There have been a couple of occasions in which I passed over a better job opportunity for the security of the position that I had. Each time that I have done this, I have been screwed. In the first case, they kept me aboard by assuring me that the position at the other company was temporary. I got my roommate the job and sure enough it did go away, two years after mine did. The second time I stuck with the job I had and then lost shortly thereafter.
So the lesson in this is “screw them, take care of myself.”
I may be in a similar situation now. I accepted a position at Monmark yesterday. I have an interview today. Thus far it looks like the job I am interviewing for at Unnamed Thus Far Company is better than the one that I have accepted. I’ll outline the pros and cons at the end, but the question is what ethical right to I have to accept a position, but before I start to change my mind.
Estacado, like Deseret and Delosa, are employment-at-will states. That means that they have the right to fire anyone for any reason that they see fit. Termination without cause means that they must pay benefits, but it also means that there really is no such thing as job security. The other side of employment-at-will, though, is that an employee is free to leave. If I live in an employment-at-will state, should I not take advantage of those laws when it is to my advantage? I mean, after all, most employers will.
On the other hand, the idea of taking a job just to leave it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I’m not even sure why, to be honest. We had a person do that at Falstaff and it didn’t hurt too badly. We just went down to the next person on the list. Right now Monmark has a list handy. Heck, they’re still looking at candidates. On the other hand, they did sink some money into a drug test for me. On the other, other hand, they haven’t sunk any money into training me yet. It would be much better to leave now than to leave two months from now, when the candidate pool is cold and they’ve spent two months training me.
There are some companies that I would not think twice about ditching at the first opportunity. Monmark has some big, big money behind it, but for the most part it appears to still be mom-and-pop in nature. I get a good sense about the people there. I’m not sure they’re people that I would be friends with, but they are seem like good people to work for. Maybe that’s why I’m so hesitant.
Anyway, here’s the breakdown:
The UTFC job:
- Is a better match for my skillset and career goals. Database work is what I like the most. I’m already three years or so removed from actual database work. Another year would hurt quite a bit. The UTFC job is database work, through-and-through.
- Gets me back on track for the career path that I ultimately would prefer to be on.
- Has a more flexible schedule.
- Would probably let me listen to music while I work. This is instrumental in keeping me focused and making the day go by quicker.
- Is actually in Santomas, where I live. The Monmark position is in Almeida, which is 50ish miles away.
- Pays the same, but I would net more because of gas.
- Appears to be staffed with people that are more like myself. It could be a great social situation like I had at Falstaff. Monmark is half-staffed with foreigners (which simply means that I do not have as much in common with them).
- Would give me a better job title. I don’t know what the title would be, but it wouldn’t have the word “assistant” at the end of it like the Monmark one does. This may sound petty, but it matters to me.
On the other hand, Monmark:
- Has been nothing but warm to me throughout. These strike me as very good people. The manager I talked to from UTFC was very nice to me, but strikes me as the type that might not be very understanding if things go wrong.
- Is more likely to listen to me when it comes to policy. I think I might have gotten drunk at Falstaff with my ideas being implemented (when they were worthwhile) and it may be tough for me to go back to being a peon.
- Has a very generous benefits package. I don’t know what UTFC has.
- Strikes me as more stable. The UTFC guy kept stressing pay-for-performance and mentioned that the weaklings are weeded out. If they don’t have a good system for gauging performance, that could be very bad.
- Interviewed me as a group. UTFC is having me undergo a rally-interview. It will be 90 minutes total, with the 1-on-1 interviews. Generally speaking I think you can tell a lot about a company by its hiring process. This tells me something unsettling. Jobs where I have a series of interviews have not tended to work out well.
- Would probably help my job-marketability more. Next to database administration, QA is my second-place career path choice and not-too-distant a second. The experience I would get at Monmark would probably take me further in QA experience the other job will take my DBA experience.