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 i...
It's up to the business to retain talent — there is no obligation for the OP to stay. Ethically, OP shouldn't threaten but simply ask and start looking for alternatives and negotiate when the time comes.
@mr_joncollette "It's up to the business to retain talent" And it's up to the talent to avoid poisoning the waters for everyone who follows after them. "there is no obligation for the OP to stay." Yes, there is - their obligation to all the people who come after them. They can choose to make the world a better place where investing in the next generation is rewarded, or they can choose to make it a worse place where businesses expect new workers to bite the hand that feeds them.
it's unethical to not have written contract signed and expect someone to feel obliged because you gave something that is honestly benefit you too, I mean if the company don't give any training the new worker would be less proficient at their job too, so in the end it was for the company after all, the argument about it made him better developer is only applicable if the other job he got is also developer job if not, it's not really useful now aren't they? and as the previous comment says, I agree it's company's job to make the employees feel no need to look for new job.
@encryptoferia I don't care about contracts or whether or not it's legal for them to look for another job; I care about the downstream effects of their decision and whether or not it's ethical for them to look for another job.
@nick012000 Unfortunately, OP is under no obligations to future theoretical workers. It's not the professional's job to look out for a business's future hires.
In this case, it is not the slightest bit unethical. Indeed, by your logic of the OP having an obligation to future engineers, it'd arguably be unethical NOT to let an employer know how important improved working conditions are to you. If the employer realizes that remote work is an important benefit, they can offer the option to attract more future employees. Note that here it is not the employee biting the hand that feeds him, it's the employer screwing the employee.
@jamesqf The obligation isn't to the business, but to the future potential employees who might become unable to work for the business as a result of the business being soured on hiring junior engineers. It's an obligation to the community, as a whole, to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons. You don't have an obligation to improve things - you have an obligation to avoid actively making things worse, which is what abandoning the business now would do. "Note that here it is not the employee biting the hand that feeds him" It is. They're taking advantage of the company's training and then leaving.
@Dreamer The fact that they probably spent a considerable amount of that year training them. I have straight-up been told by recruiters that companies in my area aren't willing to invest in training employees because of the risk of turnover and those employees promptly leaving to join other companies, so they refuse to hire anyone who's unable to hit the ground running. When you ditch a company like this, you're poisoning the well for the people who come after you.
-1, this answer seems to be basically a rant due to your own personal experiences of having job applications turned down. There is nothing unethical about leaving a job in which you are not happy. There is no need to force yourself to suffer for some vague hypothetical effect it might have on future employees. In fact the opposite is true: if people stick it out at companies that don't offer them what they want, then companies will have no incentive to change for the better. The law of supply and demand is good for both sides ultimately.
@JonBentley "this answer seems to be basically a rant due to your own personal experiences of having job applications turned down" It's not. It's a statement of a fundamental ethical principle. "There is nothing unethical about leaving a job in which you are not happy." There is, when they've invested resources in you that you haven't yet repaid, and you're going to hurt their ability to trust others in the future. Don't ruin things for others just because it's convenient for you; that's selfish.
Many companies have no issue with getting rid of employees that don't meeting their standards at any point. Employees should have the equivalent right, i.e. leaving companies that don't meet their standards. The employer-employee relationship isn't one-sided. Ethics probably come into play more if we talk about leaving a company because you found a slightly better one, especially since companies don't really do the equivalent, i.e. replacing employees with better ones they found.
"Ethics probably come into play more if we talk about leaving a company because you found a slightly better one" That's exactly what the OP is proposing, however.
"This will result in the company being more hesitant to hire junior software engineers in the future." Are you seriously trying to lay a guilt trip on OP? His number one responsibility is to himself & his family. It's the company's job to make things attractive enough to retain talent... as they compete with other companies who want talent.
"Are you seriously trying to lay a guilt trip on OP? His number one responsibility is to himself & his family." Sure, but his number two responsibility is to the community he lives in and its future. Just because he might personally benefit from selling the community down the river doesn't mean it isn't unethical. It's the Tragedy of the Commons, with the commons in this case being the goodwill of the people in charge of hiring in these companies.
@nick012000 If they decide they strongly desire/need to shift to remote work or get rid of their long commute and their employer is unwilling or unable to provide this, then that's not "finding a slightly better company", it's having their current employer not meet their standards/requirements/needs. Neither of us can really know how important remote work is to OP, although they do seem to be willing to quit over it (so it's presumably fairly important). The "finding a slightly better company" thing usually applies to people who move around for 10% raises.
@nick012000 Everything you're saying falls solely on the business's ability to retain talent — this business competition is actually to the community's benefit. If Business B is providing more for the same talent, Business A better match or make a better offer or lose their next hire in exactly the same way.
@nick012000: You're missing the point. Assuming for the sake of argument that some such obligation to potential future employees actually exists, you fulfill that obligation by helping to create improved working conditions. If that particular company shortsightedly refuses to offer improved conditions, then other companies competing for employees will do so. Consider the difference between conditions of say the late 1800s, or even the 1950s: would they have improved if employees had just accepted them?
Yes remote work is pretty important for me, if i lived at 5 minutes from my workplace it would not even be a question but currently it is huge time sacrifice (+1h30) and I'm thinking about my long-term plan (5-10 years): moving somewhere else (cheaper & calmer) which would be extremely hard without remote. @nick012000 I'm really sorry for the years you lost but in consolation me leaving for remote is one more in-office spot for people like you willing to commit to that.
*They're taking advantage of the company's training and then leaving.* Training your employees is part of the cost of business. You're not ethically obligated to repay a company for training any more than your computer or desk or bathroom toilet paper. If a company decides it wants to make employees pay for a particularly expensive training class if they quit shortly after, then they can put that in their policy or a contract.
When a company says that they don't want to hire junior employees due to high turnover, it's not because junior employees in particular are fickle. It's because the …
@nick012000 The OP isn't leaving because they found a 'slightly better' employer; the OP hasn't even found a new job yet. They're considering leaving in order to retain an important benefit: remote work. I don't agree that leaving an employer for a slightly better one would be unethical but more importantly, I don't think that's a thing that happens. Changing jobs isn't worth the effort if you aren't even going to get something out of it.
Discussion on answer by nick012000: A…
Discussion on answer by nick012000: A…