Lost both Jobs - Both Passes

[bro75]

What is unethical about transferring to a new company due to salary? Many employees do not have information on what they are worth so they accept what on hindsight may be a lower salary. But often times, the market works and they find the correct salary for their position and they move on. If a company is spending money to train people, then they can ask the new hires to sign a bond that obligates them to pay the company in the case of early resignation.

[proxymoron]

Many employees do not have information on what they are worth so they accept what on hindsight may be a lower salary.

And you think it is fault of the company which recruited the employee?
The cost involved are not just the training costs, even the recruitment itself does cost quit a bit. Because of this attitude of job hoppers, it is eventually gonna affect those ethical employees out there.
Like others here said, I would also say that it is a fair deal and a good (but hard) lesson for the OP.

[Beeroclock]

What is unethical about transferring to a new company due to salary? Many employees do not have information on what they are worth so they accept what on hindsight may be a lower salary. But often times, the market works and they find the correct salary for their position and they move on. If a company is spending money to train people, then they can ask the new hires to sign a bond that obligates them to pay the company in the case of early resignation.

Perhaps there are some ethical issues, e.g. if you are interviewing for a job and saying how dedicated and loyal you are and that you look forward to a long career there etc etc. But privately you know well it's only a temporary job and you will keep applying for something better and leave as soon as that comes along. To me that is an ethical conflict.

But I do tend to agree in the modern context, job hopping is the norm and employers need to accept the reality that it's primarily their responsibility to attract and retain staff. And also as you mentioned, to protect themselves via contractual penalty clauses (or preferably incentives for length of stay) for early termination. I think the behavior cuts both ways, as per WD40's infamous thread, it was discussed how employers keep their options open too and continue interviewing new candidates even after finding an acceptable person.

I don't particularly like it but this is the reality nowadays, jobs and careers are very transient.

[bro75]

And you think it is fault of the company which recruited the employee?

Yes it is. You want to make a low offer then you should expect people to leave. Make them sign a bond if you feel that the cost of recruitment/training is too high.

As for the OP, I do not recommend job hopping, as there are many employers that will look at your record and will be reluctant to hire you in the future unless you are some sort of superstar in your field. There is no solution to your current problem except to look for a new job or beg for your old job back. You can also try to file a complaint to MOM but it will depend on what you signed with them.

[bro75]

What is unethical about transferring to a new company due to salary? Many employees do not have information on what they are worth so they accept what on hindsight may be a lower salary. But often times, the market works and they find the correct salary for their position and they move on. If a company is spending money to train people, then they can ask the new hires to sign a bond that obligates them to pay the company in the case of early resignation.

Perhaps there are some ethical issues, e.g. if you are interviewing for a job and saying how dedicated and loyal you are and that you look forward to a long career there etc etc. But privately you know well it's only a temporary job and you will keep applying for something better and leave as soon as that comes along. To me that is an ethical conflict.

But I do tend to agree in the modern context, job hopping is the norm and employers need to accept the reality that it's primarily their responsibility to attract and retain staff. And also as you mentioned, to protect themselves via contractual penalty clauses (or preferably incentives for length of stay) for early termination. I think the behavior cuts both ways, as per WD40's infamous thread, it was discussed how employers keep their options open too and continue interviewing new candidates even after finding an acceptable person.

I don't particularly like it but this is the reality nowadays, jobs and careers are very transient.

There are many reasons why people leave, most often, the main reason is their immediate supervisor. An applicant will always say they are loyal and dedicated. But when faced with a reality of a bad boss, should they just take it on the chin? Some can adjust , some cannot. Ethics is not involved here.
How about the op's new company that did not push through with the appointment after encouraging the op to resign? Unethical or not? I am not sure as the company may not survive if forced to go through with the appointment. Again, ethics is not involved.

Those in management will say that it is unethical to leave after a few months on the job but they have a vested interest in saying so. So I will take their opinion with a large serving of salt.

[PNGMK]

It takes about 2 years to settle in and be truly productive. In my very large employer we spend literally 10's of thousands of $ training each person. People who leave without reason (i.e. medical or other reasonable clause) before their 2nd year are marked as "NEVER to be rehired" in their HR records. We don't give referrals or even basic replies to "has this person worked for XYZ before?". Screw em. It's a dog eat dog world and a lot of engineers want to work for us.

[Wd40]

What is unethical about transferring to a new company due to salary? Many employees do not have information on what they are worth so they accept what on hindsight may be a lower salary. But often times, the market works and they find the correct salary for their position and they move on. If a company is spending money to train people, then they can ask the new hires to sign a bond that obligates them to pay the company in the case of early resignation.

Perhaps there are some ethical issues, e.g. if you are interviewing for a job and saying how dedicated and loyal you are and that you look forward to a long career there etc etc. But privately you know well it's only a temporary job and you will keep applying for something better and leave as soon as that comes along. To me that is an ethical conflict.

But I do tend to agree in the modern context, job hopping is the norm and employers need to accept the reality that it's primarily their responsibility to attract and retain staff. And also as you mentioned, to protect themselves via contractual penalty clauses (or preferably incentives for length of stay) for early termination. I think the behavior cuts both ways, as per WD40's infamous thread, it was discussed how employers keep their options open too and continue interviewing new candidates even after finding an acceptable person.

I don't particularly like it but this is the reality nowadays, jobs and careers are very transient.

There are many reasons why people leave, most often, the main reason is their immediate supervisor. An applicant will always say they are loyal and dedicated. But when faced with a reality of a bad boss, should they just take it on the chin? Some can adjust , some cannot. Ethics is not involved here.
How about the op's new company that did not push through with the appointment after encouraging the op to resign? Unethical or not? I am not sure as the company may not survive if forced to go through with the appointment. Again, ethics is not involved.

Those in management will say that it is unethical to leave after a few months on the job but they have a vested interest in saying so. So I will take their opinion with a large serving of salt.

I wont be judgemental about why someone changed jobs. All I will say is if you are leaving a job in which you are well settled in, you are taking a big risk, especially as a foreigner who needs sponsorship.

I stayed with a single company for the last 5 years in Singapore and I didn't leave them until they kicked me out. So now I have nothing to lose, whatever happens in my next company, atleast I know that I made the best of what I could in my previous one.

[proxymoron]

And you think it is fault of the company which recruited the employee?

Yes it is. You want to make a low offer then you should expect people to leave. Make them sign a bond if you feel that the cost of recruitment/training is too high.

Dont agree with that mate. The amount in the offer is company's discretion and accepting or rejecting the offered amount is applicant's choice. You cant blame the company for paying you low (atleast for the first year) when it is 'you' who accepted the offer by signing offer letter. Also you cant blame the company because you didnt knew how much you were worth.

I do agree that there are unethical employers out there in good numbers. But IMO it doesnt justify being unethical because a portion of employers are unethical.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Unethical employers are those who shaft their local employees. Foreign employees show know their worth and not just sign on the dotted line like a bunch of welfare recipients. If the employer offers an unsuitable wages, you have no business signing the appointment letter.

[bro75]

And you think it is fault of the company which recruited the employee?

Yes it is. You want to make a low offer then you should expect people to leave. Make them sign a bond if you feel that the cost of recruitment/training is too high.

Dont agree with that mate. The amount in the offer is company's discretion and accepting or rejecting the offered amount is applicant's choice. You cant blame the company for paying you low (atleast for the first year) when it is 'you' who accepted the offer by signing offer letter. Also you cant blame the company because you didnt knew how much you were worth.

I do agree that there are unethical employers out there in good numbers. But IMO it doesnt justify being unethical because a portion of employers are unethical.

I disagree on calling those who quit after a short stint "unethical" whether the reason is due to salary or due to any other reason. To me , these are market forces at work. These same market forces can cause employers to retrench newly hired employees. Now I do not encourage people to job hop since it will have an impact on their career in the long run. I have not done so myself, my shortest stint is at 1.5 years . I am now employed for 8+ years in my current company.

[Aragorn2000]

It takes about 2 years to settle in and be truly productive. In my very large employer we spend literally 10's of thousands of $ training each person. People who leave without reason (i.e. medical or other reasonable clause) before their 2nd year are marked as "NEVER to be rehired" in their HR records. We don't give referrals or even basic replies to "has this person worked for XYZ before?". Screw em. It's a dog eat dog world and a lot of engineers want to work for us.

This is absolutely abhorrent.

Fair enough you don't want to give referrals.

But you wouldn't even confirm if a certain person has worked there before? Is it all about revenge?

I don't think any good engineers with self esteem will want to work for you after reading this. You are left with crappy people, and I'm sure there are plenty of them out there/

[nutnut]

Why hang about in a role you are not happy in being unproductive? Whether foreign or not, it's irrelevant. However, if you do move jobs, don't expect everyone to be happy with it. It is an old-fashioned expectation for people to hang around for years, especially at grass roots level, doesn't happen like it used to, engage your employees and give them the value of being with you and they may stay.

[Beeroclock]

And you think it is fault of the company which recruited the employee?

Yes it is. You want to make a low offer then you should expect people to leave. Make them sign a bond if you feel that the cost of recruitment/training is too high.

Dont agree with that mate. The amount in the offer is company's discretion and accepting or rejecting the offered amount is applicant's choice. You cant blame the company for paying you low (atleast for the first year) when it is 'you' who accepted the offer by signing offer letter. Also you cant blame the company because you didnt knew how much you were worth.

I do agree that there are unethical employers out there in good numbers. But IMO it doesnt justify being unethical because a portion of employers are unethical.

I disagree on calling those who quit after a short stint "unethical" whether the reason is due to salary or due to any other reason. To me , these are market forces at work. These same market forces can cause employers to retrench newly hired employees. Now I do not encourage people to job hop since it will have an impact on their career in the long run. I have not done so myself, my shortest stint is at 1.5 years . I am now employed for 8+ years in my current company.

Perhaps this is going around in circles as the definition of ethical/unethical could well mean different things to different people. But I do agree bro75 in the modern context, I think successful companies see it as their responsibility to attract and retain talent. And there is nothing stopping a company from having an employment contract that appropriately incentivizes employees to stay (dare I use the word, loyalty) and recovers costs (fairly) for early terminations.

[midlet2013]

There is a pattern. If you are an employer, you talk of ethics . Naturally you dont want to lose an employee. Altho u have no problem hiring at your own terms.

And you think it is fault of the company which recruited the employee?

Yes it is. You want to make a low offer then you should expect people to leave. Make them sign a bond if you feel that the cost of recruitment/training is too high.

Dont agree with that mate. The amount in the offer is company's discretion and accepting or rejecting the offered amount is applicant's choice. You cant blame the company for paying you low (atleast for the first year) when it is 'you' who accepted the offer by signing offer letter. Also you cant blame the company because you didnt knew how much you were worth.

I do agree that there are unethical employers out there in good numbers. But IMO it doesnt justify being unethical because a portion of employers are unethical.

I disagree on calling those who quit after a short stint "unethical" whether the reason is due to salary or due to any other reason. To me , these are market forces at work. These same market forces can cause employers to retrench newly hired employees. Now I do not encourage people to job hop since it will have an impact on their career in the long run. I have not done so myself, my shortest stint is at 1.5 years . I am now employed for 8+ years in my current company.

[PNGMK]

It takes about 2 years to settle in and be truly productive. In my very large employer we spend literally 10's of thousands of $ training each person. People who leave without reason (i.e. medical or other reasonable clause) before their 2nd year are marked as "NEVER to be rehired" in their HR records. We don't give referrals or even basic replies to "has this person worked for XYZ before?". Screw em. It's a dog eat dog world and a lot of engineers want to work for us.

This is absolutely abhorrent.

Fair enough you don't want to give referrals.

But you wouldn't even confirm if a certain person has worked there before? Is it all about revenge?


I don't think any good engineers with self esteem will want to work for you after reading this. You are left with crappy people, and I'm sure there are plenty of them out there/

Nope - we employ a lot of the best engineers in the world. I guess it sucks to be a bad one. The problem with referrals is legal.... I don't personally understand or care about the reason but I think when you get so big you become a target for lawsuits - that's why we don't allow our brand or name to be used in this manner. You can put it on your CV - and if you have a name card and have published papers (you do that don't you?) then your name and our company will be googleable and you should have pay slips so why do we need to provide a referral or confirmation?

Oh and this isn't some sucky IT company either. We do have a 20% attrition rate - it's hard work here, not puff and fluff and IT crap.

FYI this is a global trend, referrals went out the window a decade ago and as we're on the bleeding edge you'll see the same with employment confirmations... gone.