billcrawford1970 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 9 12:46:41 GMT 2011
On 9 December 2011 11:42, Smylers <Smylers at stripey.com> wrote:
> Rudolf Lippan writes:
>> 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based
>> on my understanding that my employment was pending a 'final
>> 4) That as a condition of final sign off [...] I agreed to this.
>> 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point
> That's really unfortunate for you, especially since you'd turned down
> other work. It certainly sucks from your side.
> But I'm struggling to extrapolate from that into behaviour by
> Net-a-Porter that I need to beware of.
He may well have had the choice of whether to wait for this "sign off"
instead of taking another role. But if they were aware of his having
another offer, took their time, let him think the role was "in the
bag" and then yanked it after it was too late for the other position,
and knew this to be the case, they've very much left him in the lurch.
> It sounds like they said they
> hoped to do something but it hadn't been approved yet, then later turned
> out that approval wasn't granted. That's unfortunate, and frustrating,
> certainly, but it doesn't seem immoral.
It's basically a sort of "bait and switch". You may not consider it
"immoral", he does, and at the end of the day it's a betrayal of a
trust which - apparently - they knowingly asked for and accepted.
Hence the warning to the rest of us that this might happen. It's a
salutory lesson, even if you think it's perfectly "moral", that we
should all watch out for the possible effects of "economics", and to
censure him for providing that warning to all of us is like telling
the green cross code guy "hey, people get run over if they mess with
More information about the london.pm