I made an error in using the phrase "in bad economic times". Economic conditions are actually fairly irrelevant, because one can be in a positive career situation despite a terrible economy, and vice versa. I meant to say "in a bad career situation" and, specifically, a truly terrible one.
I know people who've been put in the humiliating position of being outsourced, while being expected to train the cheaply-hired replacements. That's the sort of situation in which obfuscation, in the hope of having, at least, the option to come on later as a consultant, may be an appropriate strategy. Why is it unethical? It's not nice, but it's not nice either (though not unethical) for the company to fire all the American staff and replace them with overseas workers at 1/3 of the cost.
So I'll back down from "in bad economic times" because, really, obfuscation only makes sense in rare and outright terrible situations. I've never needed to do it, never done it, and I don't even know how often it works. What I'll say is this: I've known people who've been laid off recently, and one of the warning signs is when they are asked to suddenly place a high priority on clarifying previous work, and it's definitely not in their interest to do so.
I meant to say "in a bad career situation" and, specifically, a truly terrible one
Well, who put themselves in that situation?
I know people who've been put in the humiliating position of being outsourced, while being expected to train the cheaply-hired replacements
No one is required to remain in such a humiliating position.
Why is it unethical?
Because it's your job, not to mention your duty, to contribute the best code you can. Not to mention not actively destroying it.
obfuscation only makes sense in rare and outright terrible situations
Courage and honesty are what make sense in rare and outright terrible situations. What the person who takes the sneaky, greedy route under duress never gets to learn is how many benefits flow from standing up to what you fear.
I've never needed to do it, never done it, and I don't even know how often it works.
Yet you are prepared to offer it as advice to others?
I've known people who've been laid off recently, [who were] asked to suddenly place a high priority on clarifying previous work, and it's definitely not in their interest to do so.
There's a big difference between taking responsibility for your own interests and actively screwing the other guy in order to (allegedly) protect yourself. See what allenbrunson said.
So I'll back down from "in bad economic times"
You've missed the point. Ethics that fluctuate with one's career situation aren't ethics to begin with either.
Look... I wouldn't write this if it were just about critiquing your post. Personally, I am far from being a master of appropriate behavior. But I can't emphasize enough how rewarding it is to get to a place within yourself where you just won't do shit like this (and how punishing it is to live with the beliefs that make you think it's ok).
Variable. My first job out of school was at an MDC (medium-sized dumb company) where, 3 months in, there was a management change. The new middle-manager began sabotaging the best people-- taking them off their coding projects and putting them on non-coding office work-- in order to bore them out of the company, thus eliminating the people he saw as threats to his position in the future.
The 3 best new hires were laid off within 6 months of this happening, myself for the "crime" of seeking employment elsewhere, one for refusing a "promotion" into an ethically dubious role, and one for reasons too complicated to get into, and all of this was through no fault of their own. Luckily, this was during a great economy, and all 3 of us got better jobs within a few weeks.
No one is required to remain in such a humiliating position.
What if the company says they will give negative references if he doesn't train the replacements? Is this not coercion? This is an unusual case, but it's not entirely uncommon. In the pharmaceutical industry, there've been M&A cases where people kept on at the acquired company were forbidden from giving references for their laid-off colleagues. In BDCs, this sort of political sleaze occurs more often than you'd think. Again, I'm assuming that you're "spoiled" by startups and technology companies, where one's career progress has a high correlation to the quality of one's work, and wherein internal political sleaze is exceedingly rare.
You've missed the point. Ethics that fluctuate with one's career situation aren't ethics to begin with either.
I don't know why "situational ethics" get such a negative review, when all ethics are situational, the situation including the consequences of each option. For example, it's unethical to steal, right? On the other hand, some people must steal in order to avoid starvation, and it's arguably much worse, from an ethical standpoint, to submit oneself to pointless and preventable death. Ethics is about pursuing the morally best option among those that are actually available, and which choice is best depends on the consequences (to oneself, and to others) of each, i.e. the situation.
I believe that there is a phrase that CEO's and Most Paid People in the company that is used to everyone else to keep the little guys smouthered in the position they sit: "the bottom line." They use this when they realize that if they don't do something unethical or completely brilliant, there will be a bottom line that little guy will have to deal with. He will be fired or they'll cut his hours, or they will give less health insurance and higher premiums and deductables, etc. Somehow the little guy is going to get cut so the irreplaceable CEO can go on a $600,000 necessary cruise that the little guy wasn't even invited to.
Look at working in retail. It is a nightmare! There you are so replaceable, they can't keep positions filled for very long because people either "get themselves out of that situation" or they remain humiliated and keep collecting a smaller check.
The only way to be truly irreplaceable is to CREATE something. Because once your one-of-a-kind creation exists, you have added something to the world that wasn't there before. So for it to be authentic, it must remain irreplaceable.
perhaps you've heard that two wrongs don't make a right?
if a company screws you over, you don't try to screw them back. that makes you just as bad as they are. the right thing to do is walk away, think about the warning signs that were almost certainly there from day one, and don't get into a situation like that again.
I'm not arguing that anyone should be screwing anyone over. Taking revenge for the sake of revenge is a monumental waste of time and energy, and can lead to disastrous career and legal consequences.
In the situation I outlined-- of a person being outsourced, and told to train his cheap-hire replacements before being let go-- the reason he does a poor job of training them is not revenge. It's not an emotional decision, but a rational one: he wants leverage for the negotiation of severance and references, e.g. "Sure, I'll train my replacement, in exchange for [X]." It's neither ethical nor unethical; just business the way it's been done for centuries.
I know people who've been put in the humiliating position of being outsourced, while being expected to train the cheaply-hired replacements. That's the sort of situation in which obfuscation, in the hope of having, at least, the option to come on later as a consultant, may be an appropriate strategy. Why is it unethical? It's not nice, but it's not nice either (though not unethical) for the company to fire all the American staff and replace them with overseas workers at 1/3 of the cost.
So I'll back down from "in bad economic times" because, really, obfuscation only makes sense in rare and outright terrible situations. I've never needed to do it, never done it, and I don't even know how often it works. What I'll say is this: I've known people who've been laid off recently, and one of the warning signs is when they are asked to suddenly place a high priority on clarifying previous work, and it's definitely not in their interest to do so.