Am I planning to act unethically?

December 12, 2009 5:35 PM

After five months of being out of work, and seven months of looking, I have recently been offered a job. Great, right? Of course it is, but it's presenting an ethical dilemma for me.

The scenario: The job I've been offered is really not what I want to do in either the short or long term, and is a big step backward career-wise. This is a job that I could do in my sleep, and I just simply don't WANT a job I can do in my sleep. In fact, I've done this particular job for years, before making a substantial career leap within the same field about four years ago. I do not anticipate that this job will involve any future growth, making it the very definition of "dead end." However, it is a paycheck, and a damn good one at that. After being unemployed for as long as I've been I'm really in no financial position to turn it down, as I've nearly exhausted my savings and will have to tap my 401k within the next month or two.

The offer that I have in hand has been made on a temp-to-perm basis, where my new employer has the opportunity to "try before they buy", having me work for them as an hourly-rate temp through an agency with the (verbal and nonbinding) understanding that this is a trial period before making a direct-hire salaried job offer.

In addition, I am also anticipating a possible job opportunity with another company, for which an old friend and former colleague has been recruiting me for some time now. This position would be EXACTLY what I want to do, both short-term and long term, and would be pretty close to my dream position, in fact. The problem there is that this job is not expected to be funded for a few more months - which is longer than my finances will allow me to wait. By sheer coincidence, this job is likely to be funded some time around the expiration of the temp/trial period at my other potential job.

So, here's my dilemma: Is accepting a temp-to-perm job with the knowledge that there's a very good chance that I will end up declining a future planned salaried/perm offer to take another position unethical?

I'm seeing this two ways: On one hand, by not making a salaried offer at the outset, they're only committing to me for a few months, and it would be unreasonable for them to expect me to commit for longer than they are. On the other hand, while this is certainly a temp job on paper, I've every expectation that their stated intention to make a full-time job offer once my trial period is up in a few months is legitimate, and made in good faith, and I can't shake the feeling that by planning to possibly leave in a few months, I might not be acting in good faith myself.

I'm not a big fan of burning bridges, and I'm painfully aware that bailing after my temp period would be burning a bridge, both with the employer and with the temp agency, who would lose out on a substantial finder's fee if I accept a permanent job offer with this company.

The way I see it, I have three choices:

1) Decline the temporary job offer I have in hand in the hope that my "dream job" comes through in a few months. My personal finances and recent job-search history being what they are, this involves WAY more risk than I am able to tolerate.

2) Accept the temporary job offer I have in hand, and also accept the perm offer when/if one is made, despite the fact that this type of work REALLY doesn't interest me any more. This one is certainly ethically sound, but would undo years of forward progress in my career, as I would be stuck doing work that I hated and moved away from four years ago. It's also likely the one to be best for my personal finances, as my "dream" job is likely to result in a pay cut.

3) Accept the temporary offer with the knowledge that if an offer comes from my "dream job", that I will take it and leave the first job. This would be very good for my career if it works out, not quite as good financially, but questionable ethically, for the reasons I've stated above.

If you were in my shoes, what would you do here? I'm in desperate need of some outside perspective on this. I'm really starting to feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place here, with an abundance of bad choices to choose from, and I'm losing sleep over it. Am I just bean-plating over what should be a fairly obvious decision?

Incidentally, I have already spoken to an attorney and I'm in the clear legally speaking. Employment at will is a two-way street in my particular US state, and either the employee and employer are free to walk away at any time in the absence of a contract that says otherwise - and mine doesn't.

Alt email, just in case: [e-mail]

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (44 answers total)

3) Accept the temporary offer with the knowledge that if an offer comes from my "dream job", that I will take it and leave the first job. This would be very good for my career if it works out, not quite as good financially, but questionable ethically, for the reasons I've stated above.

Especially considering that there's no guarantee behind the temp-to-perm, I don't even see the moral dilemma. They're in a fantastic position to get the 'temp' work out of you and not even bother with the 'perm' part. I work on the admin end of an employment agency. It happens. A lot. Get the paycheck, take the dream job if/when it comes, and if not, you're still in a pretty good place.
posted by griphus at 5:40 PM on December 12, 2009 [16 favorites]

So, here's my dilemma: Is accepting a temp-to-perm job with the knowledge that there's a very good chance that I will end up declining a future planned salaried/perm offer to take another position unethical?

I don't think it is even a little bit unethical. I've hired people who very quickly either went back to their old job, or went to the better job they'd been hoping to get, and the only part of it that even annoys me is the extra work that's involved in re-hiring for the position. I've never been annoyed at the person for making a decision that's in their own best interests (in fact I tell my team they should look out for their own interests first), and never thought there was anything wrong with doing what they did.
posted by FishBike at 5:42 PM on December 12, 2009

It's not unethical to do a job you don't like. You really need the money. I say, take the job you've been offered now, and keep looking for your dream job.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:42 PM on December 12, 2009

It's not unethical. They're trying you out, you're trying them out. In a few months, if the other job comes through, or if it doesn't, you may decide whatever you like.
posted by hermitosis at 5:44 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yeah do it.
posted by delmoi at 5:45 PM on December 12, 2009

There's no moral dilemma here. You've been hired as a temp. Which means you have flexibility. Why should the employer have complete control?

Take the paycheck until this other opportunity knocks...then drop the temp job.
posted by inturnaround at 5:45 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

The trial period of the temp-to-perm is as much for you as it is for them. If they offer you to go perm, and you have a reason for not going perm (even if it is as vague as "this job is not a good fit for my long-term career plans"), it is perfectly ethical to turn down the perm offer at that point.
posted by matildaben at 5:45 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

They're only committing to me for a few months, and it would be unreasonable for them to expect me to commit for longer than they are

and

I can't shake the feeling that by planning to possibly leave in a few months, I might not be acting in good faith

There you go. Shake the feeling, because you can't predict the future. Your dream job might not come up, and they're not sure they want you. Neither of you can predict with certainty what will happen.

Also, since they're hiring you through a temp agency, replacing you with another temp before you're permanent won't cost them a lot. Going permanent and then quitting immediately would be more of an issue, because the employer will then have paid a fat fee for you.
posted by PatoPata at 5:48 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

This company hasn't made a "permanent" commitment to you, so I don't see why you should feel obligated to do the same for them. You be their temporary employee; let them be your temporary employer.
posted by monstrouspudding at 5:49 PM on December 12, 2009 [3 favorites]

def choice 3. no brainer. this temp situation can be taken advantage of by both you and the employer- they certainly don't think of it as a matter of ethics of whether they keep you around. imagine this scenario: you turn down dream job, temp job doesn't turn into permanent. they haven't done anything wrong, but you're angry and hateful and miserable. look out for yourself .
posted by saraindc at 5:53 PM on December 12, 2009

it is a paycheck, and a damn good one at that. After being unemployed for as long as I've been I'm really in no financial position to turn it down, as I've nearly exhausted my savings


Here's the key point, as far as I'm concerned. This economy sucks right now, both for employees and employers. Despite all the ethically blood you're sweating over this decision, we both know this company (and most others) would think nothing of dumping your position, etc., if faced with the equivalent economic circumstances you describe. So, decision-wise, I'd say go for it.

As far as the ethics part, for me that would come in much more if, for example, you weren't actually qualified for position #1 yet intended to bluff your way through for the sake of the paycheck. But, as you're describing things, you'll be a good worker for a job that needs doing, which is a great match (at least for the short term).

As far as leaving sooner/later, if the better job opens up, then go for it. Company loyalty is all well and good, but these days we're all "free agents" of sorts, who follow the opportunities where they take us. Folks can debate this circumstance (I'm not claiming it's ideal), but what's more important is that employers work from this assumption all the time.

Anyway, congrats on having an offer after a lean spell! We're all muddling through these days the best we can.
posted by 5Q7 at 5:54 PM on December 12, 2009

#3 is what I would do. The client has made no commitment to you, other than to try you out. You have no commitment to them, either. It is a trial period for both of you. It is not unethical to have the equal levels of commitment/non-commitment.
posted by Houstonian at 5:55 PM on December 12, 2009

Exposure. Networking. Opportunity. Options. Duh.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:00 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

Not even a little bit unethical. Not to jinx it, but the job you really want is by no means a sure thing, since funding is not a slam dunk these days.

So even if they were offering you a perm job -- which they are not yet -- I would still say you could go for it without ethical qualms.
posted by ottereroticist at 6:01 PM on December 12, 2009

Concerning temp-to-perm: in my experience temp jobs rarely turn into real jobs because temp agencies put a big poison pill in the contract - the company has to pay the temp agency a big fee to "release" the temp for permanent employment. It works out cheaper for the company to keep extending the temp contract again and again with vague excuses about future permanent status. I wouldn't have any faith in the promise of a real job coming out of a temp gig.

Take the temp job now and bail if your dream job materializes, with an easy conscience.
posted by Quietgal at 6:05 PM on December 12, 2009

I don't know what state you're in, or if you're collecting unemployment, but - if you turn down this offer and continue to collect while you're waiting on the dream job, that may be not just unethical but illegal (depending on your state's unemployment laws).

Take the temp job for now, keep working on the dream job, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking dream job if/when it comes through. (And congrats!)
posted by AlisonM at 6:07 PM on December 12, 2009

Hey they aren't willing to make a commitment so I see no reason why you should.

I've had a couple of temp-perm jobs that I did just this. The employer was trying to nickel and dime me to death for as long as they could without giving me benefits. They were bummed when I left because they had overplayed their hand, but no one ever called me unethical for one moment. You can't blame a temp employee for treating their job as exactly what it is: a temporary position. Now if you sign a contract to work for a set period of time then that's another matter, but you have every right to look out for your best interest.
posted by whoaali at 6:14 PM on December 12, 2009

Working for someone should be a mutually beneficial exchange of labour for money. They are not doing you a favour by hiring you that you are obliged to repay with loyalty. They are hiring you because need someone to do some work, ergo, you work, they pay you = fair exchange. When the exchange is no longer satisfying both parties, it's completely reasonable to change things. Company loyalty is all well and good, but is also something which should be earned by the company, not something they should expect by default.

If your employer isn't willing to make a binding commitment, then you should not feel any obligation. I say option 3.

I understand you might feel like you're taking this job in bad faith - but really, it's a temp offer, you expect to do the job well, and if they offer you a permanent position you might take it. I think that's all the good faith that is required.

In addition, I've once or twice quit jobs reasonably soon after taking them because a better option came along. I went through the same guilt you seem to be, and was really nervous about telling my employer. In the end it wasn't nearly as horrible as I expected, and in fact most people were surprisingly congratulatory. They were disappointed, but not angry; employers are people too, and they know that in your position they would do the same thing. So maybe don't stress so much about it all (particularly before you even know what will happen).
posted by Emilyisnow at 6:15 PM on December 12, 2009

If I had been out of work for five months, I'd take a graveyard shift cleaning toilets.
Step backwards? Work is work. Be glad it's in your field. If my shop closed up tomorrow, I'd take the first job I could find, even if it's at a Pep Boys. Get paid first. Ethical dilemmas are a luxury of the employed.
posted by Jon-o at 6:20 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

It would be unethical if you told your new boss that you were planning to be there for the long term. Until you do so, and while you're on a temporary contract, there's nothing deceitful or unethical about leaving for another position.
posted by twirlypen at 6:23 PM on December 12, 2009 [2 favorites]

Presumably, these people have read your resume and realize they are hiring someone overqualified.

So if they're not idiots, they know you need the job. They will either offer you a better position later, or they'll understand when you get a much better offer elsewhere.

Too much experience on a resume (someone who looks 'too expensive') is a criteria hiring people consider. Short term and low satisfaction are the expected outcome.
posted by rokusan at 6:24 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]

You're borrowing trouble. You don't even need to make a decision between #2 and #3 for months. So take the position -- you need it -- and worry about the choice between the dream job and the current job when/if it becomes an issue.
posted by palliser at 6:26 PM on December 12, 2009

Take it. If it reaches the point where (a) they offer you a permanent job AND (b) you have been offered the Dream Job, then you can come back here Until then, you have a paycheck. And if you are offered Dream Job while you are still temping, then no worries---you're a temp.

If they really wanted you as a permanent employee right now, then they wouldn't be hiring you as a temp.
posted by leahwrenn at 6:47 PM on December 12, 2009

Speaking as someone who's been unemployed for a lot longer than five months, my advice is simple - take the temp job. I would say the same thing if the offer was for a permanent position. Yes, it might disappoint your boss when you leave, but so what? Stay as cordial as possible, just tell them when you leave that something better came along, more in line with your long-term goals. It happens all the time.
posted by photo guy at 7:06 PM on December 12, 2009

Joining in the chorus to say there's nothing unethical about taking the temp-to-perm position (which, realistically, is only potentially temp-to-perm) with no intention of ever going perm. Go for it. Put some money in your bank account while you keep looking for work that will be both financially and personally rewarding.
posted by Lexica at 7:07 PM on December 12, 2009

Not unethical at all...in this case, and in many cases, the temp-to-perm setup is mutually beneficial. They get to essentially take you for a test drive to make sure you're a good fit for the company, without having to make you a long-term offer or pay your benefits until they are sure that you're a keeper. You, on the other hand, get a chance to work there for pay and determine whether or not it's actually a job you wouldn't mind staying in, and you are completely free to leave for any reason- maybe you get that dream offer, maybe you don't but the permanent job they offer isn't a good fit. Definitely take it.
posted by emd3737 at 7:10 PM on December 12, 2009

Is accepting a temp-to-perm job with the knowledge that there's a very good chance that I will end up declining a future planned salaried/perm offer to take another position unethical?

Not only is it not unethical, it's widely understood to be part of The Way It Works.

Also, if the good job offer doesn't actually happen, then you are going to be hating yourself for not taking the temp job in the meantime.
posted by bingo at 8:10 PM on December 12, 2009

I made an "ethical" choice almost exactly a year ago which I knew would lead me to losing a job that I had within grasp. It took me 9 1/2 months to find another job, and it's only part time one. And now I'm living at home with my mom, who drives me bat-shit insane.
posted by NeoLeo at 8:24 PM on December 12, 2009

Honestly even if it weren't temp to perm it wouldn't be unethical. Future possibilities always exist. Future certainties (relatively speaking) may be another thing, but that's not at issue here. As far as the trial period goes, you know, a trial period that doesn't go both ways is called "trying out a new slave."

To be honest I think the real conflict here is between the completely understandable aversion to taking a job you're pretty sure you'll hate and view as a step backwards on one side and the totally reasonable sense of recklessness in considering turning down a good paying job after a longish term of unemployment. That comes down to how your financial situation really, objectively is and how much risk you can actually tolerate.

One thing you should decisively cross off the list is #2. Never take any job with the mentality that you have to keep it, but particularly not a job you're sure you're going to hate, that's like purposely torturing your heart. They're all temp jobs.
posted by nanojath at 8:27 PM on December 12, 2009

#3. The end.
posted by grapesaresour at 8:29 PM on December 12, 2009

Door number three. No question. You're bean-plating -- isn't that what everyone here calls it? It's perfectly clear to me and to everyone else here. You're not getting married to someone you sortof like while hoping Myrtle does in fact divorce Melvin. You're stepping into a role they need filled on a temp basis. Take the job.
posted by dancestoblue at 9:07 PM on December 12, 2009

I'll chime in with the crowd and say take it.
posted by Bergamot at 10:57 PM on December 12, 2009

#3 is the sound choice, and it is completely ethical. Good luck with the dream job to come!
posted by NortonDC at 11:04 PM on December 12, 2009

i think the only thing UNethical in this situation would be to force yourself to continue in a career field you do not absolutely love when that "dream job" is right there. When the time comes nab it.
So many people hate their jobs. You would be doing the world a disservice by making yourself miserable. just my 2 cents.
posted by fogonlittlecatfeet at 11:12 PM on December 12, 2009

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Take the job. Try it out just they're trying you out.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:44 AM on December 13, 2009

FWIW the "contract" you will have with the agency is a one way offer. You don't have any guarantee that it will last longer than a day. OTOH it could, and a bird in the hand is better than the vague promises. In a similar situation I even continued interviewing with other companies after receiving a contract offer. Why? because the last "4 month" contract lasted less than a month...

As far as it being beneath you to take this position I can hardly believe that this new company does everything 100% the same as your old one, so there would be at least an opportunity to learn different approaches to similar situations...valuable currency in future job searches.
posted by Gungho at 6:39 AM on December 13, 2009

The employer is free to change their plans at any time, and lay you off if they choose. You may have the same approach to them. Give good value for the pay. That's fair all around.
posted by theora55 at 11:06 AM on December 13, 2009

So, here's my dilemma: Is accepting a temp-to-perm job with the knowledge that there's a very good chance that I will end up declining a future planned salaried/perm offer to take another position unethical?

No. "Temp to perm" is unethical. They want to check you out without committing to you and without giving you any basic benefits (health insurance, vacation, sick time).

They get what they deserve.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 11:40 AM on December 13, 2009

Nthing: Not unethical. Is it unethical for them to temporarily hire you knowing that they may not offer you a permanent position? It's a two-way street. If it's fair game for them not to hire you, it's fair game for you not to take a permanent position later on. Take the job.
posted by ishotjr at 2:30 PM on December 13, 2009

I don't know that it comes down to ethical or unethical. It sounds like you need this job to survive, since declining involves "WAY more risk" than you can tolerate. 2 and 3 are the same for the time being, and regardless of which one you plan for, you should work equally hard -- both at the temp job and at pursuing your dream and becoming marketable in the job you want. Just don't kick yourself in the foot by performing poorly at the temp job because you don't think you'll be there long.

I don't think it's so unethical, though. That doesn't mean it won't burn bridges, but maybe (?) you won't really need these bridges after starting your dream job.
posted by ramenopres at 6:08 PM on December 13, 2009

If you want to feel better about it, I would think about how this temp period is really an evaluation period for both you and the company. You both get to see how things go and whether the partnership is working. So if you went into it thinking, "Well, I don't think I'll like this based on past experience, but if it turns out to be absolutely fantastic and fulfilling, I'll consider sticking around," it might feel less dishonest than, "I know I am not going to stay."
posted by ramenopres at 6:10 PM on December 13, 2009

Temp away.

And use it as motivation to finding something better. Being out of the game for that long means it's time to shake off some rust and get things moving again.

In three months, you'll have a new resume, a new outlook on life, and hopefully a bit more optimism about your job search.

We're also not hearing the other side of the story here - anyone ever heard of an employer only hiring someone temporarily, never intending to hire someone permanently?
posted by chrisinseoul at 1:05 AM on December 14, 2009

Take the job and keep looking. Sounds like they are getting a bargain for your time and expertise, so they will get every bit of value for what they pay you and more. No ethical dilemma there. From what the economy sounds like, there will be a whole line of people ready to take your "temporary-for-me" job when you move on.

But, bird in the hand and all, you know?
posted by cross_impact at 6:17 AM on December 14, 2009

Temp-to-perm goes both ways. They're checking you out, you're checking them out. You're not obligated to commit before they do.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:34 PM on December 14, 2009