms".

Originally Posted by Alessan

Business is business, but there's such a thing as being a mensch.

Yup, and a mensch doesn't try to scold or guilt an employee into staying in a short-term temp job when he's got a much better opportunity elsewhere. A mensch knows that it's unfair to expect strong employee loyalty from short-term contract workers for whom being loyal offers absolutely zero long-term benefit.

[Alessan]

I don't see it as scolding or guilting. I see it as the person he was working with being genuinely distressed by the fact that he has a project to finish and the person he was relying on to help him with it was leaving. I'd shout, too.

[Lynn Bodoni]

If the OP was so valuable to the company, then maybe the company should show its appreciation a bit more. If the company wants people to stick with them for the length of the project, then that should be part of the contract...and the company doesn't get to let anyone go before the end of the project, either.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I don't see it as scolding or guilting. I see it as the person he was working with being genuinely distressed by the fact that he has a project to finish and the person he was relying on to help him with it was leaving. I'd shout, too.

Of course they're distressed when someone leaves on terms inconvenient to them. But do they plan on that contingency? Hell no. Then they act all butt hurt because you "betrayed" them. I've never quit a job, but I've worked with a lot of different management groups and they regularly give the same reaction. Better to pretend that an employee leaving is a "rogue" occurrence than to budget resources for the continency. Heaven forbid you budget for it and offset that by pointing out ramp up costs for a new employee.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I see it as the person he was working with being genuinely distressed by the fact that he has a project to finish and the person he was relying on to help him with it was leaving. I'd shout, too.

How menschlich of you. I hope that at least the experience would teach you not to rely too heavily on the help of employees whom you don't even value enough to offer them anything better than a six-week contract.

Mind you, I'm not trying to argue that all temps should just up and quit in order to show their disdain for their terms of employment. Temporary contract labor has its place in the business world and can be a valuable thing for employer and employee alike.

But any employer who doesn't realize that a six-week contract worker is likely to be looking for other employment opportunities is a fool. And any employer who doesn't know that a good permanent job is presumed, by the person offering it as well as the person accepting it, to take priority over a short-term temp job is naive.

And any such employer who shouts at a short-term temp worker in such a situation for quitting (with the statutory two weeks' notice, mind you) is a jerk.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am in a similar situation. My employer "expects" 2 weeks' notice of resignation, according to its employment handbook, etc. However, pretty much anyone who has ever given 2 weeks' notice has had their stuff boxed up at the end of the day and been frogmarched out of the building. Needless to say, the company does not pay employees for the 2 weeks, other than payout out accrued vacation time.

Given that, why should anyone give more than a day's notice in the future?

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

On behalf of capitalists everywhere, I approve of your decision to take a higher paying job.

+1.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe

Sometimes, the dick move is the smart move.

oh hai guys

[fumster]

Originally Posted by mhendo

There is a significant subsection of the American population who seem to believe that companies and corporations are justified in making rational business decisions based on issues of profitability and economic gain, but that individuals should disregard those issues in favor of moral calculations about "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad."

For these folks, a company laying off people when times are tough demonstrates sound business practice; a person leaving a job in the middle of a project demonstrates selfishness and a poor work ethic.

There has been similar thinking in evidence during the mortgage crisis, where banks that foreclose on people who miss mortgage payments are just taking care of business, but people who walk away from underwater mortgages and leave the property to the bank (as provided for in the mortgage contract) are labelled irresponsible and selfish.

I was coming to post the same sentiment, but you did a better job than I would have already.

[Uber_the_Goober]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Unless you are supremely talented and well educated the employer is in the driver's seat. Once I had to sign an agreement not to accept a job with a competitor of my employer for six months after leaving the company. Who would hire me? A competitor of my employer. That is where my experience was.

It's called a non-compete, and is usually unenforceable. If that's what you know how to do, then them's the jobs you can get, and a judge won't keep you from working because of a piece of paper.

Now if you try to take clients with you, or proprietary information, they may have legitimate beef.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Uber_the_Goober

It's called a non-compete, and is usually unenforceable. If that's what you know how to do, then them's the jobs you can get, and a judge won't keep you from working because of a piece of paper.

Now if you try to take clients with you, or proprietary information, they may have legitimate beef.

Non-competes are often enforceable when the employment would lead to the "inevitable disclosure" of trade secrets (but not if you are in California, 50 states and all that). Read this if you're bored:

http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/1/174690.html

[Really Not All That Bright]

They're not usually unenforceable. They're just usually not fully enforceable. They are generally written more broadly than absolutely necessary, and courts will not enforce them to the extent that they're overbroad.