Give us a break. The employer-employee contracr is a day's pay for a day's work. All the other conversations are emotional manipulation. Do you think for a minute that he would not let you go if times got tough? Get your emotional fulfillment outside of work. Not every job is a life's calling.
12
No reasonable person would think less of you for pursuing a better job, least of all one for twice the pay. Certainly communicate as graciously possible and do what you can to schedule a transition that works as well as possible for current employer, as a court house is a small place, but do not hesitate to improve your life.
9
As a psychologist who started my career 40 years ago working with chronically and severely mentally ill people, I learned quickly that the dangers of presuming one incompetent, based on their condition, were far outweighed by the benefits off respecting their autonomy. We err when we take decision making out of the hands of adults, just because of an affliction they have. My vote goes for letting the woman relate to, live with, and marry whomever she wants.
11
My problem with the state court job is, at-will employment may violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Government has an obligation not to take things away from people without good cause. Still, as long as we're playing the game, you might as well be frank with the boss. You'll need her later.
6
When a job is at-will, it is at the will of either the employee or employer. No one is bound to the job. Absolutely there is no ethical issue with applying for the new job; there are only practical concerns of whether your boss holds grudges. And probably no one will get mad about anything. Those clerking jobs have high rates of turnover. I've practiced law for more than 40 years, and the judge's clerks are really looked down on if they stick around. It's not a job that's suitable long-term for anyone with ambition.
15
Another thought. If the amnesiac marries the successful man, she can still get Medicare, but not Medicaid, which she may need. Too many financial decisions here, and marriage most definitely and inherently is a financial decision, and not just sometimes.
I agree the would-be groom needs a very thorough background check, and with a fine tooth comb.
I agree the would-be groom needs a very thorough background check, and with a fine tooth comb.
24
Since the better job is at the same organization, the clerk would do best to discuss this with the current boss as suggested. The boss is going to be contacted for a reference no matter what, and that will likely determine whether he/she gets the new job. One possible result of this discussion is the current boss understanding and agreeing that it's a good opportunity, and possibly working with the new department to keep the job open until after the maternity leave. That would be the best outcome.
10
With the amnesiac bride, I'd be concerned that if her new husband had motives for marrying her that weren't in her interest, would she be capable of being able to voice them and reach out for help.
With the person in the court job wanting another job in the same building for higher pay, it would be nice to think that her boss was interested in her career and seeing her succeed. I was in a couple situations where that was the case, and my bosses even helped me advance. Hopefully hers would be that way, but as you said, we don't know.
With the person in the court job wanting another job in the same building for higher pay, it would be nice to think that her boss was interested in her career and seeing her succeed. I was in a couple situations where that was the case, and my bosses even helped me advance. Hopefully hers would be that way, but as you said, we don't know.
9
As far as the supreme Court job you said it was "at will" meaning they could kick you to the curb at any time for any reason. You owe them nothing.
17
I find that more and more I dislike the answers given by the ethicist. I don't know what that means exactly but I don't like them nonetheless.
12
Maybe because many of the answers are wishy washy, no any deep consideration for the meaning of the title of ethicist.
6
In the first case I think a frank discussion between the parties involved (including family and psychiatrist) is warranted and might be helpful. The couple should not enter a legal agreement like marriage before living together to see how that works, in particular as regards the disabled's finances.
The clerk should have an open discussion with his superior, which I trust will and should be appreciated Verbal agreements or handshakes when business or jobs are involved are not reliable and leave room for many conflicting situations such as the one described here. Only written and signed contracts are binding.
Though they can be long I generally like the "answers" proposed by this ethicist because they consider all the complexities involved in the question being posed.
Not every question has a clear answer. Often asking or identifying the right question is already a large part of the answer and the ethicist does at times reframe or elaborate on the original question. He does pretty thoroughly consider all aspects of it and that is the best any one can do.
The clerk should have an open discussion with his superior, which I trust will and should be appreciated Verbal agreements or handshakes when business or jobs are involved are not reliable and leave room for many conflicting situations such as the one described here. Only written and signed contracts are binding.
Though they can be long I generally like the "answers" proposed by this ethicist because they consider all the complexities involved in the question being posed.
Not every question has a clear answer. Often asking or identifying the right question is already a large part of the answer and the ethicist does at times reframe or elaborate on the original question. He does pretty thoroughly consider all aspects of it and that is the best any one can do.
It's troubling that whenever the potentially compromised partner is a woman, the so-called ethicist gives go ahead, as here, but when that party is male he generally advises a halt, as was the case last week with the man who had completely abandoned a woman and family. And these are but two examples. Can ethics and sexism coexist?
15
Honestly it sounds like a creepy" Stepford wife" scenario. I could of course be wrong.
7
The employee apply for the job. An opportunity to earn and save (or invest) more now will pay off with improved chances for healthy survival for the individual and his/her loved ones. That's an ethical choice that trumps that of supporting the careers of employers or colleagues via self-sacrifice.
In fact, if the employee were self-sacrifice, the employer and colleagues might wonder whether the employee's judgment is as sound as they'd thought. Their loss of confidence in the employee's wisdom would harm the employee's professional relationships and career path.
In fact, if the employee were self-sacrifice, the employer and colleagues might wonder whether the employee's judgment is as sound as they'd thought. Their loss of confidence in the employee's wisdom would harm the employee's professional relationships and career path.
5
That first question is exactly the plot of Light in the Piazza, the 1962 movie that became a 2003 musical.
5
That's exactly what I was thinking!
How was that resolved?
The daughter's mother engineered the marriage and returned to the United States, secure in the knowledge that her son-in-law's devoted family would provide the lifelong support that her daughter would need.
As a manager I love to see people move forward. I once had an employee give me a 90 day resignation so she could write SOP'S and train her replacement before moving onto the new job that more matched what she had gone to school for. The open communication made the transition smooth for everyone and I gave her a glowing recommendation.
A good manager is a mentor. They take pride in seeing growth in those who report to them.
A good manager is a mentor. They take pride in seeing growth in those who report to them.
19
I have a friend whose daughter had a stroke at 25. She cannot manage her own money or live independently or work and has reverted to an 8th grade mentality. Sadly there's nothing that can be done to help her progress further.
For a time she battled with depression. She was a lovely writer and was in college studying to be a nurse and now that's gone. She knows that she used to be a writer but now she can barely read for long periods and her short term memory was damaged so she doesn't retain what she is reading.
But she met a very nice young man who didn't know the old her and loves her for the person she is now. They are now living together and make each other very happy. I've noticed that since the relationship between them started she's able to live forward and isn't mourning who she was.
Provided that he treats her well and doesn't hold her amnesia against her this relationship may help her rebuild her life. Absolutely do your due diligence and make sure that there's no abuse but otherwise see what happens but be supportive.
For a time she battled with depression. She was a lovely writer and was in college studying to be a nurse and now that's gone. She knows that she used to be a writer but now she can barely read for long periods and her short term memory was damaged so she doesn't retain what she is reading.
But she met a very nice young man who didn't know the old her and loves her for the person she is now. They are now living together and make each other very happy. I've noticed that since the relationship between them started she's able to live forward and isn't mourning who she was.
Provided that he treats her well and doesn't hold her amnesia against her this relationship may help her rebuild her life. Absolutely do your due diligence and make sure that there's no abuse but otherwise see what happens but be supportive.
25
About the job. First, the advice to have a conversation with your boss is exactly right. That conversation is necessary.
But also, as someone who supervises some employees, I am always happy for them (though it inconveniences me) if they can get a job that is clearly better than the one they have. If they are leaving for a clearly better job, I am totally fine with that. Likely this is true of other supervisors too.
But also, as someone who supervises some employees, I am always happy for them (though it inconveniences me) if they can get a job that is clearly better than the one they have. If they are leaving for a clearly better job, I am totally fine with that. Likely this is true of other supervisors too.
12
To the LW clerk: interview for the new job and accept it if offered. This is a career and family decision: you are entitled to make the best decision for yourself and your family. If fact, it is the ethically best choice.
To do so otherwise is to confuse business decisions with personal and family decisions. Personal life demands that we sometimes sacrifice and compromise for the long run, and have different and stronger, longer expectations of loyalty.
Of course you owe your boss to be honest, do the best effort and give adequate notice, but you do not owe this job your personal sacrifice.
Be honest with the head clerk, as this is an internal job. See if you can either gain an extra week before the transfer, or be able to work some overtime even non paid hours for a few weeks, to ease the transition.
But do not sacrifice your future.
To do so otherwise is to confuse business decisions with personal and family decisions. Personal life demands that we sometimes sacrifice and compromise for the long run, and have different and stronger, longer expectations of loyalty.
Of course you owe your boss to be honest, do the best effort and give adequate notice, but you do not owe this job your personal sacrifice.
Be honest with the head clerk, as this is an internal job. See if you can either gain an extra week before the transfer, or be able to work some overtime even non paid hours for a few weeks, to ease the transition.
But do not sacrifice your future.
5
The State Supreme Court clerk says that she loves her current boss, likes the people with whom she works and is satisfied with her work. Equally important is the fact that her current job enables her to work full-time, support her family and go to school. Sounds like an ideal situation.
As she considers the ethical implications of her decision, she also needs to take another factor into account. There are no guarantees that the new position will offer the same kind of work environment and flexibility she currently enjoys. And as an at-will employee, there are no guarantees that the new position will work out at all. I'm reminded of the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
As she considers the ethical implications of her decision, she also needs to take another factor into account. There are no guarantees that the new position will offer the same kind of work environment and flexibility she currently enjoys. And as an at-will employee, there are no guarantees that the new position will work out at all. I'm reminded of the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
6
The potential court analyst opportunity sounds like a job that may well ultimately depend on a positive recommendation from your current employer. It seems an obvious win-win to talk it over with the chief clerk and ask for some career counseling. Whether you go or stay, you'll be better off for that conversation.
4
In 2007, astronaut Mark Kelly married Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. In 2011, Giffords suffered a brain injury after being shot in the head. Her rehabilitation has lasted years.
Kelly and Giffords are still married. It's not the marriage they thought they were going to have, but it's an enduring marriage. Kelly has said the assassination attempt on his wife has given him new perspective on faith and life and taught him "not to sweat the small stuff."
Nobody knows what's between your sister and her beau. Keep an eye on her and hope that this is a joyous relationship for both of them. There's more to love than having an intellectual partnership. Maybe he learns things from her that have done him a world of good.
Be happy for her.
Kelly and Giffords are still married. It's not the marriage they thought they were going to have, but it's an enduring marriage. Kelly has said the assassination attempt on his wife has given him new perspective on faith and life and taught him "not to sweat the small stuff."
Nobody knows what's between your sister and her beau. Keep an eye on her and hope that this is a joyous relationship for both of them. There's more to love than having an intellectual partnership. Maybe he learns things from her that have done him a world of good.
Be happy for her.
6
Standing by a spouse after such a devastating injury should not be compared to starting a relationship with a seriously impaired person. It is not even close to the same thing.
if she has any money, I question his motives. If she has no money, I question his motives.
Let them live together for a few years, let a court appointed guardian closely monitor the situation and then see if he still wants to marry her.
Just for perspective, I am a serious bleeding heart liberal who works in the mental health field. With a good nose to smell a rat.
if she has any money, I question his motives. If she has no money, I question his motives.
Let them live together for a few years, let a court appointed guardian closely monitor the situation and then see if he still wants to marry her.
Just for perspective, I am a serious bleeding heart liberal who works in the mental health field. With a good nose to smell a rat.
39
LW#2
You're worried about leaving your boss in the lurch because someone else in the office is going to go on maternity leave.
Did the pregnant woman ask you if it would be convenient for you to stay in the job if she got pregnant and you'd be needed?
No? Then stop making that a bone of contention for your own self. She was living her life. So should you.
Life happens. If you want the job, apply for it. You can hope a similar job with the same benefits opens up in a year - or 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. But it might not.
Go for it.
You're worried about leaving your boss in the lurch because someone else in the office is going to go on maternity leave.
Did the pregnant woman ask you if it would be convenient for you to stay in the job if she got pregnant and you'd be needed?
No? Then stop making that a bone of contention for your own self. She was living her life. So should you.
Life happens. If you want the job, apply for it. You can hope a similar job with the same benefits opens up in a year - or 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. But it might not.
Go for it.
11
Mr. Appiah,
Did you read the article about Anna Stubblefield and DJ, the disabled man of whom you speak? And the followup letter in the Times from two professors familiar with her and the case? There is considerable room for doubt about the degree of his mental disability. Exculpatory evidence from another of DJ's therapists, stating that she had helped him type papers about books he read for a English class, which she herself did not read, was excluded from her trial.
While I ultimately concluded that Stubblefield's relationship with DJ was inappropriate and she should have known better, it's hardly the clear-cut matter that you present here.
Did you read the article about Anna Stubblefield and DJ, the disabled man of whom you speak? And the followup letter in the Times from two professors familiar with her and the case? There is considerable room for doubt about the degree of his mental disability. Exculpatory evidence from another of DJ's therapists, stating that she had helped him type papers about books he read for a English class, which she herself did not read, was excluded from her trial.
While I ultimately concluded that Stubblefield's relationship with DJ was inappropriate and she should have known better, it's hardly the clear-cut matter that you present here.
5
The "therapist" who said she had helped DJ type papers about books she had never read was neither a therapist nor a credible witness. She was a Rutgers undergraduate named Sheronda Jones. Although Jones claimed not to have read any of the books DJ supposedly wrote about as part of his work for English class, her roommate was in that class with DJ. Her roommate took copious notes about these books, and guess what? DJ's "writing" as relayed through Sheronda Jones sounded exactly like the roommate's notes.
Another grifter. This distant friend of the family doesn't even have to gaslight his girlfriend, she has very poor memory already. It is one thing for a successful, well-educated man to stand by his wife after a brain injury. It is another for a man to start a relationship with a woman who can't even remember how old she is or where she lives. The Iowan is a red herring. He was continuing with the long happy marriage he already had before his wife became disabled. Sex was a natural part of that relationship. How can a woman who has such poor memory even give consent to a sexual relationship if she might not remember it the next day? How long will it be before the friend tries to get custody of her money if they get married? As for the psychiatrist's supposed professional opinion; it means nothing. Psychiatrists frequently testify that a violent felon is cured and when released kills someone within a few days. Go with your gut. There is something seriously wrong with this relationship.
18
What bothers me about the sister is the timing of the man's interest. He "...learned of her condition and began a closer friendship..." That sounds like grooming, to me.
29
Joyce Carol Oates' "The Man Without a Shadow" treats a situation similar in some ways to LW#1 (marrying an amnesiac).
2
Re: Marrying an amnesiac, you should watch the movie "50 First Dates." It's a great flick.
2
I'll have to defer to the psychiatrist who I will assume actually knows the details of the amnesiac's condition and the implications thereof. She may be able to reason soundly but not remember what she reasoned. Not my area of expertise. Is marriage a financial decision? For many, it is.
I question the groom's intentions (not necessarily accusing him of any bad intentions). Does he have anything to gain from the arrangement? Does he simply value her for who she is despite (or maybe because of) her condition? Is he setting the stage for being able to be abusive (since she won't be expected to remember)? Has he given up on finding what Mx. Withheld would consider to be a proper spouse, and merely wants to do something good? Those are just a few reasons I can think of. There is not nearly enough information presented to make a judgement.
As to the actual question: Is it ethically acceptable for an able-minded person to date someone with a cognitive disability? Yes. (Marry? It depends.)
I question the groom's intentions (not necessarily accusing him of any bad intentions). Does he have anything to gain from the arrangement? Does he simply value her for who she is despite (or maybe because of) her condition? Is he setting the stage for being able to be abusive (since she won't be expected to remember)? Has he given up on finding what Mx. Withheld would consider to be a proper spouse, and merely wants to do something good? Those are just a few reasons I can think of. There is not nearly enough information presented to make a judgement.
As to the actual question: Is it ethically acceptable for an able-minded person to date someone with a cognitive disability? Yes. (Marry? It depends.)
9
With regard to the clerk in a State Supreme Court, what did the clerk agree to? All it says is that the boss asked for two years. Was agreeing to stay part of getting the job, or was it just the boss's hope that the employee would stay?
Also, what is the current financial situation of the clerk and how would the extra income help? If the clerk is struggling to get by and the doubling of salary would really help the family, I think the considerations are different than if the clerk was financially comfortable and the extra salary would just be "bonus". I don't know the numbers nor the surrounding financial/family situation. Think "want vs. need".
If the clerk promised to stay for two years, it would be a broken promise to leave. If it was more nuanced or qualified, then it might be OK. Maybe just try talking to the boss. Acknowledge the agreement/understanding and present the opportunity. He might legitimately support the effort!
Also, what is the current financial situation of the clerk and how would the extra income help? If the clerk is struggling to get by and the doubling of salary would really help the family, I think the considerations are different than if the clerk was financially comfortable and the extra salary would just be "bonus". I don't know the numbers nor the surrounding financial/family situation. Think "want vs. need".
If the clerk promised to stay for two years, it would be a broken promise to leave. If it was more nuanced or qualified, then it might be OK. Maybe just try talking to the boss. Acknowledge the agreement/understanding and present the opportunity. He might legitimately support the effort!
4
The sister had a brain injury. The sister has been judged by an expert, to
NOT be capable of making financial decisions. This allegedly successful, older man " heard" about her condition. I don't suppose the sister received a large settlement for her injuries, by any chance???
THIS is a script for a made for cable TV movie. I smell a huge, horrible rat. Get this man investigated, ASAP. Don't wait. Yes, she is entitled to a relationship and marriage. He is not entitled to scam her., or worse.
NOT be capable of making financial decisions. This allegedly successful, older man " heard" about her condition. I don't suppose the sister received a large settlement for her injuries, by any chance???
THIS is a script for a made for cable TV movie. I smell a huge, horrible rat. Get this man investigated, ASAP. Don't wait. Yes, she is entitled to a relationship and marriage. He is not entitled to scam her., or worse.
78
Along these lines, neither the questioner nor the ethicist raised the issue of just what the term "financial decisions" implies. Is there a large injury settlement in the background? The forgetful sister sounds at least borderline unemployable. Who or what supports her? And what about her gentleman caller? Is he well heeled or maybe just an enterprising heel?
5
To LW1: Talk to your boss.
If the move will be internal, your boss may be able to talk to the hiring manager of the other position and know if other similar ones are coming up. They may set something up where you can interview and if you get the job, work half-time between two floors until after your supervisor returns from maternity leave. Or perhaps the hiring manager knows another position will be coming down the pipe in 6 months.
It's not like the boss won't know you're applying to something internal as soon as it happens (in most companies I've been in, at least, management is free with this information between each other). And building the social capital of working *with* your boss on this kind of move will serve you well later in your career.
If the move will be internal, your boss may be able to talk to the hiring manager of the other position and know if other similar ones are coming up. They may set something up where you can interview and if you get the job, work half-time between two floors until after your supervisor returns from maternity leave. Or perhaps the hiring manager knows another position will be coming down the pipe in 6 months.
It's not like the boss won't know you're applying to something internal as soon as it happens (in most companies I've been in, at least, management is free with this information between each other). And building the social capital of working *with* your boss on this kind of move will serve you well later in your career.
33
Or, LW2. One of the issues with not being able to edit comments...
Regarding the job opportunity - if the boss is even remotely aware of the employment opportunities within the building and knows about the employee's aspirations, if that employee does not pursue the position, what does it say about them? What sort of position does the employee now have with their current boss? It would be silly to NOT pursue the opportunity or discuss it with the current boss. And, you'll find out how the boss REALLY thinks about the employee.
Here's an opportunity to better provide for the family in a major way. To ignore it would signal the employee is weak and easily manipulated. The current position is described as short-term, anyway. To show interest and aptitude to bettering your position should not be a detriment to internal promotions (it's admitted the current position is not the long-term goal). It's a small world, don't burn bridges, but don't be a push-over either.
Here's an opportunity to better provide for the family in a major way. To ignore it would signal the employee is weak and easily manipulated. The current position is described as short-term, anyway. To show interest and aptitude to bettering your position should not be a detriment to internal promotions (it's admitted the current position is not the long-term goal). It's a small world, don't burn bridges, but don't be a push-over either.
13
Since the sister needs extensive assistance with practical matters, I would suggest that the brother explore the possibility of becoming her legal guardian, as this could help him remain gently and lovingly involved in her well-being.
One of our adult daughters is under our guardianship. She has a genetic disorder with many symptoms; hers include fairly severe memory impairment and poor executive functioning.
We handle her financial affairs, making sure her bills and taxes get paid and wrangling with Medicare, Medicaid, and SSDI now and then when her benefits get stopped by accident (the agencies are woefully underfunded--it once took 18 months to get SSDI back on track, as their workforce keeps getting slashed).
Guardianship also lets us communicate with her various clinicians without having to get a slew of new releases-of-info every few months; we can even find out when her appts. are coming up and remind her so she doesn't miss them (she lost three dentists before we started doing that).
Our guardianship continues even though she married several years ago. She trusts us to help and monitor, not to interfere.
It's hard to obtain (requires probate court), but her willingness to accept this assistance facilitated the process. So think it through, contact an attorney, and raise the possibility with the sister!
One of our adult daughters is under our guardianship. She has a genetic disorder with many symptoms; hers include fairly severe memory impairment and poor executive functioning.
We handle her financial affairs, making sure her bills and taxes get paid and wrangling with Medicare, Medicaid, and SSDI now and then when her benefits get stopped by accident (the agencies are woefully underfunded--it once took 18 months to get SSDI back on track, as their workforce keeps getting slashed).
Guardianship also lets us communicate with her various clinicians without having to get a slew of new releases-of-info every few months; we can even find out when her appts. are coming up and remind her so she doesn't miss them (she lost three dentists before we started doing that).
Our guardianship continues even though she married several years ago. She trusts us to help and monitor, not to interfere.
It's hard to obtain (requires probate court), but her willingness to accept this assistance facilitated the process. So think it through, contact an attorney, and raise the possibility with the sister!
83
Given that she's not deemed to make financial decisions, but is able to make personal decisions, this has probably been done to the extent possible (who is controlling the finances). Maybe the sister is fighting tooth and nail against it and the marriage is to "rescue" her from her family. "Rescue" meaning removal from whatever situation she is in with respect to her family - I'm not making a judgement on that relationship.
1
I admire your ability to respect your adult daughter's autonomy (getting married) while convincing her to accept she needs legal oversight of her life in other ways. This can't be easy.
L
L
6
They should also check to ensure she won't lose her benefits if she marries and her "income" goes up. Lots of considerations.
As a manager I am always in two minds when a good employee gives me notice. On the one hand I want him or her to stay so I don't have a problem to backfill the position; on the other I am thrilled for the employee seeking betterment. That's why I do all I can to retain the good employees: make sure they know they are appreciated (not just $$$); give them challenging assignments; and make sure they know that, if I have to part with them, they will have a good 'to whom it may concern' reference. Your manager should not stand in your way. And, depending on the size of your operation, your leaving may be the opportunity your manager needs to bring someone else up to your function. Unfortunately I have been around too many organizations where 'What have you done for me lately?' has been replaced by 'What can you do for me next week?' It's all short term, and if your state is not 'Right-to-work' (total misnomer) it will be soon.
34
To the clerk: absolutely apply for that new job!
41
The response to the court clerk is, in my opinion as a former employee and current employer, spot on. I would rather an employee come to me up front with the situation, regardless of outcome.
That would encourage me to switch from "employer" role to "mentor" role and provide advice that's in the employee's best interest. My respect for the employee's honesty and integrity would also rise, and I'd be very likely to provide a glowing recommendation.
That would encourage me to switch from "employer" role to "mentor" role and provide advice that's in the employee's best interest. My respect for the employee's honesty and integrity would also rise, and I'd be very likely to provide a glowing recommendation.
89
It's admirable that the employee who wants to move up feels such loyalty to the job and the boss, and it's impressive and rare to see such mutual commitment in this day and age. Both parties should feel lucky, and probably do. But as the Ethicist said, things change. No one should feel guilty for taking the chance at a better life. The state certainly will not feel guilty if the economy dictates that layoffs are necessary, and the employee is let go. Your first loyalty is to yourself and your family.
51
Apply for the job. A year is an acceptable amount of time to stay at a job, and only a crazy person would turn down the chance to make twice as much money at a job that better fits their skills.
Your employer would not hesitate for a second to fire you if staff cuts were required. That's what at will means. It works both ways.
If you get the new job, you can consult informally for the old position to help the transition, as long as it does not interfere with the new work.
Your employer would not hesitate for a second to fire you if staff cuts were required. That's what at will means. It works both ways.
If you get the new job, you can consult informally for the old position to help the transition, as long as it does not interfere with the new work.
57
Employers will suck you dry and throw you out with the trash whenever it suits them. They expect loyalty from you but don't give you any (being an at-will employer.) They'll pass over your resume if you have a "black sounding" name and will punish you if you dare to be a woman who asks for a raise. I normally try to consider what's best for everyone, but not in the case of employment. Act in your own radical self-interest. That's what businesses do, and it seems to be the only way to survive without the protection of government mandates and unions.
76
One must wonder if you base all your life and ethical decisions around stereotypes that pertain to only a fraction of a population. Treating all employers as evil because some are might be practical advice but it certainly is not ethical. For all you know, this boss might be a saint. Your advice is no more legitimate than someone advising on the ethics of treating "jenny from Madison" like garbage simply because They know some "Jennys from Wisconsin" and they are Murderers and con-artists.
Excusing lying and dishonesty based on prejudicial assumptions and stereotypes is not ethical. Judging this LW boss as racist or sexist because some bosses are is also terribly offensive. And assuming that her employer must be a liar because he/she is an employer is quite sad.
Excusing lying and dishonesty based on prejudicial assumptions and stereotypes is not ethical. Judging this LW boss as racist or sexist because some bosses are is also terribly offensive. And assuming that her employer must be a liar because he/she is an employer is quite sad.
22
Thanks to @abc21 below for pointing out that most employers are not devils. It's sad so many readers - judging by their "recommends" - are into sticking it to The Man.
2
No one said that LW's boss was racist or sexist. No one said anyone lied. No one said any employer was evil. Jenny just described the situation of employment in the US, particularly for an employee in a "right to work" state with no written contract.
Most federal and other government employees in the US have certain rights and guarantees after a year. All employees in European countries have certain rights and guarantees. In the US, employees are essentially on their own and are under no obligation to the employer who is under no obligation to them.
In this particular internal case Courtney above describes the situation very well.
Most federal and other government employees in the US have certain rights and guarantees after a year. All employees in European countries have certain rights and guarantees. In the US, employees are essentially on their own and are under no obligation to the employer who is under no obligation to them.
In this particular internal case Courtney above describes the situation very well.
3
This column is great; thank you! The question about the clerk at a State Supreme Court can also be viewed as to what the employer would do if something came up to truncate the verbally agreed to two-year contract. My guess is that the "employment at will" provision would be enforced without a second thought; or perhaps, with an "I'm sorry, but...". I don't know if that makes the decision easier, but clearly, there is a mismatch of inferred obligation in this situation.
20
Please don't make it sound like the decision to lay someone off is automatically done heartlessly or with only lip service. I worked in state government most of my working life and mostly in personnel matters, although most of our workforce except for the highest management levels and attorneys (like me) were union and/or Civil Service. I don't think I've ever seen an agency say it has too many employees. As a general rule, the orders come from the top. You try to get as much done from eliminating unfilled positions but that's often not enough. All that union/civil service means there is that there is a procedure to determine who gets cut. It's a nightmare because you know those positions are never coming back and you wonder when the tipping point will come that you don't have enough people to function. That being said, since this is an in-house matter, the supervisor is going to find out, at least no later than the reference checks. It's best if the LW is the one to inform the supervisor and discuss the situation, especially since the initial conversation included the possibility to leaving for a better opportunity.
2
Exactly.
When my former brother-in-law was in his fifties he married for the first time. She had a brain injury and had not worked in 20 years and he is a PhD scientist. I don't know if they are happy but they are still married. To each their own.
27
SC Clerk's question. As a manager I understood that one of my responsibilities was to help my staff grow. I accepted that a time might come when an opening for advancement would benefit both the person and the institution. This seems the case here. Moreover, the Chief Clerk appears to have anticipated this situation. I would conjecture that the Chief Clerk is receptive to a candid conversation. The Clerk should initiatie one without guilt.
31
Another factor to consider with the sister is that she may not be expected to improve further. While we may legitimately discourage teenagers from potentially inappropriate relationships on the basis that they have plenty of time to engage in more appropriate ones in adulthood, an attempted ban on ethical grounds on relationships for the sister might well be lifelong, which would constitute a much more serious restriction on her right to a fulfilling life.
47
So it seems to me that the writer has to have a candid conversation with the writer's boss, making clear the writer's willingness to keep the writer's commitment yet expressing the hope that the boss will agree that departure for this new possibility would be within the original terms of hire.