Is it ethical to quit your job when... 2

[BJCooperIT]

you know it will cause the project implementation to be delayed and will cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money?

Does it depend on your reason or not?

[sup]Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time. ~Steven Wright[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
[sup]When posting code, please use TGML to help readability. Thanks![sup]

 

[carrr]

I take it you're in public service. Likewise, so I understand the dilemma.

How long have you been on your current post?
Did you make any sort of agreement other than a contractual one (i.e. any sort of oral or otherwise implied agreement to stay on for "x" amount of time?)
Provided you aren't a newly hired emplpoyee with the expectation of seeing a project through to completion and/or haven't made some sort of promise to stay on until a certian point was reached, I would say "NO," you do not have an ethical obligation.

I know all too well what it's like to feel obligated to stay on until one's departure won't make any ripples. However, if you try and do this, you'll never leave and never take advantage of opportunities to advance.

It's admirable that you take into consideration the ramifications on the public that you serve.
But, provided you're not breaking any contracts or promises, you've got to look out for your/your family's interests, too.

 

[Albion]

Not at all. You must look out for you first and foremost. After all, do you think your company will care much if you die of a stress related heart attack? And if you do, what do you think they'll do? They'll just get someone else to complete the job.

-al

 

[xutopia]

BJCooper,

Your contract is between you and them. Not between you and the people (unless you were elected).

If it sets them back too bad. They should treat their important employees in such a way as they would never accept an offer elsewhere.

That would be my rule of thumb here.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[TomKane]

I think it does depend on your reason. I think everyone has a "breaking point" and at the end of the day you have to do what's right for you.

Based on previous posts that you've made it sounds to me that you have done as much as you possibily can in a very difficult situation and have no reason to reproach yourself and the project would be in a terrible state if not for your presence.

However, it may be right for you to quit but maybe not if you don't have something else lined up.

 

[sleipnir214]

BJCooperIT:
Your dedication is commendable. You have written many times about the trials and tribulations of your current position.

But you have an ethical obligation to yourself, too.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[CajunCenturion]

As I understand your situation BJCooper, you are sub-contracted to a government agency. Therefore, there are three contracts which are in play. The contract between the agency and the sub-contractor, the contract between the sub-contractor and your employer, and the contract between your employer and yourself. First thing is are your specifically referenced in the agency-sub contract, or the sub-employer contract? I don't know of course, but would guess probably not, and if not, then you personally have no ethical obligation to either contract. So then it comes down to the contract between you and your employer, and your obligations to your employer. Did you agree to any of the parties to complete the job?

My point is that unless you agree, verbally or otherwise, to any of the parties to stay on the project until completion, then you have no ethical obligation to stay on the job.

To your specific question, the responsibility for on-time project implementation, and judicious use of tax payer money is not your responsibility, but is the respsibility of the government agency. The government agency is ethically bound for the project and tax dollar usage, not you.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[BJCooperIT]

I am humbled by everyone's excellent memory. Thanks for such quick responses. In answer to the questions:

How long have you been on your current post? 6 months

Did you make any sort of agreement other than a contractual one (i.e. any sort of oral or otherwise implied agreement to stay on for "x" amount of time?) No

First thing is are your specifically referenced in the agency-sub contract, or the sub-employer contract? No

Did you agree to any of the parties to complete the job? No

Would you, as a taxpayer, consider it unethical for me to squander your tax dollars?

What if the circumstances were different? Say I were working on a contract where tools were available and support was given - in other words a &quot;normal&quot; working environment. Would it be unethical to quit because <fill in the blank> and waste those dollars?

[sup]Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time. ~Steven Wright[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
[sup]When posting code, please use TGML to help readability. Thanks![sup]

 

[Provogeek]

IMPO - I have seen a few reference to &quot;verbal&quot; obligations. Telling your boss that you'll stick around to the end of a project with out anything on paper is as good as your boss telling you you will get a raise or bonus with out putting anything on paper. Talk is cheep, with out proof it's only hearsay. So if you have only said you'll stick around, it by no means makes you stick around. It will piss people off, but you then have to consider whats best for you and if it matters to you if these people get angery with you.

I would rather have my tax dollars go to waist on an IT project that goes over budget then to have a 44 million dollar research paper on the methan content of cow farts.

 

[CajunCenturion]

As I stated earlier, I hold the government agency responsible for judicious use of tax dollars. You are not the government agency, and therefore, I would not hold you responsible. It doesn't matter the circumstances of the project, good, bad, or otherwise, you don't have feduciary responsibility, and therefore, you are not bound to the ethical considerations of the feduciary responsibility.

Although Provogeek is correct, that talk is cheap, I would not go back on my word, unless it was absolutely necessary. If your talk is cheap, then your word will be viewed similarily. I consider my word to be a good faith contract on my part, and will do what I can to see it through. Your word does reflect on your character and in general trustworthiness. It may not matter in this situation, but it would affect how much confidence people would have in your word in the future. If you have to bow out, cite legitimate reasons so that you're not viewed as a quitter.

I know it's not in vogue these days, but I still have a lot of old school values.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[skiflyer]

Cajun
Having old school values is still in vogue... exercising them is not .

BJ
Just to add weight to the opinions, I share the common thought here. The responsibilities to the tax payers and such are your managements concerns. They're running the project and are responsible for appropriate budgeting, setting up contigencies for when employees quit/retire/disappear.

I suppose I should add, I would consider things a litter harsher than those here if I were judging myself... namely, I wouldn't consider it right to leave unless I felt that on my way through the project I had done the appropriate documentation such that a new person could reasonably step into my role. Not to say I would drag it out ad-naseum... just that I'd done what I consider to be a good job in that realm (again, an issue likely left untouched because you've referred to doing it thoroughly in other threads.)

-Rob

 

[chiph]

They may come and make a counter-offer to you in order to keep you. I wouldn't accept -- once you've decided to leave, t'were best if it were done quickly. I've seen several instances of where people have accepted the counter-offer only to be let go later once their work had been substantially completed. One was even &quot;for cause&quot; -- even if there wasn't one beyond simple vindictiveness.

Chip H.

 

[Lozbinator]

BJCooperIT - I too have read many of your posts and I also agree with the others who have posted in this thread.

Management is responsible for factoring in the possibility of losing some of their staff, and you do not have a contract to the people.

Also, if you feel a need to leave your position then that is a move you need to make for yourself - there is no point staying at a job where you will go crazy and become miserable, because you are concerned about wasting the taxpayer's dollar -- that should be managemen't priority. Isn't that why we have management? To deal with these kinds of issues?

If, for some reason, management has not considered (and made allowances for) the posibility of losing staff, that does not make this your ethical concern. If you are acting within your contract and you are meeting the requirements of your position, then your obligations are met.

Having said that, I can understand the concern, and I don't think there is a simple answer (ie I think after leaving you are still likely to hear the echoes of &quot;was this ethical??&quot; despite the reasoning of others).

I'd also like to quickly say - thank you for your fantastic posts throughout these forums, yours are one of the most rewarding to read (along with CajunCenturion's). I hope that you find the solution you are looking for.

 

[xutopia]

now in soviet russia you would owe the people an explanation!!! LOL

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

As CajunCenturion and BJCooperIT point out this is a management issue. If the management took a high risk situation where they have a critical resource, you, that has a good possibility of loosing, you don't have a specific contract obligating you to do task x for y amount of time. Then it is them that have not done their job properly. Your concerns are a sign of your character but don't think your decision to leave is a negative point on your character.
The fact that it is tax dollars to me makes little difference. Now if you got a payout for leaving then ethical questions would be raised.

 

[DonQuichote]

BJCooperIT,

Having read your earlier posts, I have the feeling that those tax dollars were wasted anyway by your bosses making your work far too difficult.
If you quit, you may even get that bosses to start thinking and therefore saving the taxpayers a lot of money...

As mentioned by others, you are not the one who decided that a large sum of taxpayer's money should be dependent on one person.

Best regards

 

[BJCooperIT]

Lozbinator:
Your kind words are much appreciated.

All:
This kind of feedback is one of the reasons I regularly visit Tek-Tips - this is a wonderful gathering place for professionals to ask advice and give support.

I have been told by the project manager that no matter what I can accomplish, this system will not be allowed to go to production by the powers that be in the state government. My situation remains much the same as reported on the other thread. The DBA's are non-supportive. I am still under intense pressure to get the job done yet I have no development environment in which to test. Apparently they now expect me to &quot;test&quot; in the production database! This goes against every protocol I know and is just plain wrong. I don't think I can bring myself to comply.

[sup]Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time. ~Steven Wright[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
[sup]When posting code, please use TGML to help readability. Thanks![sup]

 

[TomKane]

I'd have to agree - testing in the production environment is only asking for trouble.

 

[Lozbinator]

BJCooperIT - I have read some of your other posts - add those to this latest piece of information and all I can say is omigosh!!!.

I agree, nobody tests in the production environment, and I too would have difficulty in complying. Non-supportive DBA's, naive and what sounds like hearing-impaired management, etc... I think SemperFiDownUnda is right in that this shows the positive points of your character, and impact on taxpayers is potentially going to make little difference to the individual.

I too, would leave. In fact, I probably would have left ages ago, which also means you deserve more than the old 'pat on the back' for sticking it out this long. The situation sounds unworkable - but I think I can see why you have stayed nonetheless.

(But then again, I probably would have left because I'm too stubborn, argumentative and pigheaded to tolerate what you have! )

 

[greyted]

BJCooperIT,
Must say I do admire you for hanging in there under what I consider to be extreme provocation. Your ethics and morals are of the highest order and I congratulate you.
As you have stated in your last post that the system will not be allowed to go into production what ever you accomplish.
Then to require you to test in the production database is a terrible thing to ask of you.
I can safely answer your original question in the affirmative and wish you well for the future.



Ted

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
(William James)