On 18 May 2006 12:48:12 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

Not for nothing, but that (requiring terms in writing) is the quickest
way to not get hired. Granted in this case it's a good litmus test,
but employers and managers get really, really, antsy whenever they
have to promise an employee something in writing.

Right. If they lie to you, find another job and leave. Give "the job
isn't as advertized" as your reason for leaving.

They get worried that they might be held to it, and won't be able
to change their mind whenever they feel like it in the future.
Bosses hate that.

Yup. It also makes you look like someone who is likely to push the very
last "letter of the law" issue, taking every sick day you're allowed to
without being written up, and so on. Might not be the case, but that's
how it's perceived.

Another issue with the idea is, even if they *do* put a promise
in writing, it won't be worth much. The standard scenario is that
you extract a written promise from your boss, for "X." Then
you get transferred to a different group, or your division is
taken over by another one - so you have a new management chain.

Yup. "Wasn't me who promised that, sorry." Again, if you're lied to,
get a better job. They don't owe you, you don't owe them.

"I didn't make the promise to you, your former boss did. That
was then, this is now. Sorry the promise is wothless." Except
usually they leave out the 'sorry' part.

Just like lawmakers.