Is it unethical to accept a bad job knowing that you will take another job tomorrow if offered one?

[Mallard]

@FinsToTheLeft

Not sure what province you are in, but in Ontario that is illegal. If someone gives notice (and it is outside the probationary period in the contract) you can tell them not to bother coming in, but you are still on the hook for the notice period pay.

They would be here too assuming the employee knows enough to lay a complaint with the labour standards branch and “get in line” with it.

[Translucent_Daydream]

@doreen

Answering for myself- I live and work in a one-party state and I just assume my phone calls are either being recorded or that there is a third party listening. ( since it happens at least once a week) So being told that a call is being recorded wouldn’t make a difference.
I think you’re getting two things a little mixed up here. The defendant never has the burden of proof - it’s the plaintiff who has to prove his or her case- but it’s only by a preponderance of the evidence. But sometimes a lack of documentation affects the witnesses’ credibility- for example, I’ve ended up supervising a number of people who should have been fired years ago for attendance problems. And if they had been and the manager gave a truthful reference, the manager would have lost the lawsuit. Not because s/he had the burden of proof- but because the employee would of course have testified that there was no attendance problem and presented years of evaluations that mentioned no such problem. And then the manager would have testified that there was an attendance problem but would have been unable to explain why there was no mention on the evaluations, why s/he didn’t follow the employer’s policy re: documenting absences, counseling, disciplinary action etc. And the inability to explain those lapses tend to make people believe that maybe you’re not being truthful about the absences. But maybe none of that would have happened if the evaluations has been truthful about the attendance problem - and I don’t just mean maybe the manager would have been believed. I mean maybe no lawyer is willing to take the case to begin with, or it gets dismissed before trial.

When the company I worked for fired my cousin that worked there too, they lost in the unemployment compensation hearing, and had to pay back pay for the very same reason you listed above. They had no documentation to back up their claims that he was a bad employee (he wasn’t, and kept the division he worked for in the black.) It may not be common in your area, but in the South it is very common for employers to fire someone and then lie to the people in the UC hearing that the person didn’t get fired, but quit. Or they try to say the employee was fired for reasons, but the reasons aren’t backed up with proper paperwork.

How my cousin won the hearing was that they had fabricated all of these “write ups” and had forged his signature on them. Our signatures are all over everything in the industry we were both in at the time, since we did a lot of life safety inspections and we had to sign forms for the state. They got caught forging the signatures because there was a streak that showed up from the photocopy of the signature that was on one of the inspection forms that my cousin still had the original of.

They fired him by the way because he walked into the office early one day and saw the new owner of the company snorting rails of cocaine off of the desk in the front of the building and said, “What the fuck man?” He was fired the next morning when he showed up for “insubordination” (sp?)

[Voyager]

There seem to be a whole bunch of different situations here which are getting mixed up.

1. You take a job after interviewing with a bunch of companies, some of which haven’t gotten back to you yet. Is it unethical to leave if a better offer comes in? I’d say no, especially if the company which hired you first pressed you to make the decision before hearing from the others, which is common.

Is it unethical not to tell your company that you are looking for other work? Hell no. Telling them would be stupid.

Is it unethical to take a job knowing you’ll be leaving in some amount of time. I’d say no, since you’ll never be sure you will leave. Things change. You might decide you love the job. If you plan to move for a partner you might break up.
I don’t know why people are even bringing up pregnancy. Besides the legal stuff, women do come back to work after having a baby, and unfortunately some pregnancies end badly.

It would be obnoxious to take a job for only a week, but how often does that happen except in the case of the better offer? I think you’d be better off without anyone who would do this.

[Mallard]

@kayaker

My unemployment compensation rates take a hit. It costs me money.

In Canada unemployment rates (not entirely sure) are set by region not by employer. If an employer fights a workers employment insurance claim it will be just due to the satisfaction of seeing that exemployee get no benefits.

[Voyager]

@Pantastic

The whole practice of referring to business associates as ‘family’ and trying to convince employees that they are supposed to treat a company like they would a completely different relationship is a manipulative scam.

The use of the term family make sense - if you’re thinking of the Mafia, that is.

[Mallard]

@Zyada

I see three different cases here:

Case 1: You have two job offers, but one starts one or two weeks later. In which case, it would be unethical to accept the one that starts earlier and just work for that short time.

Case 2: You have a solid job offer, and at least one very hopeful job possibility - that is, you’ve had at least two interviews at the second job. In that case, the thing to do is to call the second job, say “Hey, I have this other job offer, but I’d much rather work for y’all” You will either get the offer from the preferred company in a day or two, or recommendation that you take the first offer.*

Case 3: You have a job offer, but you’d rather work somewhere else. However, you’ve not gotten more than one interview anywhere else. Take the job offer. Your plans at this point are pipe dreams, not solid plans. Sure, you might get an offer, but you might end up searching for another 6 months for a better job. Take the bird in hand.

*Advice gleaned from employment advice columns not personal experience.

I disagree on case 1 as any job offer could be withdrawn.

[FinsToTheLeft]

@Mallard

In Canada unemployment rates (not entirely sure) are set by region not by employer. If an employer fights a workers employment insurance claim it will be just due to the satisfaction of seeing that exemployee get no benefits.

In Canada the rates are Federal, with exception of Quebec (of course!). When I terminate someone in our payroll system, a Record of Employment is generated that goes to Service Canada indicating insurable earnings for the past year or so and the reason for termination. You are only eligible for EI if you are fired without cause or in a case of constructive dismissal. If you quit or are terminated with cause no EI for you!

If the person then files for EI, I get a call from Service Canada asking to confirm why they were fired. As long as I say job performance or shortage of work, they are OK.

As a federal program, EI is between the former employee and the government. We have nothing do with it once they are off our books and there is no financial impact to us.

[Mallard]

@FinsToTheLeft

In Canada the rates are Federal, with exception of Quebec (of course!). When I terminate someone in our payroll system, a Record of Employment is generated that goes to Service Canada indicating insurable earnings for the past year or so and the reason for termination. You are only eligible for EI if you are fired without cause or in a case of constructive dismissal. If you quit or are terminated with cause no EI for you!

If the person then files for EI, I get a call from Service Canada asking to confirm why they were fired. As long as I say job performance or shortage of work, they are OK.

As a federal program, EI is between the former employee and the government. We have nothing do with it once they are off our books and there is no financial impact to us.

I thought it was something along those lines there’s no direct financial benefit to you if the person gets or does not get EI benefits.

[doreen]

@Mallard

In Canada unemployment rates (not entirely sure) are set by region not by employer. If an employer fights a workers employment insurance claim it will be just due to the satisfaction of seeing that exemployee get no benefits.

I think there’s a bit of a disconnect here- when a US employer talks about “fighting unemployment”, it typically means that

1. The employee either quit or was fired for a reason that makes him ineligible for unemployment

2. The employee files for unemployment and claims the reason s/he is no longer employed is an eligible one (for example, lack of work)

3. The Dept of Labor ( or whichever agency handles UI in that state) contacts the employer, who says no,Joe wasn’t terminated due to lack of work, he was fired because he stopped showing up for work. And the unemployment claim is then denied, as that isn’t an eligible reason.

   That s typically the end of it. It could theoretically go on to hearings and appeals , but doesn’t usually.

An employer “fighting unemployment” simply refers to saying the job loss was due to an ineligible reason, even if it’s true. Conversely, when someone says their employer “isn’t going to fight unemployment”, it means that even if the person was fired for cause, the employer is not going to give that information to the DOL. They may just not respond to DOL, rather than lying but they are not giving DOL any reason to deny the claim.

Apparently the process in Canada is a bit different, but the result for the claimant is the same, since I assume when **FinsToTheLeft ** says

If the person then files for EI, I get a call from Service Canada asking to confirm why they were fired. As long as I say job performance or shortage of work, they are OK.

that means if Service Canada is told the person or was terminated with cause , they would not receive EI.

[FinsToTheLeft]

@doreen

I think there’s a bit of a disconnect here- when a US employer talks about “fighting unemployment”, it typically means that

1. The employee either quit or was fired for a reason that makes him ineligible for unemployment

2. The employee files for unemployment and claims the reason s/he is no longer employed is an eligible one (for example, lack of work)

3. The Dept of Labor ( or whichever agency handles UI in that state) contacts the employer, who says no,Joe wasn’t terminated due to lack of work, he was fired because he stopped showing up for work. And the unemployment claim is then denied, as that isn’t an eligible reason.

   That s typically the end of it. It could theoretically go on to hearings and appeals , but doesn’t usually.

An employer “fighting unemployment” simply refers to saying the job loss was due to an ineligible reason, even if it’s true. Conversely, when someone says their employer “isn’t going to fight unemployment”, it means that even if the person was fired for cause, the employer is not going to give that information to the DOL. They may just not respond to DOL, rather than lying but they are not giving DOL any reason to deny the claim.

Apparently the process in Canada is a bit different, but the result for the claimant is the same, since I assume when **FinsToTheLeft ** says
that means if Service Canada is told the person or was terminated with cause , they would not receive EI.

That’s correct, but unlike at least some states I have nothing to gain or lose by having them classed as eligible vs ineligible. For the record, in over 20 years I’ve never had an ineligible termination.

[Odesio]

@Mallard

Why do you fight someone getting unemployment?

Because as an employer your unemployment tax will go up if you’re firing too many people without good cause who end up collecting from the state.

[Urbanredneck]

I have to say I once lied to an employer about this. I told him I would be there for at least 2 years if he hired me even though I knew I would only be there around 6 months. But I was desperate and he said plain out he would not hire me if I was going to be quitting soon.