Should I take a permanent job knowing I'll only be there 10 weeks?

July 27, 2006 1:30 PM

There's a job I really want and I think I have a good shot of getting hired for it. The problem? They're looking for someone permanent and I know I'll only be able to stay for 10 weeks.

I'm a freelancer spending a few months away from home, in the city where I used to live. Because I'm going to be here for a few months, it would be (very) good to have a steady job, in part because a lot of my freelance work from home can't be done long distance.

I've registered with a bazillion temp agencies, talked to friends, etc., but the most appealing job I've come across so far isn't a temp job at all. It's an entry-level position at a (food) company I've admired for a long time. I'm an avid amateur chef, but have no professional experience. They know this and are considering me anyway.

The problem is I know I'll be leaving town in ten weeks. And in our brief phone pre-interview, the guy stressed that he was looking for someone who was going to stick around.

Now, I'm no idiot. What is this guy going to say to me? "Yeah, we're looking for someone who will leave at the drop of a hat"? Of course not. So I take the "someone who will stick around" thing with a grain of salt. If we were talking about McDonald's or Wal-Mart or something, I wouldn't be so tied up in knots about it because those places pretty much have revolving doors. For what it's worth, this place is not a multinational conglomerate, but it's grown beyond a tiny, mom-and-pop operation.

I don't know quite what to tell the guy at the interview tomorrow. I could be completely honest and try to make a case for my being a temp, but I'm not sure what that case would be, since that's not what they've said they're looking for.

On the other hand, I want to do the right thing, but I don't want to be a sap either. I respect this company, but I also know most companies would probably lay me off in a heartbeat if it became inconvenient to have me as an employee. I just don't know if I'm capable of turning the tables in this case.

Finally, I'm also worried that if I get the job and do leave after 10 weeks, it will burn a bridge with a company I always told myself I might want to work for, in a city where I'll very likely end up again after a few years.

Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom.

Mail: [e-mail]

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (31 answers total)

When in doubt:

Do the right thing.

Don't burn bridges.

Do tell them the truth.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:38 PM on July 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

You should seldom feel guilty about leaving a job for any reason, even when you plan on leaving before you get the job. At the wage you will be offered, you owe them labour, not loyalty. Loyalty costs extra.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:39 PM on July 27, 2006

I was in a similar situation a few years ago. I didn't feel right about lying to them, so I turned down the job when it was offered. I have never regretted that choice. But I can perfectly well understand not feeling bad about taking the job and leaving. Point: I think you should do whatever your conscience recommends.
posted by Amizu at 1:42 PM on July 27, 2006

I agree with dirtynumbangelboy, don't burn any bridges. 10 weeks is just long enough to get someone in a position trained and comfortable with what is going on. The company will feel as though you have wasted their time and money...bridge burned.
Tell them the truth, they will respect that you did and remember it in the future. Heck, they may surprise you and take a chance anyway.
posted by illek at 1:45 PM on July 27, 2006

You should seldom feel guilty about leaving a job for any reason, even when you plan on leaving before you get the job. At the wage you will be offered, you owe them labour, not loyalty. Loyalty costs extra.

That's utter BS. You should absolutely feel guilty for misleading them when it's clear they want someone long-term.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:45 PM on July 27, 2006

If you know going in that you're not going to be around, and they're straight with you about wanting someone that will stick around, don't take the job. I agree with the "owe them labor not loyalty" part, to an extent, but they were honest with you up front and you should be honest with them.

So I take the "someone who will stick around" thing with a grain of salt.

Well, they could have been burned in the past by a few people who took the job then bailed, which could be why they explicitly say that they're looking for someone to stay long-term.
posted by pdb at 2:00 PM on July 27, 2006

You plan to be leaving in 10 weeks. But, you don't completely control the future, and perhaps if you won a house in that city, met your eternal soul mate there, and were elected to the school board by acclimation of the citizenry after being quoted in the local paper's "man on the bus" feature, for your views on educational development, you might choose to stay 10 weeks from now.

Point is, taking opportunities and doing what you can with them shapes your future. Take the job, see what happens in 8 weeks, and if life is still taking you out of there, give 2 weeks notice, and go.
posted by paulsc at 2:06 PM on July 27, 2006

Tell them the truth. "I've wanted to work with this company for awhile. The timing may not seem perfect, but I'd really like to work with you for the next ten weeks, and hopefully for a much longer period of time in the future."

Sell yourself like anything. "It must be hard finding applicants who meet your qualifications -- after all, you've already been looking for X period of time. I would be a perfect fit for the company and for this job [explain how]. I learn quickly and don't require much training [examples]; you could just slot me in, and I would fit in easily. Best of all, I would buy you an extra ten weeks to find a candidate with all the right qualifications who can stick around, the way I really wish I could."

Keep emphasizing the future and noting that this is just your first chance to work with them, out of what must be many over the coming years. "My goal is to move back here in the future, and when I do, I will be able to fit into a long-term job with you without a hitch, because of the familiarity with the company and the job I'll gain over the next ten weeks."

I have gotten myself (summer) jobs this way in the past. Be as specific and as genuine as possible. Emphasize how much you want to work with them both now and in the future, and what a great fit you would be for the next ten weeks as well as for the future -- in this case, all you have to do is tell the truth. Anything else will burn bridges.
posted by booksandlibretti at 2:11 PM on July 27, 2006

I think it depends on the job. If you can get up and running in this job in a week, give them 8 weeks of solid labour and train your replacement in the 10th week, I could see taking it. Especially if there was a strong possibility you'd stay for this job if it turned out to be as great as you hope it is.

But if this is the kind of job where it takes awhile to get past the learning curve, where you might not even be substantially productive in any of those 10 weeks, then no, it'd be incredibly jerky of you to take it.

And given their emphasis on long term, and the fact that they're willing to consider you without you having the right background, I'd be very surprised if this falls into the former category. I'm not a huge advocate of treating business relationships as personal - business is business. But even in business, honesty and integrity count, and pretending you're a long term candidate when you're already intending to walk in a couple of months shows neither.

As others have noted - on a more self-serving note, if you take this job and walk in 10 weeks, you have a less than 0% chance of ever working for this company that you say you respect at any point in the future.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:17 PM on July 27, 2006

That's utter BS. You should absolutely feel guilty for misleading them when it's clear they want someone long-term.

Unless you sign into a contract, you are under no obligation to adhere to nebulous quasi-terms like "we'd like someone who will stay a while". There is no deception or 'misleading' involved. when in doubt: paying the rent trumps everything else.

To the OP: keep in mind that if you do this, you will not be able to use them as a reference and should not even list the job on your resume. This will result in a resume gap, which can be problematic in future jobhunting.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:27 PM on July 27, 2006

Honesty is the best policy, of course, but remember that you should look out for yourself primarily. You honestly don't owe them anything, but if you feel like you couldn't go through with it because of the guilt, don't do it. If you feel like you could live, go ahead. They'll only treasure your replacement that much more.
posted by hoborg at 2:38 PM on July 27, 2006

If you get the job, how would you hide for 10 weeks that you're moving? Wouldn't it come up naturally in conversation ("What did you do last night?" "Oh, just stayed home, packed up my belongings")? Wouldn't hiding it after the fact be a thousand times harder than hiding it at the interview? Just a thought.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:41 PM on July 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty firmly in the camp of those who tell you to be honest with them, and let them decide if it's worth hiring you. That being said, in most jobs 10 weeks is barely enough time for them to train you, much less get productive work out of you, so I can't see them hiring you knowing that you can only give them 10 weeks.

My grander perspective: if you mislead them and take the job, the karmic balance dictates that you can't ever ever ever be disappointed or upset when a future employer misleads you on anything at all. It's a nice way to put both sides in perspective for me.
posted by delfuego at 2:43 PM on July 27, 2006

Just tell the damn truth already. What's so hard about that?
posted by argybarg at 2:53 PM on July 27, 2006

Listen to your values. If you don't know what they are, this is a perfect time to decide on one. Honesty or personal gain?

What do you want the world to be like?
posted by zhivota at 3:02 PM on July 27, 2006

Another vote for telling the truth, for the reasons given above.

If you decide to come clean, think about how to best convey that information to your interviewer. I suggest focusing on the positive stuff first -- "your company is great and I think it's a real long-term opportunity for me; but you should know up front that it's more likely than not I'll have to leave in 10 weeks; I think I can do a lot for you in this period, and there's a good chance I'll be back later, so you should give me a chance at this."

You might get a bad reaction for not disclosing this information in the pre-interview when you were told they are looking for someone long-term. Be prepared with a response to the question, "why didn't you mention this before?"
posted by brain_drain at 3:16 PM on July 27, 2006

Unless you sign into a contract, you are under no obligation to adhere to nebulous quasi-terms like "we'd like someone who will stay a while". There is no deception or 'misleading' involved.

You're right, there's no legal obligation. But as an employer, if I hired someone after telling him that I was looking to fill a long-term position, and I found out he planned to leave in ten weeks, he would get one hell of a bad reference from me for exactly that reason. I would go out of my way to do so, instead of giving the usual noncommital bad reference that bad employees usually get. And I would be under no legal obligation to do otherwise.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:29 PM on July 27, 2006

10 weeks is a short time. If you leave you may end up with a grudging, or worse, reference. Go to the hiring person. Tell him you admire the company a lot and that you want him to give you this job, or any other job, as an internship or temp position. Sell yourself really well. Worth a shot, and you don't have to lie.
posted by theora55 at 3:37 PM on July 27, 2006

Keeping it in perspective, this is an hourly job in the food industry. Yes, we all want to make the world a better place and live up to our values and gain great karma and be honest with everyone. But I think the OP's real question was a question of degrees. You wouldn't go into an interview saying, "I hate working nights and weekends and I like to check email 3x an hour," and yet, maybe you do and maybe your future employer would decide against you if you told him/her that, and maybe if the employer hired you, you would be efficient and productive in spite of those faults. Perhaps someone with experience in the food industry could write in and help anonymous get some perspective on what culinary employers mean when they say they are looking for someone who's going to stick around. In that industry, does that mean a year or a week? All that said, I think booksandlibretti's advice was constructive. And to add my two cents': if there is any chance you will stay in the new city, why not put a spin on it and say, "I plan to be here for at least ten weeks, but after that there is a chance I will return to [old city]." Obviously that depends on how big that chance is.
posted by ubu at 3:59 PM on July 27, 2006

The employer has made their selection criteria clear. If you know you don't meet the criteria, but apply anyway, then you're being dishonest.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:18 PM on July 27, 2006

You don't owe them anything but you don't owe people a thank you when they open a door for you either - it's just polite. I'm a real hard-ass about what one owes an employer but any organization is made up of people and you're going to inconvenience them by leaving in less than three months. For an ongoing job that's a drop in the bucket!

I'd say don't do it just for the sake of being a good person.
posted by phearlez at 4:39 PM on July 27, 2006

Please tell them the truth. The world doesn't really need more employers who believe that most employees are selfish and deceitful (not saying that you are, but they might easily come to that conclusion).
posted by amtho at 4:44 PM on July 27, 2006

Turn it around. If they said to you "We want you for this job, but only for ten weeks," would you still want it? I expect not. What would be the point? That's barely enough time to even figure out whether you like the job.

So, why DO you want a job that only lasts ten weeks?
posted by kindall at 4:59 PM on July 27, 2006

illek writes "10 weeks is just long enough to get someone in a position trained and comfortable with what is going on. The company will feel as though you have wasted their time and money...bridge burned."

Agree.

ubu writes "Perhaps someone with experience in the food industry could write in and help anonymous get some perspective on what culinary employers mean when they say they are looking for someone who's going to stick around. In that industry, does that mean a year or a week?"

My sister is food and beverage manager at a medium size resort with about a dozen food establishments from coffee bar to 100 seat licensed restaurant. She's told me that she'll train anyone (at a premium over minimum wage) to be a cook if they'll just promise to show up on time and ready to work for a single season. But she doesn't want people to bail half way thru for obvious reasons to the point where she'll often give several warning about stealing before firing someone.
posted by Mitheral at 5:02 PM on July 27, 2006

If you had been unsure and said that you might move back in 10 weeks but if the job worked out you would not -- I would say go for it. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time and possibly makin it miserable for the next person they hire. Without knowing the nature of the job it is hard to tell, but if you have respect for the company doesn't it make sense to show respect back? You are under no legal obligation to tell them, but if everyone did it by the strict letter of the law we'd barely function. Tell them what you told us and thank them for the offer.
posted by geoff. at 5:19 PM on July 27, 2006

"Turn it around. If they said to you "We want you for this job, but only for ten weeks," would you still want it? I expect not. What would be the point? That's barely enough time to even figure out whether you like the job."

No ... really turn it around. what would your reaction be if this was your dream job and you turned down other jobs, rented an apartment, and then eight weeks later they said: "We are letting you go. It was really just for 10 weeks, we just didn't tell you?"
posted by leafwoman at 5:23 PM on July 27, 2006

You should absolutely feel guilty for misleading them when it's clear they want someone long-term.

I agree with this, and I'm about as far from a corporate bootlicker as you'll find. I just advised a friend to give the minimum required notice on a job, and I once organized a mass walkout that left a shitty boss with no one to run the store. But this is different. This isn't sticking it to a shitty boss, this is making trouble for a company you've "admired for a long time" just because it happens to be convenient for you at the moment. Not necessary, mind you, just convenient. If this were the only available job and not taking it meant starving, then sure, you do what you have to do. But there are lots of ways you could keep bread on your table for ten weeks; you just think this sounds like the most pleasant. That's not a good enough reason. Don't do it.
posted by languagehat at 6:24 PM on July 27, 2006

There is no objective standard for how you should feel in a situation like this. If it was me, I would take the job, then pretend that something suddenly came up eight weeks later. But you're not me. If you're sure that it would tear you up inside day in and day out that you weren't being honest, and that you'd rather be unemployed and guilt-free than employed and distraught, then don't take the job. But if you believe that you can see this through and feel just fine about yourself afterward, and are just checking in with metafilter because you're mostly worried about how other people would perceive you, then get over it and take the job.
posted by bingo at 6:37 PM on July 27, 2006

solid-one-love writes "Unless you sign into a contract, you are under no obligation to adhere to nebulous quasi-terms like 'we'd like someone who will stay a while'. There is no deception or "misleading" involved. when in doubt: paying the rent trumps everything else."

And of course, legal obligations are the only ones that exist. Seriously, what's wrong with you?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:06 PM on July 27, 2006

If you don't want to be honest about it just to be honest, consider that lying about this kind of thing is something for which the forces of the universe will surely find a way to bite you in the ass down the road. One way or another. It's just the way this stuff works.
posted by hazelshade at 10:28 PM on July 27, 2006

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

Since I can contribute to this thread without a personal attack, less is wrong with me than some others.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:12 PM on July 27, 2006