If you're jumping out of a plane at 5000 feet - you take the time to put on the parachute. Sure, you could save yourself a few seconds, and for the first 1000 feet having that parachute doesn't matter yet when you're still free-falling ("I saved schedule time by skipping the 'put-on-parachute' task!"). However, by the time you hit the ground, that parachute is life-saving.
Same thing with software projects and best practices. The project is like jumping out of a plane, and the best practices are like the parachute. Sure, some "best practices" are just useless marketing buzzwords. However, others - like unit testing - are the real deal. And a developer or manager who rejects unit testing (for new .Net code in the middle tier) because they "don't have time" is like jumping out of the plane without putting on your parachute. You save a bit of time upfront, but when the project goes to production and "crashes" into reality, the maintenance costs and untested boundary cases will kill it.
"I don't have time" sounds much more noble and business-like than "I don't understand that idea", or "I just don't feel like doing something new." But within the (very common) context of new .Net class-library development - given that testing frameworks are free (NUnit, MSTest), and that any developer can at least write their tests locally - regardless of management support, and that in certain scenarios it's actually faster to develop code by writing unit tests (because it stubs out the context), the "I don't have time" reply to unit testing certain scenarios is misguided. Sure there are always exceptions, and reasons that good devs may not write unit tests. Testing databases, or legacy code, or the UI, or integration is a different beast. However, in general, testing public methods in a C# class library, without external data dependencies, should be as reasonable as putting a parachute on while jumping out of a plane.