70

The context

1 year ago, after a Master's degree I had my first real web developer job in a great startup (~50 people) along two other juniors, we all were trained and were given a lot of resources (time to work on side projects, daily meetings & any resource we asked for) which I am very grateful for.

I always have been pretty autonomous but thanks to them I'm a much better developer.

For ~8 months we were all in remote.

The problem

Today they want all of us to go back onsite which I don't find necessary, my question is: would be it very unethical for me to leave/threaten to leave right now for full remote?

The details

They basically trained me and now that I'm a bit productive I'm threatening them to leave if they don't offer something full remote, in my mind it seems very unfair but objectively I know I can find a full remote job, it would make my life so much easier but I would lose a great environment. Also I live far from my workplace and I already asked my manager for that, but he didn't offer any solution.

Hashim Aziz
  • 105
  • 2
Trueman
  • 809
  • 1
  • 4
  • 11
  • There are people who leave their job after a year for various reasons. Why should it be unethical to ask if you can stay remote and why do you think this reason could be more unethical than any other reason? Can you make a simple question out of a threat and wait a while until you decide how to proceed further? – puck Jun 01 '21 at 18:04
  • 1
    @puck Since I physically can go there it's basically just something I want, a bit out of the blue for them after a year, maybe I'm overthinking it but it seems a bit like breaking a tacit promise: they train and give a great environment for some loyalty. – Trueman Jun 01 '21 at 18:08
  • 47
    Business is business. Ethical has nothing to do with it (well, unless your job is manufacturing Vx gas or facial recognition) – Jeffrey Jun 02 '21 at 02:49
  • 2
    Does your company ever employ experienced devs? If so, they're happy to employ somebody trained by another company - the ethics are the same. – mcalex Jun 02 '21 at 03:37
  • 47
    A lot of people are quitting over remote working. It's only a matter of time before it actually becomes mainstream. If you can't wait and really want remote work, ask for it, and if refused, be part of those who apply pressure by leaving (it's not a bad thing). – Someone Jun 02 '21 at 07:12
  • 24
    What you should probably be contemplating is not whether to ask whether you can work remotely, but rather how to ask them. You need to ask in a way that makes it clear it's important enough to you that you'll probably leave soon if you don't get it, but without actual threatening to leave or mentioning leaving at all. – Bernhard Barker Jun 02 '21 at 09:06
  • 1
    Related: How to give a polite ultimatum? – Bernhard Barker Jun 02 '21 at 09:08
  • 5
    @Trueman "they train and give a great environment for some loyalty." In my experience, loyalty is a concept you might have when you start your career, but quickly find it only goes one way. The correct quote should have been "they train and give a great environment for some deliverables." Nothing more. – Gabriel Jun 02 '21 at 12:38
  • Related: https://slashdot.org/story/21/06/01/2142220/employees-are-quitting-instead-of-giving-up-working-from-home - you won't be the only one looking for remote when asked to go back into the office. The real question is... do you have any alternatives lined up already? General rule is deal with "bad workplace", look for a new job and put notice in when you have a new job lined up. Are you prepared to quit without a new job lined up? – WernerCD Jun 02 '21 at 13:43
  • 16
    Its not unethical, but it may not be smart. RIght now, nobody really knows how to train juniors remote. Many companies have stopped hiring juniors as a result. There's a lot of advantages, especially for a junior, to being on site and surrounded by potential help and mentors. Going fully remote may hinder your growth compared to those who don't. – Gabe Sechan Jun 02 '21 at 15:50

8 Answers8

255

As a junior is it unethical to leave after 1 year for remote?

Threatening to leave will not get you anything other than possibly being let go from your company before you have a replacement job.

If you want to work 100% remote at your current company then ask if you can do that. Don't mention anything about potentially leaving. The worst that they can do is say "no".

If they do say no, then simply search for a new job that is 100% remote and once you have accepted and signed an offer you put in your notice with your current company. There is nothing unethical about pursuing better opportunities for yourself in your career, even if it is after one year of work. The situation at your current company has changed and is not in your favor, so you have every right to seek a better working situation.

sf02
  • 78,950
  • 39
  • 179
  • 252
  • 59
    When bosses say to do something, the professional response is to negotiate. Professional bosses should understand this is how businesses work. Any employer that threatens employees is very unprofessional and they can be sued depending on how stupid they act. In fact, if you want a higher raise, you negotiate. You do not threaten to leave. – Nelson Jun 02 '21 at 02:38
  • 10
    @Nelson: So what exactly is the difference between letting your employer know that remote work is very important to you, and "threatening"? – jamesqf Jun 02 '21 at 04:38
  • 40
    A threat is confrontational, and is a win-lose proposition, while negotiation, if done properly, is a win-win proposition. Improper negotiation can turn into win-lose, but they end up being closer to a threat than real negotiation. The business courses I took cover different types of negotiations and it is critical engineers and developer learn this, because the negotiation skills will give them much better salary and methods of tackling non-technical problems at work. – Nelson Jun 02 '21 at 06:39
  • 6
    @jamesqf You suggest alternatives. You provide facts and data on what is being gained and what is being lost. You try to figure out what business motivation your employer has for enforcing in-office work. You figure out if the employer can accommodate the different needs of their employees. You gauge and make continuous evaluation on the receptiveness of your employer. A threat don't care about any of that, and it is a relatively unproductive method of negotiation. – Nelson Jun 02 '21 at 06:42
  • 14
    If it's not obvious, proper negotiation is work, while a threat is closer to an emotional outburst. When I disagree with my wife, sometimes I make the mistake of threatening her (not physically, but something like refusing to do something or trying to bring up past mistakes). I have a 100% failure rate when I threaten my wife, so I think it's safe to say it probably won't work with your employer either. I have significantly more successes talking to her and negotiating like a proper adult. – Nelson Jun 02 '21 at 06:50
  • 1
    Search for a new job regardless of what they say because even if they say, "yes" they may put OP at the top of their list of people to lay off and when they do the lay off there will be zero prior notice. Btdt. Better to have control over when you leave. – HenryM Jun 02 '21 at 12:48
  • 2
    Thanks you all for your answers. I think that's what I'll do, negotiating is very important so even if I don't gain cause it would be a very valuable lesson for my career. Also I really want to know why they think on-site work provides that much more value to them. – Trueman Jun 02 '21 at 16:43
  • 5
    @Nelson If the employer is acting in good faith, then "This is an issue I'm willing to quit over" is an important piece of information for them and it may not be productive to hide that fact. If the employer is acting in bad faith, then all the facts and business analysis you can come up with will be completely ignored anyway. Why not cut to the chase? – JounceCracklePop Jun 02 '21 at 21:27
  • 1
    @JounceCracklePop The employer already failed at acting in good faith. An employer who is in tune with employee needs would have completely avoided the conflict and asked the staff about going back into the office, not simply mandate it. The employer, literally, started this conflict by not negotiating with the employees, and they probably feel justified because they "pay the bills", but that is already a win-lose proposition. The professional thing is to not respond in kind and try to negotiate. – Nelson Jun 03 '21 at 00:50
  • 1
    I would still be clear about how important this is without threats, example: "This is really important to me". If after that, they still don't bother, then go job hunting. Note that your manager didn't really until now because I assume quite a few other employees might have complained a bit, without really being that bothered by it. If you are clear this is important, he might reconsider it. – dyesdyes Jun 03 '21 at 08:28
  • @Nelson You mentioned some "business courses" -- any recomendations ? – Ezequiel Garcia Jun 04 '21 at 21:53
  • 1
    Just a quick comment on "The situation at your current company has changed and is not in your favor, so you have every right to seek a better working situation." it is not necessary for a situation to change... every employee always has every right to seek a better working situation for any or no reason. – Alex M Jun 04 '21 at 22:46
47

would be it very unethical for me to leave/threaten to leave right now for full remote?

It's not unethical to decide you want another job. Especially as a junior it's expected you may have a few short stays as you find the job that's right for you.

I'm threatening them to leave if they don't offer something full remote

This isn't unethical either - just stupid. You're essentially holding yourself hostage, which gives you zero negotiating power. This is more likely to get you fired than get you the full remote you want.

Start looking for a full-remote job now. Turn in notice when the ink is dry on your new employment contract

sevensevens
  • 24,003
  • 8
  • 56
  • 80
  • 5
    Right. The last thing OP should do as a junior is destroy what would otherwise be a good job reference. When you're senior level, it's way less of a big deal to toss a potential reference. Still it's not something you do intentionally. – HenryM Jun 02 '21 at 12:56
  • 5
    If you have a job you like and is good for your career progress etc - but there's one relatively small aspect that you don't like, you don't immediately (and in bold!) look for another job. Before that you talk to your current employer about your situation. They (probably) don't want to lose you after their investment, so it's in their best interest to come to a compromise. But don't take your leaving off the table. – fdomn-m Jun 02 '21 at 16:35
  • @HenryM "what would otherwise be" their only professional "job reference" – 8protons Jun 03 '21 at 16:19
26

Never be fooled by a company that gives out a few candy bars as a benefit.

Every single thing they do is for the massive benefit of the corporation.

Programmers leave constantly and ubiquitously, it's a non issue. As is said often on this site "30 seconds after you leave, nobody will remember your name."

If you want to change jobs, do it.

You never owe any loyalty to a company. Companies exist to make vast wealth for a few, based on paying a few pennies to the actual workers.

Be aware that if they happened to want to sack you for any reason (bankruptcy, save a few pennies, whatever) you'd just get a form email from a HR outsourcing company and that would be that.

It's not possible to treat a company "morally", it would be like looking for a "moral" aspect in the weather.

Fattie
  • 32,594
  • 12
  • 67
  • 99
  • 9
    It's funny you say that because they literally bought a full load of candy bars for the office :D. Sometimes it's hard to realize your manager/mentor is not your friend and can fire you like that (especially when it never happened to you). – Trueman Jun 01 '21 at 18:36
  • 2
    @Trueman Sure, they spent resources training you but that was strictly so you would be a better programmer for their benefit. Wholly reasonable to look for a better job at any time — the impetus is on them retain the talent they've trained, either through work-life balance, pay, or work-from-home benefits. You owe them nothing outside of work-hour obligations. – franklylately Jun 02 '21 at 02:56
  • 48
    @Fattie Well, yeah, you know, most companies are not unicorns, actually. And most founders will never make $200 million. So it seems to me like you are raging over some very hypothetical situation. Also, companies are actually run by people, not by the invisible hand of free market, and not all they want is profit above all. I don't think "be as cynical as you can" is a valid answer to a question about ethics. – Frax Jun 02 '21 at 08:10
  • 1
    @Fattie A typical 50-person web shop will not have a billion dollars of profit to splash on a few founders and top engineers. Not even close. They'll be lucky if they have 10-20 million in revenue. – J... Jun 02 '21 at 10:46
  • hi @J... if a company has 20m in revenue, it sells for 10x or 20x that. which is the magic of being a founder. workers struggle by on (a slice of) actual income. companies in the abstract / founders get magic market money, which is a huge multiple. but that's fine .. they're handing out (LITERALLY) candy bars. – Fattie Jun 02 '21 at 10:59
  • 5
    @Fattie A 50 person web shop is not trading on the NASDAQ for a quarter billion dollars. This is barely more than a mom-and-pop operation. – J... Jun 02 '21 at 11:16
  • 9
    @Fattie Sure, but this is a 50 person web shop. They offer a basic consumable service and exist in their dozens in every city. I think you grossly overestimate the scale of such an operation, and the financial successes of the owners of such an operation. I know a few people who run businesses of this size and they're just normal people - yes, they make more money than the employees, but we're talking six-figure territory, not hundred million dollar bonuses. These are not IPO hopefuls - building websites is generally a grind to the bottom, and nobody is going to corner that market. – J... Jun 02 '21 at 11:56
  • 17
    This is just a rant against capitalism. I've worked for plenty of great companies that were happy to pay me a fair salary. Yes, if they're doing things correctly, they'll earn more money from my work than they pay me in salary. But they're the ones taking the risk, fronting the capital, finding the clients, etc. I have no interest in doing that myself so I consider this a very fair trade. – egherrmann Jun 02 '21 at 14:38
  • 3
    I don't see how this helps OP in particular. It's as @eghermann says, a big rant against (perceived) capitalism. It is possible to view (and live) business life as a quid-pro-pro partnership between employees and employers, and good employers (in IT) know that their ship is only afloat as long as they have good employees. The employees literally are what the business consists of; nobody forces anyone to work at their company against there will (in IT of all sectors) ... But then again I am speaking from an European point of view, so it may be different in the US. – AnoE Jun 02 '21 at 15:23
  • 4
    downvote for hyperbole "Companies exist to make vast wealth for a few, based on paying a few pennies to the actual workers." – Dean MacGregor Jun 02 '21 at 15:34
  • 2
    even though I don't like how exagerate this answer is, there is some truth in it. Business is business. They pay you because you're worth it and they still make profit out of it, they train you to make even more profit, in turn you act professionally, do what you were hired to, for the salary you both agreed on and if you're not happy you're free to leave for greener (or apparently greener) pastures. And indeed when the situation is the other way around, they will do whatever it takes to keep making (more) money, even if that means laying you off. So be it, if you're that good, their loss. – Laurent S. Jun 02 '21 at 19:47
  • There is a moral aspect in weather. It's always raining when you need it to be sunny. – Clockwork Jun 03 '21 at 06:50
  • 2
    @Frax [1] You don't need to be the junior developer for a "$200 million founder" to be under the thumb of a few (or single) individuals. It should go without saying that if you're not the financial stakeholder, you're at risk of being dropped at any time for any reason - so I don't understand why you felt the need to interject, "Companies are run by people." So what? That means they're all benevolent actors? That's simply outright naïve. Are you suggesting OP should risk their livelihood because, "Companies are people too"? – 8protons Jun 03 '21 at 16:32
  • 2
    @Frax [2] And for what it's worth, to remark on your anecdote claiming Fattie is being cynical, "most founders will never make $200 million" -- having worked at companies as small as 6 employees and as large as 75K, from companies operating in the negative to being in a Fortune 500 -- I've witnessed more severe abuse of employees at smaller, less profitable companies by far. Every time I've worked at a company where the founder is more likely to be pulling in more cash, yeah sure, the corporate politics increases by the abuse seems to be much more petty and far less malevolent. – 8protons Jun 03 '21 at 16:40
  • 1
    "witnessed more severe abuse of employees at smaller, less profitable companies by far" unfortunately that is very true. – Fattie Jun 03 '21 at 18:32
  • 1
    @8protons I didn't say anything about what OP should or shouldn't do. I think it's fair for them to leave. And I realize that many companies are run as this answer paints it. However, it is still a one-sided rant, and I just don't think this is actually helpful in thinking about the situation. – Frax Jun 04 '21 at 16:01
  • @egherrmann Ironically the choice that you have is possible only because of capitalism, not despite it. – Anmol Singh Jaggi Jun 16 '21 at 10:32
  • 2
    It's safer for an employee to have extremist view on that side than blindly trust a company made for profit will always take care of you like a family member, but real world does not look like this. This answer might be harmful for a young employee as it seems paranoid. A company most probably won't let anyone freeload and will cut manpower at-will and for different reasons, but it's not generally true that you'll be forgot in 30s, or you'll get an email from HR outsource. It's a business but treating employees like dispensable shit is usually not a good business, in IT at least. – luk32 Jun 16 '21 at 10:38
15

You are extremely lucky to have found a first job where your employers are willing to spend time and money training you well. This will put you in good stead for the rest of your career. Personally, I feel like you owe them something, but at the same time, they are a business and have presumably done the calculation that training juniors is worth it even if some leave earlier than they'd like. A bigger issue for you is that you wont necessarily find the same nurturing environment in your next job. In fact, you probably wont. You may well find yourself stuck in a high stress job where your employers don't care one jot about developing your skills - So weigh your options carefully.

Richard Hunter
  • 1,029
  • 4
  • 9
  • This is a really good point. One reason I've been with my employer since 2013 is the level of freedom and resources. I get to pick the tools that I use for a given project and they encourage my professional development. Although we've gone full-time remote, which I absolutely love, so I'm not sure what OP should do. – Andrew Brēza Jun 18 '21 at 15:04
13

Leaving an employer is never, and can never be unethical. There can be no reason, no way, no theoretical concept which can make it so.

If there were a case in which leaving would be unethical, then that would be slavery - which would be unethical itself.

Leaving is the one choice and action any employee has which does never require the approval of the employer. You never discuss it with the employer, you never threaten with it. It is simply at your disposal - the final action that ends the relationship with your employer.

If your employer forgot to make provisions for this case, it's their own fault. Normally, this would be handled somewhat like this:

  • Say the employer funds a very expensive training for you. It would then be fine (and, in my experience, also quite usual) if you make a contract beforehand that says that if you leave within 1 year of the training, you are required to pay back part of the cost.
  • If your employer allows you to spend plenty of time on side projects or developing the skills, then he is required to calculate these "opportunity costs" (i.e., your time not generating money for the employer) in the everyday business. These things are part and parcel of the overall work structure. You could, instead of quitting, simply become ill or die - in both cases it's the employers task to make sure that this would not somehow lead to losses, simply because before your demise you had 20% time to learn stuff...
  • If your employer wants to give you a bonus payment for our good work, this needs to be in such a way that it is for your past good work. I.e., you brought benefit to the company, you are getting the bonus, but the bonus is payed by the benefit you brought. That is, you have no further obligations through this bonus.
  • If the employer wants to make sure that you do not leave and go directly to the competition, he has to add a non-competition clause to your contract; you have to agree to it (and know of it, of course) right from the beginning. This may or may not be legal in your country, but it is what it is.

And so on.

TLDR: You never need to feel obligated because the employer was "nice". You of course need to fulfill any contracts you signed, and consider the workplace laws and so on. The concept of "ethics" does not come in for your decision to leave.

AnoE
  • 9,001
  • 18
  • 37
  • 3
    I'd love for there to be a canonical "Is it OK to quit" question with this as one of the answers. – BSMP Jun 02 '21 at 18:30
6

The ethics of employment:

You are loyal to your company as long as they pay you and treat you decently. When you quit, they stop paying, so you don't have to be loyal anymore. If they behaved decently, you behave decently after quitting.

On the other hand, the company pays you as long as you work for them, and ought to treat you decently. If you quit, or you are laid off, they stop paying.

That's it. So there is no ethical problem about quitting. They are a company, which means they should behave like grown-ups, and they have to consider the possibility of employees quitting in their planning.

Since you worked from home for eight months without problems, and I assume it is much more convenient for you, they are changing the employment deal very much to your disadvantage. That is a situation where it is unethical if you don't consider what is best for you. If quitting after finding a job with a company that lets you work remotely is better for you, then do it.

Now about "threatening" that you leave: You don't threaten. You can have a talk with your manager and explain that working at the office is a substantial downside for you, and probably a very small upside for the company, that you would very much prefer working from home, and that you might start looking for a position that allows you to work remotely, if there is one. There's always the possibility that they change their mind, especially if you are not the only one saying this (and you won't be). If they force you to come to the office, you might give them notice one day and leave 14 days later, but you don't threaten.

gnasher729
  • 169,032
  • 78
  • 316
  • 508
4

Throughout your career, developer is a learning position. You will constantly have to spend a large portion of your time learning new things, because the field is in a constant state of advancement. What is current today is obsolete tomorrow.

Smart companies understand this, and factor continual professional development into their approach. If they don't they can't attract and retain talent. However, the provision of professional development does not create an obligation to the developer to stay. After all, the same company is also going to benefit from developers that some other company trained.

Most companies pay junior developers considerably less, knowing that a particularly large percentage of their time is spent in learning, and that they have high turnover. If a company has not taken this into account, that is their problem, not yours. Your ethical obligation is to do your best work to the best of your ability at any given time.

Chris Sunami
  • 1,327
  • 7
  • 13
-14

Yes, it's unethical. You're hurting other people who might want to become software engineers in the future.

The company spent money training you, in the expectation you would stay and earn the company more money. You now want to leave, before they're able to recoup the value of their investment in you.

This will result in the company being more hesitant to hire junior software engineers in the future. When this happens often enough, it becomes almost impossible for a new software engineer to find work once this happens to a large enough portion of the companies in an area. They become terrified of turnover and wasting money on training on employees who leave, so they refuse to hire anyone who's unable to hit the ground running.

I've personally spent years fruitlessly looking for work because of the actions of people who have done things like the thing the OP is proposing. Yes, it is unethical, without a question.

nick012000
  • 10,747
  • 2
  • 29
  • 46
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – motosubatsu Jun 02 '21 at 17:27
  • 2
    Also I learned today that a few years ago the turnover where I am was extremely high due to a previous leader putting a lot of pressure/stress to the employees. It seems the current, pleasant work environment is a living proof that forcing changes by leaving can actually improve things while you're claiming it will degrade things. I think both routes are very plausible but it's more the responsibility of CEOs and managers. After some thoughts it simply seems it is ethical to leave if I explain my reasons so the manager will make sure to screen future candidates that prefer in-office work. – Trueman Jun 02 '21 at 17:34
  • 3
    ahh... no. You have no obligation to anyone else. – Matthew Whited Jun 02 '21 at 20:44
  • 6
    Hahahahahahah. This is a hilarious parody of an answer. nice work. – user428517 Jun 03 '21 at 18:18
  • @user428517 It's not a parody. I'm 100% serious. Apparently most of the people on this forum are unfamiliar with the Tragedy of the Commons. – nick012000 Jun 03 '21 at 22:21
  • 3
    "Why are these employees so fickle, with no loyalty to the business" said the CEO, shaking their head as they return to a planning session re: the outsourcing of 10,000 jobs oversees (to raise the stock price by a couple pennies). Give me a break, at-will employment is a thing because of lobbying by rich corporations, not because the average worker wants the ability to quit at any time. Never mind that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the actual claims made by this answer -- it's wrong both philosophically AND on the merits. – eps Jun 03 '21 at 23:59
  • 2
    If you have spent "years" unsuccessfully looking for work, the two most common reasons are (1) you are looking in the wrong place or (2) you are unemployable. IMO this answer reads more like the sort of theoretical academic logic you find in an "Economics 101" course than a statement about the real world. – alephzero Jun 04 '21 at 03:06
  • @eps I don't live in a country with at-will employment; the last time the government tried to implement something like it, it got them voted out of office, and the next government promptly repealed it. Yes, managers do lament the lack of loyalty of employees, without irony, and it has a significant negative impact on the employability of junior engineers. – nick012000 Jun 04 '21 at 04:54
  • @alephzero "this answer reads more like the sort of theoretical academic logic you find in an "Economics 101" course than a statement about the real world" It's more "Ethics 101" than "Economics 101", though I suppose that the Tragedy of the Commons (which is at the core of my answer's argument) would be related to both of them. – nick012000 Jun 04 '21 at 04:55
  • 3
    You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons but that is totally irrelevant because an employer is not an "open access and unregulated resource" - it is in fact the complete opposite because access to it is controlled by supply and demand. You can't apply random but vaguely correct sounding economic principles to unrelated cases to prove your point - that is known as a straw man argument. – Jon Bentley Jun 04 '21 at 08:22
  • @JonBently Employer goodwill is an "open access and unregulated resource". Goodwill is a resource in its own right, and it's not regulated by the market. – nick012000 Jun 04 '21 at 11:18
  • 1
    @nick012000 Employer goodwill is not an open access resource because you have to give up something of value (your commitment of X hours of work per week) to receive it. I, as a non-employee, do not have any access to that goodwill. You can't arbitrarily twist definitions to suit your argument. – Jon Bentley Jun 04 '21 at 11:45
  • @JonBentley No, you don't - because you need that goodwill to make that agreement to give up something of value in the first place, and actions like this by unscrupulous employees use it up. – nick012000 Jun 04 '21 at 11:48
  • 1
    @nick012000 You don't get to invent your own definitions for economic principles. Employer goodwill simply isn't an open access and unregulated resource, no matter how much you try to contort it to fit your argument. – Jon Bentley Jun 04 '21 at 17:30
  • @JonBentley I'm not making up my own definitions. It doesn't have to be exact to be illustrative, and it's close enough to demonstrate my point about how selfish action undermines the common good. – nick012000 Jun 04 '21 at 23:54