Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsthepersona | Hacker News Reader

Actually you can do whatever you want and there won't be any consequences. The scare tactic that they will talk of some perception to others and single you out is as non-important as your effort during the context that you know you are being phased out. The commenter is creating a moral soap box which when opened smells bad. If you want to treat them the way they treat you, game theory is on your side.

View on HN

You are conflating morals with ethics. Ethically, compensation negotiations, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are based on the assumption of good faith reasonable best efforts. If you continue to draw your salary while ceasing to provide reasonable best efforts, you are intentionally acting in bad faith and the employer has grounds for termination or at least reduction in pay. You are of course free to do whatever you choose, and there may or may not be any professional consequences. But the OP indicated they are an honest person - intentionally acting in bad faith while continuing to draw a paycheck is not honest. Honest would be to either move on, or tell the employer you intend to reduce your efforts, and I think we know what the result would be.

> If you continue to draw your salary while ceasing to provide reasonable best efforts, you are intentionally acting in bad faith and the employer has grounds for termination or at least reduction in pay.

I know you're mostly focused on OP's use of the word "honest", but I think that misses something.

The term "reasonable best effort" is biased in favor of the employer since companies recognize that mediocre performance (relative to the position) is the norm. They also recognize that people like OP exist, and are more than happy to take advantage of them since they aren't likely to aggressively negotiate for what they're actually worth (and actually get it), and that not everyone has the luxury of just switching jobs to not get overly exploited. It's also tricky because things change over time, and what once was fair or mutually beneficial may no longer be, and by then, it be can be tricky to transition out of that.

I do think OP needs to reflect upon why they stayed at this place if they've felt taken for granted for so long. At the same time, I understand the frustration and sense of futility that comes with feeling like you want to give your best, but that you're not in an environment conducive to that.

I also don't think honesty is so binary to where if OP scales back effort in order to transition out of this role, that they can no longer claim to be "honest". Nor does honesty necessarily imply putting oneself in a precarious position and quitting before they're able to do so, especially since I doubt OP's higher-ups have any expectation of being honest and transparent with them that their days are numbered regardless of performance.

edit: I didn't see OP's reply to other commenters and assumed good faith. Nonetheless, I stand by my comment even if it no longer applies to this particular situation

I think in a good faith situation, a scaling back while transitioning out is totally fair. That's a far cry different from intentionally trying to figure out how to do the bare minimum while also refusing to look elsewhere though. I think we are on the same page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com