Can You Be Sued for Quitting?

An anonymous reader asks: "I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor. I had a great relationship with my employer and wanted to leave on good terms, and I hadn't signed any non-compete or employment agreements . I felt my old company had just gotten too large and I didn't like working there anymore, so I gave them two weeks notice in writing. They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building. Has anybody ever heard of this happening? Do they have any legal basis for suing me?" It shouldn't have to be said that seeking professional legal representation, in such a situation, is the first thing one should do.

Comments

ianal

[Phil246]

But, gut feeling tells me that no they dont have a basis for suing you if you followed all the rules about giving them sufficient notice and all that.

Re:ianal

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no rules about giving them sufficient notice, that is bunk. I dont give notice when I quit because if I was fired my employer wouldnt give me two weeks notice that I was out of a job in two weeks. Its really not conducive to good office policy to give two weeks notice because it almost always leads to you being where youre not wanted for those two weeks. They dont trust you during those two weeks and youre just asking for a hard time. Just stop showing up, that's how to quit. Ive done this several times and still get good references.

Re:ianal

[knewter]

At my old company I gave them two weeks notice and then served as a contract employee for around four months just to help them close out the projects I was working on. I think anything else would have been kind of ass-ish of me. My goal is to avoid losing money for my employer, though it's not the primary goal. If they haven't been asses to you, don't be an ass to them. It's almost like it's as simple as living life.

Re:ianal

[$RANDOMLUSER]

...Just stop showing up, that's how to quit. Ive done this several times...
-- Anonymous Coward

Where's my "funny" mod points when I need them?

Re:ianal

[Propaganda13]

IANAL, so get one.

Employment laws can vary state to state.

This has to be the worst Ask Slashdot ever.

JUDGE: How does the defendant plead?
AC: A couple of guys from Slashdot said they don't have a case, so why do I have to plead?
JUDGE stares in disbelief while shaking his head and mumbling "It's going to be one of those days"

Re:ianal

[JustOK]

"Frist Ojbection, yer honner!"

Re:ianal

[v1]

I dont give notice when I quit because if I was fired my employer wouldnt give me two weeks notice that I was out of a job in two weeks.

I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off. He went into a long explanation of how telling an employee he's getting canned causes all sorts of security problems and low productivity etc etc, to which I pointed out I would give him as much notice as I thought he would give me.

I don't think he liked that, but he understood where I was coming from. Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit. Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit. That can only lead to this sort of behavior.

I hope this fellow gets a nice settlement from a countersuit, he deserves it.

Re:ianal

[osgeek]

If you say so, man.

I always try to leave a place on a somewhat positive note, not bitching and moaning the whole way out. I don't tend to join places where they're completely incompetent or assholes, so I show the colleagues I leave behind the respect that I think they deserve.

What goes around comes around, too. I've never had someone just walk out on me and leave their projects hanging. People who work for me and feel they need to go work elsewhere almost universally have done so without just ditching me. They usually give me a couple weeks to a month.

Treat people with respect and you tend to get respect. Treat people like shit and they tend to treat you like shit.

Re:ianal

[aborchers]

AC's Work History:

Wendy's
Taco Bell
KFC
McDonalds

Re:ianal

[XxtraLarGe]

"Where's my "funny" mod points when I need them?"

Better still, where's the "ironic" mod points? Aside from that, this is terrible advice. Why burn your bridges? Put in your two weeks notice, then during that time do your best for your current employer. That way if your current job does not work out, or you find yourself desiring to return, it would make it much easier for you, as your employer will remember what you did for them in your final days.

Re:ianal

[CastrTroy]

In Ontario, where I live, the law is that your employer must give you two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice when firing you without cause. Case law says they have to give you more than 2 weeks if you have been working for some certain amount of time. If there is cause for dismissal, they don't have to give you notice. On the other hand, when you leave your employer, you don't have to give them any notice. They also in return, don't have to give you a good reference. I'm not sure how contracts and all that other stuff fits in, but unless they have it in writing that you can't leave without X amount of notice, then you can leave whenever you please.

Re:ianal

[malfunct]

It seems like this will be a civil case in which case the person asking the question won't be pleading as that is something that is part of criminal proceedings.

Re:ianal

[Mr. Underbridge]

I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off. He went into a long explanation of how telling an employee he's getting canned causes all sorts of security problems and low productivity etc etc, to which I pointed out I would give him as much notice as I thought he would give me. I don't think he liked that, but he understood where I was coming from. Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit. Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit. That can only lead to this sort of behavior.

A decent company will solve that dilemma by giving you a decent severance package. This is especially true if you're simply laid off as opposed to being fired for Xeroxing your ass.

Re:ianal

[Oligonicella]

Damn right you're not a lawyer. That's stupid, stupid advice no one should listen to. Check out the laws in your state to figure out what to do.

Re:ianal

[fritz1968]

I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off.

For security purposes, I understand why a company would not want to give you notice of a lay off and instead say thanks for your service. However, a reputable company would give you at least two weeks severance pay... which is kind of like a two weeks notice, but better: You don't have to work for the company, they are paying you not to work, and you have two weeks (or more) pay to hunt down a new job.

Re:ianal

[russ1337]

Where I work we are required to give three months notice.

This leads to what I like to refer to as the 'abusive relationship situation'. This is where once an employee gives notice their life is made HELL until they are out. The abuse comes from peers and all levels of management. Peers think you are a traitor for leaving them with the workload and having to train up someone new, and management resent you for leaving, prolly 'cos they never had the guts to.

The situation is so bad that some employee's accumulate as much PTO (Paid time off) as they can, so they can submit their resignation and be on PTO up to their terminal date.

It is really sad that we don't celebrate our colleagues perusing their ventures, like we should.

Re:ianal

[rigau]

There are no rules about notice. In the US the standard rule is "at-will employment." This is somethign that employers have fought for because it allows them to fire people quickly. Of course this cuts the other way too. You can be fired at the will of the employer but the emplyee can leave at his wil too. The exception to this is when the parties negotiate a contract. For example unions usually negotiate that the company cannot fire union members at-will, there must be casue. Normally union contracts still let the union members quit when they want to (and look for a job whereever they want to). On the other hand coaches and players in sports teams get multi-year contracts that as a rule don't let them quit when they want to unless they retire. Anyway the important thing is that unless there is a contracgt between the employer and the employee all employment in the US is at-will (of both parties).

Re:ianal

[dmomo]

The last job I left, I gave three weeks for just that reason. It was a good company with great leadership. I was not black-spotted for those three weeks. I was an important resource. If you are respected and are leaving a place you respect, show some integrity and work with people. If you are leaving because you loath your job, please, be the bigger person. In the long run, it's your benefit.

Re:ianal

[pixelpusher220]

Frankly, if someone gives notice, you want them gone as soon as is possible. They've cut the relationship, and your work is no longer their top priority.

And frankly, even from a moral point of view do you want someone walking around talking about how much better a job they are moving too?

A policy that requires people to stay 3 months is idiotic and self-defeating. Granted their may be extenuating circumstances (hard to fill position, very arcane knowledge, etc) but a blanket rule like that isn't a great idea.

Re:ianal

[nomadic]

Hell, I'm an attorney and I would love to get this case (too bad it's in a different state). What this sounds like is a bunch of legally clueless management types got mad, and decided to take it out on this guy, using a court system they're ignorant about.

If I were his lawyer I'd countersue for malicious prosecution, tortious interference with business relationship, and hell maybe intentional infliction of emotional distress depending on the facts of the case. A lot of states also have attorneys' fees statutes for frivolous actions, so I'd ask for attorneys' fees too.

Unfortunately the company would probably fold after one letter to their corporate counsel, so whatever lawyer this guy gets likely wouldn't get the pleasure of bringing this to trial.

Re:ianal

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Usually companies give two week salary in lieu of two weeks of notice and get the employee off the premises immediately. They might also throw in some additional health care coverage and buy three months of service from job search service/placement service companies. Some take the laptop back and remove all source code and give it back for an extended period of time to the fired employee. Not all employers, but the good ones and the ones to build record of "good faith" in front of a jury incase the fired employee sues back.

Re:ianal

[mmarlett]

IANAL either, but this guy is (in Texas): http://www.brownemploymentlaw.com/non_competition. shtml

But, by firing you a week early, they've fired you. In Kansas, the state in which I've been fired a couple of times, I can tell you that you should at least file a claim with the unemployment office so that their unemployment insurance rates will go up.

And as for the two weeks notice ... it depends on the company you work for as to wether that was a good thing. As an employer, I certainly appreciate the notice and always have amicable relations with employees who are leaving. As an employee, I've never felt compelled to commit sabotage after giving my notice.

When I left my first real job, after six and a half years there I gave them four months notice. I wasn't sure where I was going or what I was going to do, but I knew I was leaving. So I told them. About two months short of that, I decided to start my own business in direct competition, so after sitting on that idea for a month, I told them. I was told that they were going to accept my resignation early. I told them, "Bullshit. You're firing me. If you think that I haven't had ample opportunity to mine whatever resources I'd want to steal, than you're an idiot. I've hated you for at least the last four years, and those conditions haven't changed. I'm leaving in one month unless you are firing me right now." And so I got fired. But it was stupid on their part, because even though they knew I was going they hadn't prepared for it and they nearly crippled themselves for a couple of weeks. Though, I suppose, there's no way to really prepare for a highly-trained employee to leave, and even if you have two weeks to hire someone the transition is never smooth.

Re:ianal

[budgenator]

My gut feeling are:
these guys really should have shown him the door when he first gave notice, for security reason,
then paid him for two weeks to avoid complicating the un-employement insurance,
Done it all nicely and thrown in a pleasant exit interview with coffee and donuts for good measure.

The Vice-President of Sales throwing him out the door, that in itself sounds hockey; I'd probably said something like "Sir, meaning no disrespect, but do you actually have the authority to fire people and remove them from the premises? That's pretty specialised and usually coordinated through HR, Legal and Security." I once had a boss that frequently fired me, sometimes several times a day. At first it bothered me, but after a while it got so he'd get pissed, come in and fire me and I'd get stand there with my arms crossed in front of my chest and look at him until he'd either get out of my face and let me work or actually ask for the keys to the building back.

Re:ianal

[nomadic]

BTW, the above is not intended to be legal advice.

Goddamn lawyers.

Re:ianal

[Bob-taro]

Just stop showing up, that's how to quit.

OTOH, if you gave notice then you wouldn't have to post as AC.

Re:ianal

[Ihlosi]

Frankly, if someone gives notice, you want them gone as soon as is possible. They've cut the relationship, and your work is no longer their top priority.

So, just because you don't have any work ethics, no one else should have any ?

What about temps ? Do you want them gone asap after hiring because they may be looking for their next job already ?

Re:ianal

[Phil the Canuck]

Actually, if you quit with less than two weeks notice in Ontario your employer is entitled to report your termination as a firing.

Re:ianal

[Anonymous Coward]

....and you're in Texas, which is a 'right-to-work' state. They're free to cut you loose for any reason whatsoever and you're free to quit for any reason (2 weeks notice is just gracious). Unless you have a written contract, you are in breach of nothing. (IANAL too but...) They have no basis for a lawsuit.

Another Tech guy in Texas.

Re:ianal

[MightyYar]

I think it really depends on the person and how professional they are. As one of the senior guys in the group I was in, I gave notice months in advance. I then worked really hard to finish up the projects that I was working on, and transition as much of my knowledge as possible over to other employees. Even over a year later, I still do contract work for them. I'm an engineer, and I expect engineers to behave like the professionals that they are supposed to be. If you work at Taco Bell, then yeah, notice probably isn't in anyone's best interest.

Even if I were purely motivated by self-interest, wouldn't I want a source of good references for the future? Why burn bridges?

Re:ianal

[RevDobbs]

Actually, it is the oposite: just because I have work ethics, I do not expect anyone else to.

When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.

When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.

But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work -- and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.

Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities: hey, if you do great work then I want you here. If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around? Even something as simple as a twisted ankle turns into an insurance claim and Workman Compensation issues; costs that I do not want to incure over someone who I know will not be working for me in 14 days.

Re:ianal

[kalirion]

This begs the question, who would sign such a contract? I've only worked in two companies since college, but both had a "you can leave without prior notice, and you can be fired without prior notice" clause in the employee contract. That seems the best way to do it.

Re:ianal

[geekoid]

Funnt thing about burning your bridges. I hind site, it occurs to me that the people I wanted to walk out on and 'burn the bridge' are people I would never want to work for again anyways.

Re:ianal

[runwolf]

... opposed to being fired for Xeroxing your ass
and breaking the copier glass top doing so, leaving blood trail all the way back to your desk.

That's got to be a good reason no !!!

Re:ianal

[NormalVisual]

When I leave somewhere, I almost always give two weeks' notice, but that's more for the benefit of my co-workers as opposed to the company. At one job, I'd been there for approximately five weeks when the lead engineer quit with no notice and I was expected to pick up the ball and run with it - not fun.

Re:ianal

[sjwaste]

Much of the time, these aren't contracts per se, but are requirements for at-will employment to keep your references, cash out your excess vacation days, etc. If you leave w/o sufficient notice at many places, you forfeit the PTO. That IS perfectly legal, an employer can basically do what they want with their leave policy.

Re:ianal

[blackcoot]

surely if he's employed "at will" (as is the case in many states), then this all becomes that much more surreal?

Re:ianal

[FuzzyDaddy]

But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work

I've quit three times, and given three weeks notice each time. Each time I spent the first week tying up loose ends, and the second week not doing much. (In fact, on monday of the last week at a big office, my boss told me "Don't do anything important".)

Now, each time I've moved to a new job that was in a substantially different field than the one before, so there was little danger of either taking secrets or other employees with me. I feel like it worked out pretty well both for me (I got a chance to say goodbye to everyone I wanted to personally) and the company (they knew I wasn't leaving anything unfinished).

Coincidentally, we've got a guy here who's last day is today (he gave notice weeks and weeks ago, he's rather senior). He's still working, which makes me very nervous, because it shows it's going to be a big scramble when he goes. I feel a week's salary is a small price to pay for the assurance the transition is going to be smooth.

Re:ianal

[mrbcs]

In Canada you have to either be given notice, (I think two weeks if you've worked there more than a year) or paid two weeks severeance if you're laid-off or fired without reason.

If you're a dink, they can fire you on the spot with no severence if they have proof.

Re:ianal

[Ihlosi]

But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work

Why not ? The ones who will slack off before leaving would be dumb if they told you about it.

and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.

In that case, you better hire a good hit man instead. Or how else do you want to keep them from talking to their colleagues outside of work ? Maybe they have their cellphone numbers, maybe they're even friends, maybe they even go out for a drink after work. Heck. Maybe they'll even us the internet in one form or another. Also, see above. The ones who do want really want to badmouth your company would be dumb if they gave any notice. They'll do what they want to do and then quit without notice.

Re:ianal

[pixelpusher220]

And the company is doing them a favor by giving them 100% of their time with pay. How is this anything other than a positive solution to both sides?

There are always individual cases, but if it's just a random person turning in notice, you don't want the risk that they will do something bad (even accidentally) when you have no more recourse over them.

Re:ianal

[mooingyak]

I left a job once that I hated, and though I wanted to burn the bridges and give them a big middle finger, I took the mature route. I did my two weeks, and helped to close out some of my projects and give some training on specific knowledge I had.

Two years later I found myself unemployed with a low bank account and a couple of mouths to feed. The job market was crappier then than it is right now. They took me back in. I have no doubt about what would have happened if I had acted like an asshole.

Re:ianal

[bfree]

Modded funny?
Surely this is the most insightful, informative AND interesting comment in slashdot history (ok, maybe this beauty from CmdrTaco)?
No pretense of freedom of expression for Lawyers in the U.S.A. I guess, I guess you could try and sue someone?

Re:ianal

[gumbi west]

Think about this function:

max(level of your professionalism, implied level of your professionalism based on how employer treats you).

How high can this be if you are required to give three months? My question is why take the job in the first place when you know they want to treat you like dirt?

Re:ianal

[sjwaste]

Suing for IIED is an interesting angle. On one hand, I think its tough to nail the "extreme and outrageous" element, given the case law on it. On the other, a judge might find it extreme and outrageous to sue an at-will employee for quitting, as I'd imagine its something courts do not want coming in front of them.

It would probably never get that far to be written into an opinion, though. I think the fired employee would win on summary judgment, and could possibly get Rule 11 sanctions if this case is as frivolous as I think it is (we of course do not know all of the client or employer facts, and also, I'm just a law student).

Re:ianal

[pixelpusher220]

Burning bridges is a bad idea, I agree. I didn't mean to imply anything about burning bridges.

Having people leave 'as soon as possible' might be a week, two, even months depending on the position and the outstanding issues. As your boss said 'don't do anything important', same concept.

Re:ianal

[kabocox]

This leads to what I like to refer to as the 'abusive relationship situation'. This is where once an employee gives notice their life is made HELL until they are out. The abuse comes from peers and all levels of management. Peers think you are a traitor for leaving them with the workload and having to train up someone new, and management resent you for leaving, prolly 'cos they never had the guts to.

That sounds like a place slashot would want to blacklist on working for. Personally, I'm of the opinion if I've got another job and another employeer, I'll give you an hour's notice and except you to pay me for all my untaken sick leave and vacation leave. If I was getting fired or laid off, I'd get no notice and escorted to the door. Why should you give them more than an hours notice? Give me one valid reason other than you think that what they have is enforcable against you. Take it to a lawyer and ask. I'll be you you can get out of that job in an hour if you want. Of course, the problem being is that you need to have a place to walk right into and you've burnt your bridge back. Of course, it sounds like its not a place that you'd like to go back, but that's just how its sounds from your very brief description. For a regular pay check making much more than min. wage, I'll put up with alot of crap at work as long as I only have to work 8-5 M-F at it stays just at work.

Re:ianal

[pla]

If you leave w/o sufficient notice at many places, you forfeit the PTO. That IS perfectly legal, an employer can basically do what they want with their leave policy.

Um, no.

If you have that as part of a contract, then yes, they can do (almost) anything you signed off on.

If "at will" and you have vacation hours (and sometimes even sick time) as part of your compensation, they damned well better pony up for it when you leave. And no, you don't need to give notice, sign anything at the exit interview, or the like. "At will" means "at will" - Either party can break off the relationship whenever the hell they want, but that doesn't excuse either side from fulfilling obligations that predate the parting of ways (though conveniently, such obligations almost always fall on the employer).

Re:ianal

[cayenne8]

"Where I work we are required to give three months notice."

Where do you work at (state in the US?) where you have to give notice at all, much less 3 mos.?

Don't get me wrong, I like to keep my relationships positive with jobs I've left in the past...I gave about 2 weeks and all went well. But, most states are "at will" work states...meaning the employers can let you go anytime for any reason, without prior notice. You as the employee, can do the same.

I guess I'm asking if you could elaborate on your statement...what/who 'requires' you to give 3 mos notice and what are the penalties occured if you do not??

Re:ianal

[maxwell demon]

And the first witness is an Anonymous Coward ...

But the good thing is that if you don't like the outcome, you just moderate it down until nobody sees it any more.

Re:ianal

[nomadic]

Like I said it would depend on the facts of the situation. I remember when I was interning on personal injury defense, everyone threw emotional distress counts into their complaints, either intentional or negligent (or both sometimes). If it was iffy I wouldn't put it in, just because you don't want to make your other counts look shakier by association, but if this guy suffered then I could definitely see an argument for it.

Absent a violation of a Federal labor law, which unless there was discrimination that the poster hasn't told us about, it would most likely be handled in state court, and I'm not sure if Texas has a Rule 11 equivalent. I think most states have one though, either in their rules of procedure or somewhere in their statutes.

Re:ianal

[drasfr]

It isn't because someone is not professional that you should act professional.

I hated the guts of my ex-boss when I left a job a year and a half ago. It was for a big company, I was a Manager there. It was toward the end of a project for which I was managing the infrastructure part, I gave 6 weeks notice so I could make sure the project was done on my side and everybody trained to take over from me.

I left with a great reputation. Reputation and work ethic is one of your best asset if you want to build a name and career for yourself. Business world is a small world, your reputation preceeds you and you often run into the same people even in different jobs.

oh, and I left that job with pride AND a smile! Because my part of the project even though I left was the ONLY part that was finished ON TIME and under budget. My boss' part was late and his ass got fired! My reputation is intact & great, his, well...

Re:ianal

[RoloDMonkey]

I know this.parent was modded as funny, and I hope that is how the poster intended it. That said, there are employers who do care.

One time I was laid off by a cafe that was closing. The owner gave me two weeks severance despite the fact that I was working under a normal "at will" contract.

Another time I was "let go" because it had become obvious that my skills didn't match what the employer needed. Again, I was working "at will" and he could have just booted me out the door. Instead he delayed the actual date so that he would pay accumulated vacation time and set up my COBRA eligibility, and also gave me two weeks severance.

I think it made a difference that these were both small companies, where the owner could make that decision. I guess it depends on who you work for.

Re:ianal

[davper]

Exactly, how can they sue you for quitting when they fired you a week before your termination date. Unless you signed an aggreement, they can't sue you. Some managemnet guy is pissed because he will now have to do the work you did that he passed off as his own. Petty I have an agreement that says I have to give 30 days notice. But on the otherhand, I get 4 months of severence if I am ever terminated without cause. I can see being sued here if I refused to give 30 days.

Re:ianal

[Greyfox]

Too bad you can't sue someone for being completely retarded. I guess our economy would grind to a halt. It'd be quite amusing to throw that in at the end of a long list of other stuff in your counter suit but I guess the judge would view that as being unprofessional.

Re:ianal

[nuclearspike]

>> I dont give notice when I quit

All I can think is that your job must not be that important and/or that you weren't that committed to it. If you are able to quit and just stop coming without messing up the projects you were a part of, you weren't really that integral and are apparently easily replaceable.

>> They dont trust you during those two weeks and youre just asking for a hard time

You must not have a good reputation with the company. If people are not trusting you during the 2 weeks, then you didn't really have much of a good relationship with them.

If you are parting on good terms, you should be working with people to close up any holes, document what is left open and capture any knowledge you had that can help them out. If you're showing yourself as wanting to make sure they aren't left high and dry without you, they will trust you... and the recommendations will be even better.

Re:ianal

[CharlieG]

Been there - done that. Gave notice on a project that was ending - worked a LOT of OT those last 2 weeks, finishing the project and documenting/handing off the project. They appreciated that. Less than a year later, I was back working for the same company, in a higher position. They remembered what I did, and it worked out. I've also worked for a company that when you gave notice - you were escorted from the building - THEY packed your desk for you. You also got paid for those 2 weeks. It was company policy, and it was documented in writing. No big deal is you know. You end up packing most of your stuff BEFORE giving notice

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

Peers think you are a traitor for leaving them with the workload and having to train up someone new, and management resent you for leaving, prolly 'cos they never had the guts to.

This seems really weird to me. People leave jobs for all sorts of reasons. If someone leaving the company gets everyone else this upset, there has to be something else going on here. This is an unusual office dynamic that I don't think is very representative.

Re:ianal

[cayenne8]

"...they are only legally allowed to communicate basic questions and answers such as "did he work here?", "how long did he work here?" and "what was his position when he worked here?".

Legally, yes, I do believe this is the case.

Realistically? Often, if not in explicit terms, more detail will be given about you, especially if you burned bridges. That this happens, is pretty hard to prove, unless you somehow plan and plot to set them up with a tapped phone.....and most people don't go that far.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

It's not necessarily about returning to work. Maybe you worked on a project there that, 5 years later, is experience someone is interested in hiring you for. They ask you for a reference. If you pissed off the guys you worked for when you earned that experience, you're not going to get a glowing reference.

Re:ianal

[RevDobbs]

As I wrote, that is what I usually do; there are always exceptions.

(In fact, on monday of the last week at a big office, my boss told me "Don't do anything important".)

That proves my point -- why would I want you there? So you can surf the web, and maybe (accidentally) introduce some kind of malware into the network? So you can -- again, accidentally -- fall asleep at your desk, fall on the floor, and break your arm? Your boss acknowledged that for the last week you were useless; the smart thing to do would have been to send you home. And at least I would have paid you...

each time I've moved to a new job that was in a substantially different field than the one before, so there was little danger of either taking secrets or other employees with me.

There is a lot of incest in the local job market -- anyone who leaves would almost be expected to take some underlings and accounts with them. That is why -- again, generally -- I must get people out of the office as soon as I know they have another job.

But this whole tangent is a bit off-topic. I would never sue someone for quiting -- and I highly doubt that the Submitter's former employer will have a case.

Re:ianal

[rabel]

Texas has Rule 11 agreements and is definitely an at-will state.

Re:ianal

[PreviouslySeen]

"Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit"

Interestingly, there are some studies where company that take a risk and "give" to their employees wind up "getting" in return and realize a higher profitibility.
http://www.keepingthepeople.com/_articles/employer s_of_choice.pdf

The issue seems to be that those with the personality required to take that risk do not often wind up in the necessary decision making roles.

Re:ianal

[acro55]

I believe Texas it an at will employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will state. This basically means that your employer can fire you for no reason and you can leave for no reason. The only exceptions occur where there are contracts between the two parties. Even if you didn't sign any contract, did you give a verbal commitment to work for them for a period of time? Those can be enforced. From your brief description, in my opinion, their case seems pretty weak.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

Wow, an abrasive AC that didn't understand the parent post. I'm shocked.

He isn't saying that he's doing the equivalent of firing someone after they give their notice. He's letting the person go home and is paying them for the two weeks. This is very standard practice among companies and benefits BOTH sides. The employee isn't in the office POSSIBLY giving sub-standard work, affecting morale, or remaining a liability for their last two weeks of work. If the employee is evil, they're now deprived of the opportunity of causing problems.

Absolutely, two weeks notice is a courtesy. And employers appreciate that. But not all employers have a need to utilize the employee for those two weeks, and if you can get by without them, it is in your best interests to do so.

Re:ianal

[GBC]

You're a lawyer, you insensitive clod!

Re:ianal

[FatAlb3rt]

2 thoughts -
    - I believe Texas is an "at-will" state. I might have the wrong term, but it basically means that you can quit/be fired without notice, although for the sake of not burning bridges, he did the right thing with giving notice.
    - I think he's only fired if he didn't get paid through the 2nd week. Some employers might tell the person to stay home the last 2 weeks if they consider the person a risk to their assets. ??

Re:ianal

[UncleTogie]

Texas is an "at-will" employment state. If you didn't sign any secrecy, non-disclosure or non-competition contracts, then you can quit any darn time you want by law.

The flip side to this is that you can be canned for darn near anything. There's a decent write-up on this here.

Re:ianal

[Firethorn]

It depends on your contract, state laws, etc...

Two weeks is the general standard, though many companies will simply pay you the two weeks of pay and kick you out the door. In their mind it's safer than any damage you might cause in those two weeks against lowered production.

In this case it could be argued that the employee entered into a contract(verbal?) to work out the last two weeks. Working only one week would violate the contract. Then the question would become, what's the appropriate penalty? Worst case I can see is the employee having to pay any additional expense for hiring a temp worker for a week. The hiring company shouldn't be involved at all, and are likely only being sued because they're involved and the sueing company is hoping something will stick.

I've pretty much lived only in right to work states where the company wouldn't have a leg to stand on, unless they specified something special in the hiring contract. Under state law, the employee and employer can terminate the hiring agreement at any time and for any reason. So the anybody giving two weeks is being nice. I've given less than two weeks notice twice. Once was a case of management change, the new management was such an annoyance that one worker quit over lunch, and I gave 3 days notice(and that was all I could stand). The second was very similar to this case. I was hired, given a starting date, then they called up and asked if I could come early.

Re:ianal

[Brickwall]

What kind of a dick are you? I handed in my four weeks notice last week, and everyone around me is supportive of my decision. I told my boss that I wanted time to make an orderly transition, and he agreed. I have developed a lot of specialised programs, and I want to make sure they can be supported after I have gone. Everyone is on good terms, and I am trying my best to document all my programs and make sure everything works well before I go. I don't hate the people I work with; I like them, but there's no career path for me here. They understand that, and are happy that I am taking a step forward. I'm not negative about the company or the people; I wish them all the best, and they feel the same about me. Just because you give up on a company doesn't mean everybody does.

How the heck the previous comment got modded "insightful" is beyond me. "Petty" or "small minded" would be better choices.

Re:ianal

[darthnoodles]

I can't remember where, but I've read somewhere that glass on copiers are thicker now because people keep breaking them by sitting on them.

Also, calls for broken glass go up around the holidays when more people are trying to photocopy their ass at an office Christmas party.

Re:ianal

[ic3scrap3r]

Under the Doctrine of Employment at Will and in the absence of an explicit or implied employment contract that indicates otherwise, your employee rights entitle you to quit your job at anytime for any or no reason and without giving advanced notice. That said, I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.......

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

It depends on the business and the individual. It's about managing costs (risks) and benefits. If the business can get by fine without the employee, you might be better off letting them go home after they give their notice. If you need to continue to use them for a few days, or a week, or the full two weeks, and it's worth the risks, then it's perfectly appropriate to do so.

Some large companies make it a policy to release people as soon as they give notice, maybe because large companies are less personal and are at a greater risk of having people leave on bad terms. Others may not. It depends on how you want to run your business. There are good reasons in either direction and a good manager balances those with the needs of the business.

Re:ianal

[TheWizardOfCheese]

What this sounds like is a bunch of legally clueless management types got mad

Legally clueless is understandable, but these managers seem to be managerially clueless as well. Many posters have prosed on about the importance of "not burning your bridges." That is good advice to employees but it applies just as well to companies.

What exactly are the potential benefits of this action to the employer? By threatening a lawsuit, rather than a pay raise and a promotion, they abandon all hope of retaining the employee. Some might argue that they will benefit by intimidating their remaining employees, but the contrary effect of alienation seems more likely. Certainly, the effect on potential new hires will be unfortunate.

Re:ianal

[Antifuse]

I've never worked for an employer in Ontario who didn't specifically have a "You must give at least 2 weeks notice when leaving" clause in the employment contract. Whether or not that's actually legal, I couldn't say, but I always gave that much notice, at least (I gave 3 months notice when I left my last job, because I liked them so much and knew how much trouble they'd had finding new hires in the past).

Re:ianal

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws in Texas in this area are particularly onerous. It's not uncommon for the new employer to be sued by the old under the theory of theft of trade secrets, and the Texas courts are notorious for entertaining just about any cause of action, no matter how bogus. What's unfair is that the employee can rarely afford the defense of such an action, and the new employer doesn't want to. We're involved in five lawsuits in Texas now.

Re:ianal

[russ1337]

http://tinyurl.com/yteu6x

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

Why wouldn't it be legal? If you contract with your employer, and that's in your contract, it doesn't seem unreasonable if both sides agree to it. Of course, just because you have a contract doesn't necessarily mean you're REQUIRED to honor it. You have the right to breach a contract. Just pay attention to the penalties described the contract and the economic harm you might cause your employer by doing it (which they could come after you for).

Re:ianal

[DesertBlade]

I believe that may be legal. 43 states have At-Will employment. It allows an employee to quit for no reason. UNLESS, you are under contract. If you are under contract they can't fire you and you can't leave untill the contract is up. IMHO it sounds like a crappy place to work and I am sure you can 'stick it to the man' if you tried to leave. Check you state labor laws and most states even have hot lines to call.

Re:ianal

[DesertBlade]

Of course after I post I read this. From Wikipedia, "In the United States, the standard employment contract is considered to be at-will meaning that the employer and employee are both free to terminate the employment at any time and for any cause, or for no cause at all."

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

Not all paid time off is in the form of vacation. Where I work, we have vacation days (that they're obligated to compensate you for if you leave before you take them), and "personal days", which are just company-granted paid time off as you need to use them. You are not normally compensated for the latter if you fail to take them.

Re:ianal

[sgholt]

It is BS...there is no way they can sue you. In fact if your new employer was contacted by them, I think you will have a very viable case against your former employer. I would return the threat and see their reaction.
Even if had signed a "non-competition" clause, I was told by my attorney that those are basically worthless, especially in Texas.
The last time I put in my 2 week notice I was escorted out the next day...so agree, it your gonna quit, don't give notice till YOU are ready to leave.

Re:ianal

[bryanthompson]

That's exactly what just happened to me. I left on good terms, stayed on their payroll as an hourly 'consultant' and 2 years later am going back for a much better position.

Re:ianal

[FuzzyDaddy]

Your policy, given your circumstances, sounds like a good one, and paying out the week is a very decent thing to do. The nature of the work and the competition clearly indicate what the best policy might be. (One of the places I left, someone else had quit a few months earlier, and was escorted off the premises for essentially trying to recruit).

The key is openness. Has anyone ever been upset because they gave you two weeks notice (perhaps planning to start their new job in two weeks), and ended up only getting one week of salary?

But this whole tangent is a bit off-topic. I would never sue someone for quiting -- and I highly doubt that the Submitter's former employer will have a case.

Agreed on both points.

Re:ianal

[neimon]

If the position is so hard to fill, then maybe they should try to actually KEEP people. Or maybe they should hire enough people to cross train, so they aren't screwed, and so employees aren't as pressured that they're the only ones who know this.

Nah. Then it wouldn't be an esoteric lesson in "free markets" that allow employers to enslave employees.

Re:ianal

[MyDixieWrecked]

A couple employers ago, I gave 4 weeks notice. They used to lay me off (I'd work 1 day a week, off the books) in the summer because it was slow and I'd always have to find part-time work or live off of savings. The problem with that summer was that I had no savings and the alternate job I found payed me significantly more (about 25% more), had more possibilities for growth, and was only available full-time. This was at the end of june (after I'd been laid off for 2 weeks) and didn't want me to start for a month, so I gave 4 weeks notice.

So, not only did they deny me my unemployment for those 6 weeks, they treated me like shit for the next 2 weeks, so I just stopped coming in. They justified being asses by figuring that since I was laid off and only working 1 day a week, I had really only given them 4 days notice. I said I was willing to work more hours to train someone for that month, but they didn't want to pay someone else or pay me for more than 1 day a week for the summer.

After I was gone, they wound up hiring 4 people to replace me, each one paid about 1/2 of what I was making and each one fresh out of highschool. Once business got busy, I heard from a friend that worked there that 2 of the kids they hired were making about 200$ worth of mistakes a day and they were losing customers left and right.

So, if your employers don't understand how to run a business, and like to treat people like shit, giving notice just causes more problems than it's worth.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

I'm surprised you'd offer that advice with no knowledge of the details of the case. On its face, this guy's story sounds unbelievable, but that's often because there's more to the story. It could be that they're "legally clueless", but we don't know that.

Re:ianal

[springbox]

You don't sound like a very nice person to work for. It's courteous to give notice in advance rather than either not showing up one day leaving everyone wondering where you disappeared to, or saying you're done then walking out without any time to train a new person or to finish up any projects that you might be working on. There are some idiots out there, but personally, as long as I'm still employed by someone, I'll put all of my effort into completing whatever was assigned to me.

Re:ianal

[aborchers]

Of course they do, but I doubt very many people in those positions walk out without giving notice.

Re:ianal

[fwarren]

Hey, I was nice, I gave two weeks notice at a job where the training program is a week long for a replacement. So that would be one week to find a replacement and one week to train them. They ASKED me to stay.

So I did, and I gave it my all during those two weeks. I could of started working my new job the day I left, I put it off two weeks for them out of kindness to help them out. I had a good manager. He appreciated my work, he trusted that my work would not suffer during those two weeks and he appreciated that I helped him out of a bind.

I don't know what type of work force you manage, but I find it sad either that a) truthfully, the job you offer is so bad, that anyone who has given notice, would "mentally check out" once they see the light of day or b) that you have such a dim view of people.

However, I do have to say, paying for the rest of the week, is just plain decent of you.

Re:ianal

[xsecrets]

Where do you live? I cannot believe that the laws of any state allow for this unless you are outside of the US. So does your employer have to give you 3 months notice if they which to fire you or lay you off?

Re:ianal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a non-AC who didn't understand the parent post because it used four letter words (or derivatives of such) to get its point across.

If I give my notice and you tell me to go home immediately, you're telling me that you no longer trust me to be on your property. The only reason not to want me there is because you're afraid I might cause some sort of damage. (After all, even if I come in and spend the whole day surfing the web, it's not costing you any more than it is to pay me to sit at home and surf the web.) I don't know what companies you've worked for, but I've never seen this and I'd be highly insulted if it happened to me.

Re:ianal

[okkinnear]

Texas is a right to work state. If there are no contracts in place then there would not seem to be anything your old employer can do. Find a good labor lawyer if you have doubts. There are a couple of companies around that are famous for trying this as a scare tactic.

Re:ianal

[SpAcMuN]

Keep in mind that it's not about the employees who intentionally badmouth the company. More likely, you have someone in the office who is leaving, and everyone asks him/her why. A typical response may be "I found this great job over at XYZ Inc., and the pay is better, benefits are great, good work hours...etc." Of course, you're the manager and you can just feel the wheels turning in the minds of your own employees while their colleague preaches about how the grass is greener on the other side.

I'm not making these scenarios up, I've seen them happen. Basically the policies should be reasonable without being overly anal or overly naive. I also think the policy should reflect the workforce. If you're dealing with more professional, or mature employees, then you may want to treat them differently than employees just out of high school. However, it is a wise idea to use one policy across the board for all employees at a single company, so just keep your workforce in mind when designing the policy.

Re:ianal

[CastrTroy]

It's generally standard practice to give 2 weeks, but it's not required by law, I think most people just give two weeks because they think they have to, or they just don't want to leave a bad impression.

Re:ianal

[xero314]

dont give notice when I quit because if I was fired my employer wouldnt give me two weeks notice that I was out of a job in two weeks.

I have always treated employers with the same respect that I would hope to get from them. I think this has paid off since most of the recent lay offs or terminations have come with either significant notice (2 weeks or more) or fair severance pay. Heck I even worked at a company that let me go once and was the only person in history to receive severance from them. If I had an employee that just stopped showing up and got called about a reference I might say they were a good employee (assuming they actually were) but I would also be clear that they just stopped showing up one day without notice.

Re:ianal

[CastrTroy]

If they report it as a firing, then you are entitled to EI. All the better for the employee. They don't usually give you EI if you quit. Unless you have good reasons such as excessive stress for leaving. I don't see how it would be a disadvantage to be fired, when if you're leaving on that short notice, you're probably not expecting a good reference. I don't see a problem, unless future employers can look at your record of employment, not sure if they can, and if they can, not sure if many do.

Re:ianal

[tapehands]

I know I'm completely taking what you said out of its context, but I work at the top tier of customer tech support for a cable company. This particular division's cable company decided to use temps for the customer service department to meet the call volume.

I think i can speak for anyone that gets a call one of these temps* have touched by saying that we hope these temps are quickly moved on to smaller, and more stressful jobs.

Honestly...when tech support starts getting billing calls, we can only surmise that these people are saying, "Thank you for calling, how may I direct your call?", then mashing buttons on their phone to get it transfered.


*To be fair, not all of their transfers are stupid...just the majority of the time. And it's not like they receive any actual training, but that's another rant for another time.

Re:ianal

[Jasonnnn]

Where I work we are required to give three months notice. If you break that rule, what do they do? Fire you?

Re:ianal

[metamatic]

Personally, I give notice, and time it so that the notice period is just enough time to finish things up cleanly and not end up sitting around doing nothing. If you don't want me to do that, and would rather scrabble around trying to clean up the mess caused by my sudden departure, that's your choice as employer.

Re:ianal

[number11]

If the period of notice is less than 3 months, the expiry of the period of 3 months commencing with the day on which the notice is given or on such earlier date as the Chief of Defence Force may [from time to time prescribe

Ah, but that's the army. We're talking about civilian jobs.

In the USA you're not allowed to quit your army job. They can throw you in prison or shoot you for that. We cut a little more slack for civilians, though.

Re:ianal

[Zordak]

Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish is a loser in Texas. After Boyles v. Kerr, we don't recognize NIED at all (Probably not familiar with the case, but you may have heard of the story---college guy films himself and his girlfriend doing it ca. 1993 then passes the tape around. She sues for NIED because she wants to go after his insurance policy. Texas Supreme Court says there's no such claim in Texas). IIED is also all but dead---Texas recognizes it only when there is extreme and outrageous conduct AND there is no other cause of action at all anywhere. If you have so much as a copyright claim that will get you $750 in statutory damages, you don't get IIED.

Basically, Texas doesn't like plaintiffs. We have some of the most draconian "tort reform" laws to be found. That said, we are an "at-will" employment state. If you don't have a contract, either side can terminate the employment at any time for any reason except an illegal reason. And we still have some good consumer-protection laws left over from the 70s when we LOVED plaintiffs. And we don't like frivolous lawsuits. I try to avoid torts, but I know we have abuse of process provisions. I'd say if they actually file suit, this guy has some remedies. If they don't file suit, you may have an IIED claim, but it's an uphill battle.

NOTE: I AM NOT A LAWYER---JUST A LAW STUDENT. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. THIS POST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE TO YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED ON. ALSO, I DO PATENTS, NOT TORTS AND/OR EMPLOYMENT, SO ASSUME I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Re:ianal

[pixelpusher220]

read my other posts on this thread. I'm not saying axe-murder anyone who turns in notice. Just that once that notice is given, the priorities for that person are no longer the same as they were. As a *general* rule, if someone's priorities aren't the same as my own, I look to replace them. Given a known working relationship, and the trust built up with that, obviously this varies widely. Some people you can hand the keys to your car and know it will be returned safely, others you know to look for bodies in the trunk ;-) It's all in the amount of risk you want to assume

I wouldn't send someone who turned in notice to a training class, would you? You'd get nothing back tangible back for your investment besides the good will they'd probably have. Is that worth it? Maybe, but I'd gather most people wouldn't send them to the class.

Re:ianal

[MightyYar]

Well, labor and employment law is complicated, but fortunately my wife used to practice it. :) Basically, a contract cannot restrict you from making a living. If you are a real estate agent, and you sign an employment contract that keeps you from working for a competing real estate agency within some geographic area, that contract is not enforcible - it is restricting you from making a living. In general, the lower you are on the totem pole, the more sympathetic the courts will be. I think in layman's terms (which is all that I understand), an employment contract is not all that strong because you really don't have much of a bargaining position - especially if you are in an entry level position. Contracts are not supposed to valid if signed under duress.

Re:ianal

[Theaetetus]

When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.

I take it you don't have anyone with specialized knowledge...

I'm planning on leaving my job in about a year (starting school), and I know that the amount of specialized knowledge I have would make me nearly impossible to replace within a short time frame. As a result, I'm going to give a month notice for them, and also start pouring out every bit of relevant knowledge into a comprehensive handbook for my eventual successor. It will probably take most of that month to write, but it will buy them years of productivity.

Re:ianal

[tverbeek]

You're right that giving notice is not legally required. But it's usually a smart thing to do.

See, not everyone quits their job out of spite. Last time, I simply found something I liked a lot better. Giving two weeks' notice allowed me time to explain to my co-workers (many of whom I liked) what projects they were going to have to take over, and gave my boss (whom I didn't hate) a little bit of a head start on finding a replacement for me. As for them not trusting me, on my last day I was asked to close up for the weekend and leave the keys on my boss' desk. And a year later, when my new employer assigned me to work on a joint project with the old employer, things went very smoothly. Just an example of how these sorts of things can be civilized and amicable, and basic courtesy can be a good idea. Maybe you can quit your way and get "good" references ("Yes, he was qualified and performed his duties well."), but when I quit I get great references.

Re:ianal

[nomadic]

Well like I said, not my state, so I'll take your word for it. IIED is always a hard sell, but sometimes you throw it in just to intimidate the other side and make them work a little harder.

As for Texas I have heard that, whatever the law is, certain districts are notorious for pro-plaintiff juries.

Re:ianal

[naoursla]

How are they able to "require" three months notice?

Re:ianal

[BytePusher]

What if that employee fills a role that no one in the office has skills to fill? It seems you can treat low-skill uncritical employees that way, but for highly skilled highly specialized employees I think it's a bad policy to treat them so poorly. If they are professionals they will do their job and help you transition in a replacement. I'd like to know what your business does where you can afford to treat professionals in such a manner.

Re:ianal

[D-Cypell]

Realistically? Often, if not in explicit terms, more detail will be given about you, especially if you burned bridges. That this happens, is pretty hard to prove, unless you somehow plan and plot to set them up with a tapped phone.....and most people don't go that far.

No, but I know many people who have had friends or relatives call their previous employers for a reference to hear what was being said. This happens quite a bit.

Re:ianal

[Darby]

In fact, on monday of the last week at a big office, my boss told me "Don't do anything important".

If everyone invloved has a sense of humor that would have been the time to say, "Well, I'm sure not going to start now".

Coincidentally, we've got a guy here who's last day is today (he gave notice weeks and weeks ago, he's rather senior). He's still working, which makes me very nervous, because it shows it's going to be a big scramble when he goes. I feel a week's salary is a small price to pay for the assurance the transition is going to be smooth.

Depending on how important his job is it's easily worth a week's pay *per day* to get him to stay until everybody's happy.

Re:ianal

[tverbeek]

If you feel you can't trust them after they give notice, how can you trust them the day before? The only thing that's changed is that the you no longer have the threat of termination to use against them. If that's the only basis you have for "trusting" them, you've got bigger problems with your business management than employees who've given notice.

Re:ianal

[Rogue974]

Required to give 3 months notice? How do they enforce that? As mentioned previously, terms of employeement, unless there is a contract, are at will from either side. They can't require you to do anything. If you do something they do not like (as long as it is legal), they can "discipline" you with your record, make you do things, blah blah, but if you refuse to comply, the only thing they can really do is fire you. If you don't give three months notice, what will they do, fire you? The only real option they have is fire you or hold a carrot under your nose for the 3 months notice. At my last company, you acrued vacation for the year as of Jan. 1 of that year, so if you got 4 weeks vacation in that year, you could take January off and quit on Feb 1. They "required" you to give two weeks notice to get your vacation pay. I quit there and my last day was Jan. 20. I had acruued my 4 weeks of vacation. I gave proper 2 weeks notice and they gave me a check on the way out the door for 4 weeks of accrued vacation. If I had not given proper notice, they would have withheld that money. They can't make you give any notice or do anything that is legal (and quiting is legal unless you are breaching a contract, then it is breach of contract law) without saying, give 3 months notice or we won't give you X and you forfiet that. I am curious, how did they enforce the 3 months notice thing because unless it was like my old company where it was give 2 weeks notice or forfiet vacation pay that is due you or have you sign a contract saying you will give 3 months notice, they can't make you do anything, give 3 months, they treat you liek that, walk out and don't come back. If they made you sign a contract stating you will give 3 months notice, well, that is bad and if I wasn't extremely desperate for a job, I would not go work for a company that required me ot sign a contract like that.

Re:ianal

[rk]

Wow, I suppose if you don't want me transitioning what I'm working on to other people and just want me out the door, that's your watch, but I'm going to be a lot less receptive to any phone calls or emails later asking what the ramifications are if we change A or move B to this fancy new server.

I don't care how well you document everything, use pair programming, or whatever you think keeps you running a tight ship, someone somewhere down the road is going to need a little boost where a quick email or three minute phone call to me could save them a day or more of work if I had been doing anything of real consequence for your organization. Do you really get so many worker's comp claims from people about to leave? You're nice enough to pay me still...I want to stick around to help you!

Let me know where you have hiring authority... I'll make sure we both save each other lots of hassle and I'll just not apply there. We're obviously completely incompatible in an employer-employee relationship. :-)

Re:ianal

[Mr. Underbridge]

This doesn't change the inequity, however -- most companies want 2 (or more) weeks notice from you regardless of *your* reason for terminating the relationship.

There are reasonable exceptions on both sides. Like I might *expect* 2 weeks severance if I get fired for Xeroxing my ass, but I ain't gonna get it. Similarly, they might *expect* 2 weeks notice if they decide to change my job to envelope stuffing, but they wouldn't get it.

So, at the risk of really beating the dead horse on this point, I say: Fire someone with 30 seconds' notice if you must, but remember that human beings and not just corporations must act out of necessity, expediency, and self-interest. To expect the former to make concessions for the latter without expecting the reverse is just short-sighted.

And I think good companies get that concept. Though it's probably a sticky subject to ask about severance in a job interview, but it probably is a pretty good gauge of how a company treats its people.

Re:ianal

[Caffeinate]

"My first witness . . . Natalie Portman!"

Re:ianal

[pixelpusher220]

did you even read to the end of my post? I specifically called out special cases where there is critical knowledge only the employee has or you know it's going to be a hard position to fill.

I also simply said a blanket policy is usually a bad idea, especially a 3 *month* notice giving requirement.

and I work in the IT field which has it's own wonderful variations of this situation ;-)

Re:ianal

[Zordak]

As for Texas I have heard that, whatever the law is, certain districts are notorious for pro-plaintiff juries.

Laredo, McAllen, Corpus Christi. Basically, the closer you get to the border, the lower the average education level and the higher the jury awards. State court juries there will award you $2M for a dislocated shoulder (true story). You can make out pretty well as long as the elected, all-Republican Texas Supreme Court doesn't grant cert. If they do, you're screwed. You also don't want to get removed to federal court and end up at the Fifth Circuit.

Re:ianal

[MysteriousPreacher]

When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.

When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.

But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work -- and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job. Hmm, straight from the book "10 Habits of Dickensian Workhouse Owners".

Some people will goof around once they've resigned but there are plenty who will continue to do their job well since they want to leave with a decent reference. No point in blowing 2 years of exception service just so you can hang around the coffee machines for two weeks. Also, some people just have a decent work-ethic or they don't want to leave their colleagues in the lurch.

Shame to see good employees being punished simply for wanting a new job. If someone has been good and given two weeks notice (or even a month), they may end up going without pay for 1 or more weeks because they wanted to help you by allowing time to replace them.

If I knew my employee operated this way, I'm not exactly motivated to give 100%, even before my resignation.

Re:ianal

[josepha48]

There are no rules only if you were hired as an 'at will employee' and depending on state laws. In most cases you quit when you want to quit. The two week notice is usually more of a courtesy thing.

However... While you usually do not have to give any notice, you need to read the employee manual and other company documents. Even if you did not sign something there could still be things in the company policies that could hold up in court. Doubtful, but these days anything is possible in court. It may be that the employee manual says something about a 2 weeks notice and the employeer being able to withhold pay, etc. Usually that is dependant on if you leave on good terms. I think it is bunk too. I quit my last company and I now do contracting for them and charge them alot and do very little :D

Re:ianal

[iamhassi]

I'm not an attorney and I would have given him the same advice. What shocks me is they came to this conclusion after a whole week of (supposedly) thinking about it:
"...I gave them two weeks notice in writing. They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving"

I could almost seeing some little immature manager getting pissy and going "waaaa, we're gonna sue you!" when you handed him the 2 week notice, but to sit down and think about it for a week and then the V.P. of Sales threatens a lawsuit? Trying to sue a employee for leaving seems so asinine to verge on colossal stupidity, just hearing that completely explains why you quit working there if management is that incredibly foolish.

But I really, really want them to sue you. If I was you I would have waited until getting the lawsuit papers before posting on slashdot. I know you're scared hearing that and what-not, but man would that be the butt of every Jay Leno joke for a week straight or what? It writes itself:
"A man in texas notified his job he was quitting and the company is suing... yes, suing... him for quitting his job. In other news McDonald's filed a lawsuit for a million billion dollars against everyone."

.... ok that wasn't funny but you get the idea. It'd be on every news program and every news paper and you'd get your 15 minutes of fame and they'd look like the asshole company of the year like Enron did.

Hey has anyone tried logging in as "guest" on their live chat and asking them while they're doing this? No? Well I am, gonna have a little fun with them ;)
[11:11:55] Christina D : Hello slashdot how may I help you?
[11:12:43] slashdot : heard you guys are suing a employee that quit
[11:12:46] slashdot : why?
[11:12:57] slashdot : are you guys in prison?
[11:13:01] Christina D : We are awear of the issue and we have no comment

Re:ianal

[Ihlosi]

A typical response may be "I found this great job over at XYZ Inc., and the pay is better, benefits are great, good work hours...etc."

Welcome to a free market economy (the job market) with informed customers. If the above is causing problems for a company, then maybe the company has a problem with paying the market price its labor needs and needs to review its wage/salary system instead of making a futile attempt at keeping its employees dumb.

Funny how everyone likes a free market until that means paying the actual market price for a certain item.

Re:ianal

[flibuste]

They dont trust you during those two weeks and youre just asking for a hard time. Just stop showing up, that's how to quit. Ive done this several times and still get good references

Maybe that worked for you, but for the majority of people, it's plain wrong and dangerous.

Not showing up is the best way to attract troubles when you quit. Unless there is a written agreement with your employer that you are not required to work during your 2 weeks notice, it is business as usual, or troubles for certain.

As for the poster, in Canada, non-compete agreements are usually void because they break the law and are abusive. Few companies (definitely not ISPs or other companies that have no 'trade secret' as such) attempt to enforce them if you ever signed any (which you should always avoid). Showing up during the last two weeks and do the work you're still paid for is the best thing to do to stay out of troubles

There's very few information about the contract in that post, but at first glance, the employer is trying to spread FUD and has no background to stand any legal claim he could have. Unless the poster screwed up for other reasons.

Re:ianal

[pyite69]

In the business community, there is an interesting concept called "references".

It is important to leave on good terms with previous employers if at all possible. Traditionally, people expect 2 weeks notice. If you are able to find good employment without references from one of your last several jobs, then you are quite unusual.

It is unfortunate for this guy that his previous employers are total assholes - hopefully the bad publicity that they are getting on Slashdot will be some consolation.

Re:ianal

[Fordiman]

You're correct; the two weeks is just a courtesy you give if you want to ensure a set of good references.

As for being distrusted; I don't know about all that. Why would they trust you any less than when you were working there. 'Course, I'm very much a 'anything I can do to help' sort of guy, even in my exit time, so I guess that's why I never have that problem.

Re:ianal

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Frankly, if someone gives notice, you want them gone as soon as is possible. They've cut the relationship, and your work is no longer their top priority.

I get the feeling most people on Slashdot work in inhumane hellholes. We have people leave for other jobs all the time. Some of them announce they are going to move on years before they actually leave. Others leave for some reason, but end up doing contract work for us for a long time. When one of my co-workers announce he was going to Google, we didn't escort him out of the office that day. He fished up a project and wrote some extra docs. Guess what his first job at Google was... evaluating the product he used to develop to see if Google wanted to purchase it for use internally. Having a good relationship with him was very useful for a business perspective.

And frankly, even from a moral point of view do you want someone walking around talking about how much better a job they are moving too?

I assume you mean "morale point of view" not "moral?" It doesn't hurt to have people talk about their new jobs. People in technical fields tend to move around a lot. New challenges are always good and this is expected. They still refer friends to us they think are good fits, talk at their new job about how cool it was working for us (free beer in the fridge), and basically serve as walking advertisements. Some of them might come back some day even.

A policy that requires people to stay 3 months is idiotic and self-defeating.

On this I agree, although an immediate termination clause is also dumb. If you treat people well they usually behave as professionals. If I want to go I'll spend time training a few people in some things and adjusting a few processes to be easier, if not as efficient, and I'll talk it out with my boss and figure out what works for the company. Heck, they may well want to keep me enough to offer me incentives like a raise or a transfer to something different (sweet jeebus not management). It is sad that so many companies treat employees so badly then wonder why the employees do the same right back. If you treat your employees in a mercenary fashion, they will reciprocate. If you treat them well, with respect and as human beings, they will reciprocate that as well. American corporations are run by people in it for the short run, where they make short term profits then move on before the long term consequences take hold. Treating employees well is a long term investment, but one that pays off, if you are in it for the long haul.

Re:ianal

[ktappe]

Where I work we are required to give three months notice.

Please tell us in what state you work. If it is an "at will" state, then the law says you are not at all required to give 3 months notice. Very few employees will ever be able to do that anyway--if I am offered a job by another company, it is very unlikely they will be willing to wait 3 months for me to come there. They're hiring because they have work that needs to be done now, not 90 days from now.

Come to think of it, please tell us what company you work for so we can avoid ever applying for a job there. Seriously.

Re:ianal

[somethinghollow]

A decent company will solve that dilemma by giving you a decent severance package. This is especially true if you're simply laid off as opposed to being fired for Xeroxing your ass.

  When I got laid off at my last job (due to "lack of projects"), I got a bible tract and fond wishes. That was the worst severance package ever.

Re:ianal

[Llywelyn]

At my last gig if they had told me "you're out" the day I gave notice, they would have crashed and burned on their next deadline and had no one around who understood anything about the underpinnings of the software.

Instead I was tasked with writing documentation. On my way out the door I turned in a 33 page document and had helped guide people who would be taking over my work.

Your approach to "managing liabilities" assumes that keeping the person around is a higher risk than not being able to get anything from them ever again and burning your bridges with them.

Re:ianal

[rifter]

But, gut feeling tells me that no they dont have a basis for suing you if you followed all the rules about giving them sufficient notice and all that.

IANAL but Texas is a "right to work" state, which in part is an anti-union measure (the phrase "right to work" refers to one's right to work without haveing to join a compulsory union), but as part of that all employment is "at will." It does mean that an employer can fire you without having a reason but it also means you can quit at any time without a reason. The two weeks notice thing is just a common professional courtesy which usually, for reasons of NDA, etc, is rendered moot by the employer asking you to go ahead and leave anyhow.

If the poster signed a contract or something there might be some reason the employer thinks they can sue, but even then because of at-will employment (which apart from being the law is also usually included in contracts) there's probably not grounds.

Unless there is something the poster is not telling us (like technology that he was planning to transfer or is accused of trying to transfer in violation of an NDA, which is unlikely in the case of hosting companies) it doesn't look like the original company has a leg to stand on. However, unless a judge throws a case out right on its ears, you can sue anyone for anything as long as you're willing to pony up the cash. Judges are supposed to prevent completely frivolous cases from coming into court, but something like this might actually end up being heard just so the judge can decide what merit the arguments have. And as long as appeals are granted, the big hosting company can keep the case going on and on for years, and since they are suing two little fish (the small company and the poor IT guy) they can outlast their ability to pay legal fees as well, and effectively punish them for perfectly legal actions out of pure vindictiveness.

If I were running the small company I would be filing a pile of countersuits against these guys. In addition I think it would make sense for the small company and the IT guy to share lawyers, but it's up to the small company. It would be nice if we knew who the big hosting company was, because I sure as hell don't ever want to work for a com[pany like that, and I don't think anyone else would either.

Re:ianal

[ubuwalker31]

Well, they probably didn't have a leg to stand on at first, but now that you publicized the name of the business and the specific circumstances, you just opened yourself up to a potential lawsuit for business defamation. Sucks to be you dude.

Re:ianal

[Brad Eleven]

> Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities.

That's funny--I think that running a company is a matter of supporting one's customers and employees. IMHO, this assertion sums up what is presently broken in these United States.

I'll buy that managing liabilities has *become* more important than managing the business for many companies, thereby interfering with these companies' core business.

I assert that "liabilities" are inherently a product of perception, i.e., they are not real, only predicted.

> If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around?

Great question--with an embedded assumption. On what is this predicated? Observation? The zodiac? I mean, it's one thing if an employee says outright, "You can no longer count on me for..." It's quite another to make an assumption, and then to treat it as factual.

Of course, it's *your* company, and I would hope that you get to run it the way you want to run it, independent of this discussion, regulations, etc. I'm suggesting that your perceptions do not necessarily represent what's real--or what's possible.

Consider that you are fostering a culture of fear--fear of your opinion, since it looks like you terminate those who don't meet your expectations, independent of inquiry. If that's working for you, great. My observation is that your argument is the basis for the oft-reported complaint: "I can't find qualified people."

There is a way to take someone from non-performance to one of motivated productivity. It is, unfortunately, unavailable if your focus is on liability and looking for what's wrong.

Re:ianal

[cavemanf16]

Wow, the same AC who STILL doesn't understand the grand-parent post!

You idiot, he clearly explained that it's not a matter of ill will towards the employee, it's a mutual understanding that "hey, you don't want to work here anymore, I'll let you go your own way right now, with the pay that you were willing to take to finish up your obligations around here because I have a solid enough business that we CAN make do without you for a short time." How can you even begin to find this insulting??? That's free FUCKING money, you FUCKTARD! Now you're potentially able to start at your new job 2 weeks early than anticipated, get paid for it, and you're BETTER OFF than if you had been required to stick around at your old employer. You don't want to work there anymore, REMEMBER?!?!

Idiot! (Or troll or flamer, I can't quite tell which it is)

Re:ianal

[ktappe]

you just opened yourself up to a potential lawsuit for business defamation

1. I don't actually recall him mentioning the exact name of his employer, so nobody has specifically been defamed.

2. If they actually do sue him, then it is completely within his rights to publish those filings as they are a matter of public record. Defamation is something that is opinion and/or unprovable. Here he could easily prove that they filed and therefore the situation doesn't come under the heading of defamation.

Re:ianal

[Zaatxe]

Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit.

As an old spanish saying goes, "tyrant king, traitor vassal".

Re:ianal

[BokLM]

Huhu that's funny.
In France we are required to give a 3 months notice (it depends on what contract you have, but most of the time it's 3 months).

Re:ianal

[DavidHumus]

Unless the laws are very different where you are from the laws in most of the United States, it's hard to see how they can require you to give three months notice.

Once you quit, you don't work for them anymore and they cannot require you to do anything.

It's entirely likely that your company tells you this but really has no recourse to back it up.

Re:ianal

[diggum]

You are a terrible boss, and I am thrilled that I do not work with or for you. I've heard other managers give the same "No one who is quitting gives 100% those last two weeks" line of crap before, and they were terrible managers, too. Most people I know who have left a job that they enjoyed and was not run by some idiot declaring himself the sole possessor of "work ethics" bust their ass until their last day, making certain everything is wrapped up, and any important information is shared with the appropriate people. You should definitely be worried about your remaining employees hearing about this wonderful new company the guy is leaving for, because they should absolutely be leaving your employ.

Re:ianal

[SpAcMuN]

Welcome to a free market economy (the job market) with informed customers.

Just because the job market is facilitated by networking doesn't mean that as an employer I am supposed to pay salaries, rent, etc. to facilitate that "job market." If you're looking for jobs then go to monster.com. I am not in the business of informing the consumers (job seekers) of where else they can go to get work. This is like McDonald's listing a menu for Burger King, just to help facilitate the market.

The point is not to keep people from talking to co-workers. Non-solicitation agreements between employers and employees are designed to serve that purpose (to the limited ability that they can). What we're really talking about is paying someone to stay on for two weeks or so, during which time they can cause harm to an employer by driving away other resources. This is especially important for sales related functions, as it is very easy for word to "get out" to customers that someone is leaving, and of course that can lead to customers leaving with the salesperson. Of course they can talk to co-workers off-hours (assuming they didn't sign an agreement prohibiting that), but you want to minimize damage by not facilitating it.

Again, nobody is trying to stifle the job market, but employers need to be aware of the risks involved with short-term employees.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

While I agree that employment law is a complicated topic, and that people should ask real lawyers rather than come to Slashdot, the situation you describe isn't what's happening here. The post that inspired mine was talking about a requirement to give three months notice when you leave the company. There may be perfectly valid reasons that notice would be necessary. During that three-month period, the company certainly isn't depriving the individual of making a living.

But sure, generally speaking, I agree with you that all sorts of clauses in contracts could be held unenforceable. It just doesn't seem unreasonable in this specific situation, but again, it's not my opinion that matters here.

Re:ianal

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> they dont have a basis for suing you

They can, however, do what Battelle did to me. I gave my two weeks notice hoping that they would remedy the issues which I clearly addressed in my letter. When the two weeks passed without even the slightest attempt at negotiation I reiterated, in a meeting with my manager, the issues governing my decision to part ways with them. When I was treated with crude disdain I followed through on my notice and left.

The company then, over the course of the next week, notified me that I had been terminated unwillfully (making the official stance, in the eyes of corporate HR, a "firing") and made two direct deposits into my bank account. A month later they sent a collection letter to my address stating that I had been overpaid and demanding ~$1300 payment.

It's probably still on my credit record.

Re:ianal

[MightyYar]

Yeah, obviously your position is weakened by quitting instead of getting fired/laid off, but believe it or not the three-month clause would probably get struck. It's more complicated than that, of course, and it depends on a lot of other things.

It also depends on how it is enforced. Any contract that offers an incentive for giving three months notice would be fine. For instance, they could offer you $1000 if you give them 3 full months notice and nothing if you don't. I don't think the courts would strike that. They can't withhold vacation or other benefits that have been part of your regular salary, however. And, as I said, it depends on what position you were in when you signed the contract. If you were unemployed and "would sign anything", then the contract has a lot less value. If you are an executive and presumably have some leverage, the contract will be taken more seriously. The security guard has very little to fear from his employment contract :)

Re:ianal

[freedomseven]

The problem with your theory is that it places a ceiling on how high you can go in the industry. The fact is that in todays society people change jobs a lot. Add to that the fact that the higher up the job ladder you go, the smaller the circle of people that you run work with. This makes it increasingly likely that you will start running into more and more people that you have worked with before. If you get a reputation as someone who will abandon a job and leave the employer hanging you will find it harder and harder to attract better jobs. Your plan also boils down to screw them on the off chance that they might screw you. The fact is that if you work with people honestly and professionally they will do the same for you. I am not suggesting that you no be prepared, but you are creating a self fulfilling prophesy and an adversarial relationship.

Re:ianal

[ocbwilg]

When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.

When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.

But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work -- and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.

Well, I don't know what industry you work in, or what kind of workers you're hiring, but that seems like a particularly cynical view to take. I am a professional, and I work with and for professionals. And usually when you're dealing with professionals you don't have to worry as much about those sorts of issues.

For example, I just put in my notice this past Tuesday. I gave my employer about 2.5 weeks notice that I was leaving. It wasn't a situation where I hate the company that I work for, or the people that I work with, I was just looking for a new challenge (I joined this place in when it was a startup, now it's a mature company). Everyone that I work with respects that, and I'll be working out my notice.

During those two and a half weeks I will be wrapping up the projects that I can complete, and transitioning the ones that I can't complete to other team members. I'll be doing a lot of knowledge transfer as well. But I doubt that I'll be taking on any new projects. So technically you're right in saying that I won't be working at 100%, but the work that I will be doing will be key to making sure that my department continues to operate smoothly after I'm gone. And of course I will be available for the occasional call or email after I'm gone if they have a question about something that I had been working on. It's just good business not to burn bridges.

Now if my employer had shown me the door the minute I turned in my notice, they would be fairly screwed. The projects that I was working on would grind to a crawl (if not an outright stop) while someone else tries to figure out where we were when I was escorted out. Any specific or specialized knowledge would be lost. No knowledge transfer would take place. I would probably be somewhat resentful about the way I was treated and therefore be unwilling to help them out with any of the mess.

And what would that get you? Sure, I wouldn't be walking around your office talking to coworkers about my great new job, but if you think that coworkers don't talk to each other from time to time outside of work then you're mistaken. So that word would still get around. I'd also be likely to tell my future coworkers about how you treated me when I turned in my notice. I would be extremely unlikely to want to work for or with you again, and my friends and future coworkers would know why. This could potentially impact your ability to find future employees. Not having the knowledge transfer or a smooth transition also runs up costs associated with employee turnover. If I can offer some measure of training to the people who will be replacing me then I can save you money.

Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities: hey, if you do great work then I want you here. If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around?

I disagree. Running a company includes managing liabilities, but it's about far more than that. You also have to manage people and relationships (and lots of other things that aren't necessarily relevant here). If your people aren't happy, or you have a negative relationship towards your workers then your business will suffer. Not just in reduced productivity, but also in reduced reputation. Both of those will cost you money.

And I also think that it's ridiculous to think that just because someone is leaving the company that you can no longer count on them to do great work. If someone is a professional and you are paying them for work then I see no reason

Re:ianal

[CrazyTalk]

You don't have to give any notice to quit, and your employer doesnt have to give you any notice to fire you. Thats what's called "Employment at Will. Most people who quit give 2 weeks notice at a "courtesy" but more often than not the employer will then escort you out the door - so be prepared!

Re:ianal

[IronmanTriathlete]

Just stop showing up, that's how to quit. Ive done this several times and still get good references. Charles, is that you? You told us you're sick!

Re:ianal

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's fairly accurate - why TF is it modded funny? Basically, unless you have a contract, all notice periods are a courtesy.

Re:ianal

[StewedSquirrel]

I've been in plenty of positions where I gave notice because I knew my employer could not replace me "out of the box". Out of sheer goodwill and a desire to remain on good standing with them, I willingly offered to help interview my replacement and to train him for a week or two on the daily activities..... rather than my being escorted out the door and then the new guy getting to figure out my job the hard way over the next 3 months while customers suffer because of his lack of experience.

Somehow, I think you run a call center or some such. A skilled job can't simply be "replaced" out of the box, no matter how "good" your replacement is, there is a learning curve that can be drastically decreased by just a week or two of training from someone with experience.

Stew

Re:ianal

[jedidiah]

That is just WRONG.

The priorities of that person shifted the moment
they decided they were going to leave: as soon as
they started their alternate job search. If they
hadn't slacked of before giving formal notice,
then you have no good reason to disparage their
professionalism.

Re:ianal

[HikingStick]

I recently moved from a position I held for nearly eight years to another department in the same enterprise. I gave three weeks notice. During the first week, I tried to resolve all of my outstanding tasks. During the second week, I spent time review the documentation I left for the systems I supported and I informed other contacts, vendors, and customers that a change was coming (including who their new contact would be). During the final week, I spent time with my immediate peers, offering to help them with their tasks, providing them with final status reports on my remaining projects, and asking them if they could think of anything else I could provide for them.

Now, I'm still in the same building, so they know where to reach me, but I would have done the same if I were leaving the company. My old manager planned to rehire, but that was over two months ago. In the interim, my old peers have picked up the slack. Had I not kept them in mind as I planned to leave, I doubt we would still be on good terms.

So many of the posts read like "screw others before they screw you." What about an older ideal--treat others the way you would like to have been treated.

Re:ianal

[hoppo]

What is unethical about cutting an employee loose who has expressed a desire to leave? Get a clue.

The right thing to do when an employee turns in notice is to let him or her go and pay out the two weeks. That way there's no hard feelings, and the relationship isn't dragged out unnecessarily.

Re:ianal

[jrockway]

You sound rather paranoid. Which company is this, so I can be sure to not accidentally apply for a job there.

Re:ianal

[An Onerous Coward]

Chances are, by the time your employee has given notice, he's already been giving a 60% effort for months. You just didn't notice. So it's odd to think that getting 100% out of an employee's remaining time is more important than giving him time to get some documentation together for his replacement.

Or look at it another way. If the guy gives you two weeks notice, and you immediately throw him out the door with one week's pay, you've just paid one week's salary for zero hours of work. Whereas, if you let him work those last two weeks at 50% effort, you'll be paying two weeks' salary for forty hours of work (which will probably save his replacement far more than that).

Another liability you haven't accounted for: You're treating a soon-to-be former employee like dirt, shoving him out the door like that. He'll remember that when advising people about working for you, or buying from you (hardly an idle threat; the mere fact that he works for you means he's in your industry). And under most circumstances, you can't argue that you're protecting the company from a disgruntled employee by not letting him work those last two weeks. Whatever damage or mischief you expect your ex-employee to cause is irrelevant; whatever caused him to leave, he's probably known it for quite a while, so he's already had plenty of opportunity to set up whatever you imagine him to be capable of. Further, even if he hasn't set up any backdoors or copied any files, he still has knowledge of the company that he could use to create problems. By catapulting him, you make him far more likely to use it. BSA audit, anyone?

Question: Do you fire people when they have family crises? God knows you can't get 100% work out of somebody going through a divorce, or someone with a sick family member.

In short, I'm not buying any of your excuses for generating ill will among your former employees. They all sounds like rationalizations for petty vengeance.

Re:ianal

[sumdumass]

Yes, there is a contract of sorts. It is usualy writen in law. I generaly goes once your hired, if you don't do certain things wrong, then they generaly won't fire you. Some states are at will wich doesn't mean they can fire with no reason, it means they can use the dumbest reason ever heard of. And generaly when going to unemployment offices, the reasons are weight in for your eligability. But thats a different story all together.

What happens when you don't show up one day as a way to let them know you quit, is they are able to turn it against you and claim you were fired for not showing up or notifying them (no-call-no-show) or if you just walk out, they are able to say that you abandoned you job in the middle of work so they had to fire you (walked out). Now you know you quit, they claim they didn't know and now you have blackmarks on your record.

When your new employer calls for refrences, they find out that you were fired instead of quiting like you stated on you application it says one of two things without even going into the why and what happened. It firstly says that there is a reason you are saying something different then the former employee. these reasons can be scary but it falls along the same line of why it isn't wise to marry a girl who has 3 kids by 2 different fathers and was already married and divorced three times in the 25 years of her life. It just has "ride the bus until it stops but don't buy the business becaue you enjoyed the ride" writen all over it.

The second thing that it says is, someone has a distortion of reality. Any company that has been in business for any length of time will know that some people always need to be pleased and they are a pain to keep happy. Sometimes those people even bring others moral down and cause problem were there wasn't any. Any company burn by someone like this will avoid them like the pleague or try to pay as little as possible to see if the need for a job outweighs the expected pain they think you will cause. And make no mistake, If you walked out or quit without notice, you will definatly look like one of these pains that they don't want to deal with. I mean, even if it goes past the why did you leave part and they have to decide if you were fired or quit, it will look like your selfcentered and egotisical when explaining what had happened to make you leave.

If you give a notice, the record is straight. You quit, no ands if or buts about it. If you don't, better hope your former employer is willing to list it like you claim. If they don't, they can claim confusion and stop almost any slander acusations you might have. It is just too much to mess with when you looking for a job 2 years down the road or something. Give notice and get a good reference form the old employer. It is just that simple.

Re:ianal

[bwt]

What do you mean "required"? Are you saying this is in your employment contract? What would happen if you just ignored it? I can't imagine much the employer could do if you came in and said "I am going to violate the policy. I'll not be coming to work after Friday. In fact, I'll also be working for another company. If you don't like it, fire me." Unless there are penalties specifically agreed to by you in your employment contract (and why on earth would anyone ever agree to such a contract?), then they have no damages, so even if they sue you and win, I don't see what a court could award them.

Re:ianal

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> What is unethical about cutting an employee loose who has expressed a desire to leave?

They can do what Battelle did to me. I gave my two weeks notice hoping that they would remedy the issues which I clearly addressed in my letter. When the two weeks passed without even the slightest attempt at negotiation I reiterated, in a meeting with my manager, the issues governing my decision to part ways with them. When I was treated with crude disdain I followed through on my notice and left.

The company then, over the course of the next week, notified me that I had been terminated unwillfully (making the official stance, in the eyes of corporate HR, a "firing") and made two direct deposits into my bank account. A month later they sent a collection letter to my address stating that I had been overpaid and demanding ~$1300 payment.

It's probably still on my credit record.

Re:ianal

[pflickner]

Every job I've ever had I've given two weeks' notice. There was no worries, no bad feelings, and often I'd work for them on the side to help them transition to my replacement. Even one place where they were very dismissive of me had me continue to work for them for an additional six months, leaving me the full access I had prior to leaving. I was a systems admin. Guess there's something to be said for having integrity and a great attitude at your job.

Re:ianal

[Neoprofin]

Some people don't like the assumption of guilt by being paid not to work. It's not an issue of being paid or not, or working or not, it's an issue of trust and dignity. If my work was good enough for my employer yesterday it should still be good enough for them today. If you can't trust your exiting employees not to cause problems for two weeks how did you trust them not to cause problems before. If you're threatened that them talking about their new job is going to hurt your workplace what does that say about worker satisfaction? If your employees don't like their jobs, and you trust their work ethic as far as you can throw them, then yes, it makes sense to get a dissenting voice out as fast as possible whatever the cost. If you hire good employees who like what they do you'll never have to worry what they think of the other guys new job or what they're doing in their last two weeks.

Re:ianal

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> I get the feeling most people on Slashdot work in inhumane hellholes

They can do what Battelle did to me. I gave my two weeks notice hoping that they would remedy the issues which I clearly addressed in my letter. When the two weeks passed without even the slightest attempt at negotiation I reiterated, in a meeting with my manager, the issues governing my decision to part ways with them. When I was treated with crude disdain I followed through on my notice and left.

The company then, over the course of the next week, notified me that I had been terminated unwillfully (making the official stance, in the eyes of corporate HR, a "firing") and made two direct deposits into my bank account. A month later they sent a collection letter to my address stating that I had been overpaid and demanding ~$1300 payment.

It's probably still on my credit record.

Re:ianal

[Phillip Birmingham]

If the business can get by fine without the employee, you might be better off letting them go home after they give their notice.

After all, as the commenter upthread implied, even honest and competent employees can get injured on-the-job and file a workman's compensation claim.

Re:ianal

[Creepy]

That law only applies if he signed a non-compete clause. The post says he did not. Non-compete is very tricky to enforce - see below.

Generally, two week's notice is a courtesy, not a requirement. I've known several people that quit and left the day they turn in their notice.

Even if you sign a non-compete clause and go to a competitor, it's nearly impossible to prosecute in most states. The company I work for now has a bitter relationship with a group that ran off and started a competing company and specifically targeted their product for use with a rival's software just so they would be bought by them (and it worked). They then did recruiting off of phone lists they "stole" from my company in order to siphon off employees, most of whom were forced to sign non-compete clauses after the first group split off. Several people left my company for the rival during this recruitment and were sued (along with the company), but the rival company did a trick of hiring them in a non-identical role (for at least a year) and it was completely unenforcible. They claim they did not have our phone lists and only called friends they knew at our company, but since I got a call by a recruiter of theirs about 1 month after being hired, I would bet that's a lie.

Re:ianal

[martyros]

You're absolutely right, but people don't always think that way.

I'd been contracting for a company for a while, and they asked me to come on full-time. I thought it would be a great opportunty to do some cool stuff, and get some experience inside the company, before I went on to do other things, so I decided I'd work for them for a year and then move on.

Well, I made the mistake of thinking it would be considerate to tell them that I only wanted to work for a year; that seriously screwed up the negotiations for a few weeks.

The thing is, if I'd just come and worked for them, and then after a year decided to leave, nobody would have batted an eyelash. In fact, while I had been contracting for them, they had had a new CEO come on and then leave after 6 months. But because I told them up front, it was a big deal.

The manager I was talking told me about how they'd be afraid to give me important projects to work on if they knew I'd be leaving, because it would be harder for someone else to maintain or fix when I was gone. Well, I'm sorry dude, but that's the situation with every employee in your company. They may leave at any time, and if they do, you'll have to deal with someone else taking over his code.

Anyway, they've lost their right to that kind of consideration from me. Two weeks is all they're going to get.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

I would find it suspicious if an employee gave me his two-week notice, I offered to give him those two weeks off, and he wanted to keep coming in for work. I'm giving him a free vacation and he wants to stick around the office? That's the point where I would suspect him of wanting to do something nasty to me before he leaves.

Re:ianal

[Knara]

ok that wasn't funny but you get the idea.

Then it'd fit right in for a Leno monologue.

Re:ianal

[ocbwilg]

You idiot, he clearly explained that it's not a matter of ill will towards the employee, it's a mutual understanding that "hey, you don't want to work here anymore, I'll let you go your own way right now, with the pay that you were willing to take to finish up your obligations around here because I have a solid enough business that we CAN make do without you for a short time." How can you even begin to find this insulting??? That's free FUCKING money, you FUCKTARD! Now you're potentially able to start at your new job 2 weeks early than anticipated, get paid for it, and you're BETTER OFF than if you had been required to stick around at your old employer. You don't want to work there anymore, REMEMBER?!?!

No, you are the one who doesn't understand the post. And no, I'm not the AC you're referring to. From the post in question:

When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.

When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.

He's not saying that if you turn in two week's notice (or a month or whatever) that he sends you home and pays out your notice period. He's saying that if you turn in two week's notice that he will send you home and only pay out the rest of that week. If your new job can't start for two weeks then you're shorted at least one week's pay, plus benefits, etc. Depending on when/how you give notice, you're not only getting not getting paid for the entire notice period (you only get paid for up to one week of it at most), but you're potentially worse off than if you had said nothing at all and just walked out the door one day without coming back.

Idiot! (Or troll or flamer, I can't quite tell which it is)

In your case it appears to be both.

Re:ianal

[bkr1_2k]

I was just about to say the same thing. Every time I've quit, I've been asked to pass my work on to someone else because in my field there's a lot of independent work at every level of a project. Without my notebooks and in some cases direct guidance, my successor would have lost months of time and cost the projects many thousands of dollars.

Giving notice is polite and helps keep from burning bridges should you ever want to return to an employer (or work for the same person at another company).

Re:ianal

[pyster]

the IT world is a small and incesteous. It is a good idea to leave places on good terms and keep relationships going. You never know who you may want to work for in the future. Giving two weeks notice is the professional thing to do and gives your the moral high ground.

I know of one case where someone did not give notice and was fired by his new employer based on that.

As for suing this guy for quitting? what a bunch of jackasses. Who the fuck is going to go work for them now?

Re:ianal

[Lisala72]

I've quit every job on the spot with a written resignation letter, or during a vacation, and always got any outstanding money due back to me and even good references. They have no right to sue you, unless you signed a contract stating you would never leave the comapany under whatever circumstances.

Re:ianal

[Nakarti]

Too bad it isn't so in the US, in most states you get no unemployment if you quit, only if you're fired or laid off.

Re:ianal

[od05]

Not too insightful...

I once gave my two weeks notice and they fired me on the spot.

Re:ianal

[Darundal]

He said the state he worked in was Norway. Find it on a map. Oh, and to everyone else trying to figure out how that one works legally applying their local laws, look at the laws from where he is first.

Re:ianal

[jonfelder]

In that case, you better hire a good hit man instead. Or how else do you want to keep them from talking to their colleagues outside of work ? Maybe they have their cellphone numbers, maybe they're even friends, maybe they even go out for a drink after work. Heck. Maybe they'll even us the internet in one form or another. Also, see above. The ones who do want really want to badmouth your company would be dumb if they gave any notice. They'll do what they want to do and then quit without notice.

Insightful? You're assuming that someone who leaves for another job is doing so because they hate the current one. The goal isn't to stop them from telling their friends and what not. Of course you can't stop that. What you can do, is stop them from telling every casual acquaintance that they are leaving for a "better" job.

There are a lot of people that I work near and with that I don't call and hang out with after work. If I got another job, I'd likely be telling those people that I did and why. If I weren't there they'd know I got another job, but I wouldn't be telling people how great it's going to be and what not.

Furthermore most people aren't exactly going to be 100% productive during that period. They certainly shouldn't start anything new. Also every momemnt an employee is at work there is a possibility they could injured.

I can certainly see why an employer wouldn't necessarily want to keep someone around who isn't doing much, yet is still a potential liability, and is basically telling everyone they are going to a job somewhere else which is better and maybe even saying, "Hey you should apply there too."

Re:ianal

[tompaulco]

Two jobs ago I worked at a place where about 25% of your pay was in the form of a quarterly bonus. The bonus was always the same amount and you could count on it like clockwork (+/- a few dollars probably for legal reasons. Also, sucked trying to get a car or home loan). And you didn't get your bonus until halfway through the next month. This was used to screw people over when they quit. You could work like a dog all through quarter one, then give two weeks notice on April 1, and you got no bonus, none, for the 1st quarter.
I had a friend who got double screwed there. They announced that all employees as of 12/31 would be getting an end-of-year bonus which would be paid in March. He quit in February, got no first quarter bonus (of course), and got no prior end-of-year bonus.
Clearly this bonus was not reflective of the actual work performed during the quarter, but was a punitive tool to make it financially difficult to seek other work.

Re:ianal

[tompaulco]

"In the United States, the standard employment contract is considered to be at-will meaning that the employer and employee are both free to terminate the employment at any time and for any cause, or for no cause at all."
At my last job, they had this clause specifically stated and indicated that they could fire me at any time for any reason or no reason. Then it said I could quit for no reason as well. It followed this up by saying that out of courtesy, I should give them two weeks notice before quitting. Nowhere did I see that out of courtesy they would give me any notice at all.
One day, for any reason or no reason, they fired 6 or 7 of my coworkers, and gave them no notice.
So, I quit. They called me up, told me how unprofessional I was ofr giving no notice, asked me to continue working for them to fulfill my obligation, etc, etc. In the end, I stuck to my guns and gave them the same notice they gave my coworkers, and would have given me. So they punished me by stealing my earned PTO and by canceling my insurance effective that day, but making me pay for a regular two week cycle of insurance.

Re:ianal

[tsstahl]

When I left my first real job, after six and a half years there I gave them four months notice. I wasn't sure where I was going or what I was going to do, but I knew I was leaving. So I told them. About two months short of that, I decided to start my own business in direct competition, so after sitting on that idea for a month, I told them. I was told that they were going to accept my resignation early. I told them, "Bullshit. You're firing me. If you think that I haven't had ample opportunity to mine whatever resources I'd want to steal, than you're an idiot. I've hated you for at least the last four years, and those conditions haven't changed. I'm leaving in one month unless you are firing me right now."

You are an idiot, professionally speaking. Sorry to be so harsh, but someone needed to clue you in. For those at playing the home game, the above is bad advice.

"'Tis more noble to forgive, and more manly to despise, than to revenge an Injury." -Ben Franklin

However, I am glad it worked out in your specific case.

Re:ianal

[tsstahl]

It's OK, Peter, Mr. J. Jonah Jamison is a busy man, under a lot of pressure. Ask Jimmy how he handles it. :)

Re:ianal

[Haeleth]

There's a decent write-up on this here.

If by "decent write-up" you mean "extremist manifesto", yes.

Sneering, condescending tone? Check.
Strawman representation of opposing points of view? Check.
Complains about "activist judges"? Check.
Advocates faith in the "invisible hand"? Check.
Quotes Ayn Rand? Check.

I think the best bit is where it suggests that America might be better off if employers were allowed to fire people for failing to wriggle out of jury service.

Re:ianal

[legojenn]

Am I scrolling backwards and forwards or has this been posted more than repeatedly?

Re:ianal

[Skapare]

You have to be unemployed for a certain period of time (I think it is 2 to 4 weeks in Texas) before you can qualify for unemployment. Starting a new job within a week means he/she is not going to be able to get it. OTOH, if he loses the new job over this, he should put down ThePlanet has his real employer as they are the ones responsible for losing both jobs.

Re:ianal

[maxwells_deamon]

Lots of reasons to give notice and not be walked out the door right away.

I have given notice as if I was a contractor. On one occasion I was about to finish up a project and they wanted to send me to a bunch of training for the next project. As I knew I would not be staying for much longer and when I moved on was flexible, I let them know I would be leaving soon so things were not delayed and wasting money.

I have also given notice well in advance to make changes in the company. They did not have anyone who could do my job while I was on vacation. And I knew I would be leaving in a year or so so I pushed on them (did not give notice, just nudged them)

In a good enviroment (rare but it happens) you can be leaving and need to push them to ler you train your replacement. Ideally the management would have this under control but I have worked in places where the adverage turnover rate was under a year.

Re:ianal

[Tim C]

Not only are they very much more likely to alienate and anger their remaining employees, if they lose the case they'll lose face too. Angry alienated employees may still stay out of fear, but will most likely leave when the threat is shown to be hollow.

Re:ianal

[maxwells_deamon]

IANAL

The only way this can be legal anywhere in the US is if you got some sort of advance upfront or if there was a contract between companies. They can sue a company for not fullfilling a contract (and the company dies but not you) or they can try and get back a signing bonus from you.

Anything else is slavery in the US and is against the law. If it was NOT against the law, everyone would do it.

Re:ianal

[maxwells_deamon]

I took a training class after leaving a company and was reimbursed for the costs.

Special deal and I later returned the favor. But it did happen.

In general if you schedule someone for a class where they have to up front the money for the class, the company should eat the costs if the relationship end at no fault of the employee

Re:ianal

[jamstar7]

But, gut feeling tells me that no they dont have a basis for suing you if you followed all the rules about giving them sufficient notice and all that.

At the risk of sounding trite, I'm betting he's from the US, where the only growth industries are prisons and law schools. In the US you can sue anybody any time for anything. For instance, I could sue you because it's Friday. All I have to do is convince a lawyer that it being Friday hurts me and it's YOUR fault and he'll file it for me.

Re:ianal

[ScreamingLordByron]

Let me start by saying I AM a lawyer and I practice in employment law. While it is true that some jurisdictions do give strict or hightened scruitiny to restrictve covenants (i.e. non-coompete and non-solicitation provision) in employment agreements, other states are "right to contact" states in which, unless a contract is for an illegal purpose or the parties lack sufficient capacity to form a contract, the contract is enforceable. Making generalizations over the legal issues regarding employment issues is extremely dangerous as different states can can vary wildly in what is permissible / enforeceable and what is not.

Re:ianal

[Sigma 7]

If they report it as a firing, then you are entitled to EI. All the better for the employee. They don't usually give you EI if you quit. Unless you have good reasons such as excessive stress for leaving. I don't see how it would be a disadvantage to be fired, when if you're leaving on that short notice, you're probably not expecting a good reference.

That's a simplistic method of looking at it. In the case of Ontario (which was being referred to in the GP), it's incorrect.

If you quit without just cause, you might not receive benefits: http://www1.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/ei/information/ voluntarily_leaving.shtml

Likewise, if you are fired with just cause (i.e. misconduct), you might not reveice benefits: http://www1.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/ei/information/ misconduct.shtml

"Excessive stress" isn't a good reason to leave, as it can be treated as an inability to handle the workload. However, "undue pressure" is valid, since the employer is trying to make it unpleasurable or is otherwise trying to claim that you voluntairly left.

Re:ianal

[ralatalo]

my favorite is "They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building." So, he hadn't even left but they were going to sue him for what? Discussing leaving? Planning to leave? And, they escorted him from the building, wouldn't you think that would make it a little difficult for him to continue working?

When it gets to court, what is he going to say "Your honor I realize the errors of my ways, I am ready to return to work and work there the rest of my nature life and how ever much longer is required." And are they going to want him back? They escorted him from the building!

What are they suing him for? If his leaving is damaging to them, then they have a duty to minimize that damage which would be to keep him there. If they can escort him from the building then obviously they are not so damaged him his leaving that they can't cope. So, what are they going to ask the courts for? How do they want the courts to fix the wrong? Do they want the courts to order him to return to work? Did the company invest in him? Are they going to ask for the money spent on classes back? I think the lawyer will probably laugh in the face of the company rep.

Re:ianal

[moldor]

Applicable to Australia only: here you must give notice equivalent to your pay period (two weeks, a month etc), or forfiet the equivalent in pay (from your accumulated leave, etc). That is termed "sufficient notice". The definition of "garden leave" (wee Wikipedia) doesn't apply, as if you resign they can't force you on any sort of leave - I suspect this is also the case in the USA as well.

Your employer can ask you to leave immediately, paying you the equivalent amount in lieu of notice, and generally in the IT field being escorted off the premesis immediately is pretty standard in this situation, and sometimes even if you resign WITH notice.

Recent employment by a Catholic University ended badly for me - I was on contract and they decided not to renew it 6 weeks before the end (after 4 years of renewals, and there was a lot more to it - lies and hypocracy by them, but that's for another time). They paid my contract out (6 weeks), paid almost three times that in "redundancy" (not a legal requirement, but they do it to cover their asses) and had me escorted off the premesis immediately. Their reasoning was "We don't want you to 'do anything' to the payroll system" (I managed their payroll application and network) "or take copies of anything".

Get real - if I was going to resign I would have "done something" or "taken copies" weeks before - not that I did, it didn't interest me in any way and I don't work like that.

This is very common here and, I suspect, in the USA as well. Generates a lot of anomosity where none existed before.

Re:ianal

[moldor]

But there is a problem with the "transitioning of knowledge to other employees". My immediate-former employer tried to force me to do that - I was hired because I had certain skills that no-one else in the group had, skills that I had learned BEFORE commencing employment with them. I used those skills to do the job that no-one else they had could, and caused their systems to run like clockwork. When I left (or rather, when I was pushed) they tried to force me to document all the "knowledge" I had used so they could benefit from it having provided no training in 4 years. Of course I refused, given that they were going to "let me go" anyway. Things were documented in the most superficial way - like "build a Windows server", rather than a step-by-step... They were not happy, but saw no problem in screwing me out of training and other benefits. You need to look atter No 1 - YOURSELF.

Re:ianal

[MightyYar]

Cool, a real lawyer.

Re:ianal

[MightyYar]

I guess we have different philosophies. I've even trained my "replacement" who was an overseas worker. Of course, there was no way that I could convey 7 years of experience in a few months of training, but I tried my best. I believe that as professionals, we have to do what is best for the company. Yes, you have to look out for #1, but refusing to train others is pretty short-sighted.

Re:ianal

[budgenator]

I really laugh at the cereal commercials where the guy keeps getting fired, but can't hear the boss because he's chewing the crunchy cereal. Also the Orange County Chopper show touches me because it reminds me of that boss the way Paul Sr. and Pauli Jr go at it. That boss eventualy sold the business and the new owners are salt of the Earth type of people, the last I heard of the old boss was when a couple of US marshals came to the shop looking for him.

Re:ianal

[humblecoder]

This may be a obvious observation, but if someone knew they were getting a windfall on 4/15, then why would they give notice on 4/1? I think most _rational_ people would delay giving their notice until 4/16, so that they would collect their bonus. Anyway who would give their notice on 4/1 is either insane, or hates the work environment so much that they would be willing for forgo their bonus in order to get out of that place.

I worked at a place where you got a year end bonus that was paid as "restricted stock" that you could not sell for five years. If you quit before the five year period had elapsed, you forfeited a pro-rated portion of your bonus. Having a bonus vest in half-a-month seems quite generous in comparison.

Re:ianal

[mmarlett]

Actually, I was leaving to start a competing business, and they were going to fire me no matter what I did or said. And the company -- nor the profession -- would take me back. I was in a position where there was no bridge for me to burn. Or, better, they were burning my bridge, so I nuked it. (It was a real take-this-job-and-shove-it watershed moment.) No big deal. But only a fucking idiot would accept an early resignation. You don't have to say what I said the way I said it to not accept an early resignation. You can just say, "No." Or, "No, I've still got good work in me." "No thank you." If they want to fire you, that's their business. Business. And part of the way a business works in society is that firing people leaves a paper trail but resignations do not. In Kansas, if you go to the unemployment office and say, "I don't have a job, whoa is me" they'll ask, "so you got fired?" and if you say "yes" they say "here are your benefits" and if you say no they say "fucking idiot. get a job."

Re:ianal

[TheRealAnonymousCowa]

A policy that requires people to stay 3 months is idiotic and self-defeating. Granted their may be extenuating circumstances (hard to fill position, very arcane knowledge, etc) but a blanket rule like that isn't a great idea.

I'm not sure how far this is implemented in the US. However, this seems to be a rather binding rule in all companies in India. Their policy (if you are leaving the company) states something similar to this:

1. You must give at least N days of advance notice.
2. If you do not give sufficient notice, you are obliged to pay for the shortfall in notice.
3. You are (typically) not allowed to take paid leave while you are serving your notice period.

If you are terminated, then the company is legally bound to pay you the amount you would have received had you actually worked those N days. These rules apply to the full-time employees. I'm not too sure how this applies to temps and contract employees.

Re:ianal

[tompaulco]

Of course, as you mention, no one would quit on 4/1. But even if you give notice on 4/16, and work another two weeks, you are not going to get your second quarter bonus, or even 1/3 of it.
I mean a bonus is a bonus, right? So who can complain. Well, really the fact is, that their salary is only competitive when you consider the bonus, which is paid like clockwork, quarter after quarter. No one would work there, if they were only guaranteed the base pay.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

Slavery? No. You have the right to breach a contract, so there's no "slavery". If they were chaining you to your desk for 6 months, that would be slavery.

The details of employment law vary from state to state, so your assertions are suspicious from the get-go. It depends entirely on what state he's in and how the contract is written, and we know nothing about either.

Re:ianal

[Fastolfe]

Thanks for pointing that out, though I think putting a cap on the number of weeks I'd pay out is reasonable. If someone gives me two months notice, I'm not going to give them the equivalent of two months of vacation. How much longer you let the person work (or whether you just let them go that day) and how much longer you pay them depend on the nature/needs of the business and the job itself. "The rest of the week" seems short to me, but it could still be reasonable.

Re:ianal

[El_Oscuro]

I have always given one months notice, and used all of that time for turnover, documentation, and training, every time. I have even been hired back to the same companies I left (for considerably more money) twice. If you do people good, good will usually come back to you.

Re:ianal

[humblecoder]

Yes, of course, I agree that this compensation structure isn't "fair". I was just pointing out that quitting on 4/1 not rational when you can work an extra two weeks and get a big windfall.

Actually, the way to minimize the amount of time you work without a bonus would be to quit on 4/16 WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE. That way, you would only be working for 2 weeks without a bonus. Someone might say that this isn't "professional" since you aren't giving notice. However, personally, I have this rule that if you want me to work for you, you have to pay me a fair salary. I am not going to stick around if you plan on "stiffing" me.

Re:ianal

[ocbwilg]

Thanks for pointing that out, though I think putting a cap on the number of weeks I'd pay out is reasonable. If someone gives me two months notice, I'm not going to give them the equivalent of two months of vacation. How much longer you let the person work (or whether you just let them go that day) and how much longer you pay them depend on the nature/needs of the business and the job itself. "The rest of the week" seems short to me, but it could still be reasonable.

I agree, it's reasonable to put a cap on how much you're willing to pay out for someone who is no longer working for you. That's why I think that it's reasonable (in most cases) to let someone work out their notice period. Cutting the period short without a good reason not only puts the person in a bind, but generates ill-will towards your company, and possibly among your remaining employees. Of course, if you're just managing a Taco Bell or something then it probably doesn't matter much. But if your business is a collection of professionals, then you could be shooting yourself in the foot by not letting a good worker finish out their notice period.

I have heard of attempts to sue...

[Panaqqa]

But without a non-competition agreement I can't see that theirs would go very far. Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.

Perhaps your former employer might be better advised to spend the money and effort having a consultant come in and find out why they are losing people - a professional job satisfaction survey, say. If you have found that the work environment has changed enough to motivate you to seek employment elsewhere, then others are likely thinking the same thing. Maybe their threat of a lawsuit is a form of coercive message to other workers that they had better stay... or else!!

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[catwh0re]

I think you're right about the coercive lawsuit...

The company management is clearly poor. The lawsuit is a good indication of this.
Bad management is probably why the work environment is crap. Which is why people are choosing to leave.
Chicken and egg.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[tclark]

Perhaps your former employer might be better advised to spend the money and effort having a consultant come in

You mean, perhaps they should bring in the Bobs?

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[suso]

Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.

But that's usuaully used as a scare tactic. At least with what we've seen in public news. Its a scare tactic to keep people from doing something like making a parody of strawberry shortcake (Eh hem).

Suing someone for their livelyhood when you have no legal ground to do so is just plain stupid. Anyone who needed to work and was being tried to prevent that would surely challenge the plaintiff. Who wouldn't challenge that? What was The Planet thinking? Actually, don't answer that.

I hope this makes people think twice before hosting with The Planet or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers........

sig removed

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[meme lies]

Maybe their threat of a lawsuit is a form of coercive message to other workers that they had better stay... or else!!

If this actually happened the way OP described I would guess the VP of Sales (which in my experience isn't all that high of a position in management, and certainly not one to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the company, but I could be wrong) was just being an ass. Threats of lawsuit are pretty common in this country, and most remain just that-- idle threats. Perhaps the VP of Sales heard the CEO say "I ought to sue him for leaving" in the heat of the moment and took it literally; that kind of thing happens all the time.

Except...

The "anonymous reader" was thoughtful enough to name his former employer in the link, in effect smearing the company's name on a website read by hundreds of thousands of people (many in their industry) daily. Assuming this wasn't made up to begin with, the identity of the "anonymous reader" should be easy for the company to discover. If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[RealGrouchy]

Perhaps your former employer might be better advised to spend the money and effort having a consultant come in and find out why they are losing people

I'm not a professional consultant, but maybe it was when they started suing their own employees?

- RG>

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[MindStalker]

Whats strange is they immediately escorted him out. Meaning they weren't threatening to sue to keep him there, they were obviously serious.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[zakezuke]

Suing someone for their livelyhood when you have no legal ground to do so is just plain stupid. Anyone who needed to work and was being tried to prevent that would surely challenge the plaintiff. Who wouldn't challenge that? What was The Planet thinking? Actually, don't answer that.

It happens often enough. An old obscure band I referended before called Dumptruck was with Big Time records, an indy label. After their contract expired they decided to move up in the world to another label, Big Time sued them for breach of (non existant) contract for the sum of 5 million. Not like they bothered to show up in court or anything, but also it's not like anyone would pick them up given the pending 5 million dollar law suit, something that took years to resolve.

Managers are alot like children, they do things out of spite.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[cloak42]

Neither defamation nor libel can be used as a complaint if what he says is true. Further, they have to be able to prove that he had an intent to defame them by posting what he did, which is difficult. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in these situations.

In most states, the labor laws clearly state that employment is at-will. He can leave whenever he wants and they can fire him any time they want and, barring employment or non-competition contracts, they have no means of precluding him from working at a competitor, provided that he's not bringing any trade secrets with him.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[budgenator]

The company management is clearly poor how would we know, TFA talked about this guy being the VP of Sales, do they even get to eat at the grown-up table? He should call HR and ask an adult if he's really fired and being sued rather than proceeding on the word of the VP of Sales, well unless of course he was a salesman.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[budgenator]

no the strange part is not that the did it immediately but they wait a week; then the VP of Sales did the dirty deed.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[honkycat]

barring employment or non-competition contracts, they have no means of precluding him from working at a competitor

And in some states, even in the face of a non-compete, the company has no recourse (provided the employee is not stealing company secrets).

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[Spyder]

Perhaps this is their cunning plan to create the basis for a case they can win. "...and then the defendant posted libelous remarks in reference to my client on a website very widely read by both customers and potential employees." ..."Well, your Honor, we know it was him because the details and timing of this incident make the defendant the only person for whom the details fit." ..."Objection, the threat of a lawsuit is hearsay, there weren't any witnesses."

Maybe I'm just a little paranoid.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[aaarrrgggh]

When I left my previous employer and started a business with other former co-workers, we were afraid of being sued. It does happen, and is generally baseless but an effective means of tying up capital for a small company.

Here in California, non-competes are not enforceable-- you can't prevent an employee from making a living. However, two interesting things do crop up: 1. You can't steal employees from your former employer; and 2. If you have stock/options in the company (and signed a stock agreement) you are held to a higher standard.

What's odd about the situation the OP described is that only an idiot would sue before you actually started the new job. Scare tactics like "Our lawyers are looking into this" are common; I even got a letter from a lawyer hired by the previous company about suspending buyback of my stock. We hired two lawyers to send letters back to the company, and everything was restored to normalcy pretty quickly.

After the experience, I now think that it is a good idea to be cautious of lawsuits, and to operate in an ethical way towards any former employers. This is especially true if you are starting up your own business.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[CharlieHedlin]

And as far as I know (IANAL, but have asked one on this) Texas is one of these.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[naoursla]

Or maybe the VP at the company posted this pretending to be the fired employee so that his lawsuit would do better in court.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[spiritraveller]

If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.

I tend to think the opposite.

The anonymous reader (assuming he isn't a big old liar) is justifiably pissed off. His company hadn't had a taste of what can happen when everyone in the IT community knows what Grade A assholes they are. Perhaps they will get the message from this.

I tend think they would be less likely to follow through, not more. But it really depends on a bunch of details that we don't have.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[Tablizer]

Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.

For example, I'm gonna sue those who mod this down.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[Alpha830RulZ]

The "anonymous reader" was thoughtful enough to name his former employer in the link, in effect smearing the company's name on a website read by hundreds of thousands of people (many in their industry) daily. Assuming this wasn't made up to begin with, the identity of the "anonymous reader" should be easy for the company to discover. If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.

IANAL, but my understanding is that truth is a satisfactory defense to charges of libel. If it happened this way, the OP is safe.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[Omnifarious]

Personally, I think the cloak of silence around companies that do evil things to their employees is awful. They should be named. It should be out in the open, and people should know. Maybe employers would work harder to find managers who were worth the salaries they were paid if their management's screwups became public knowledge. Especially for something like this.

If what this anonymous reader says is true, I can't see how the company could win any kind of lawsuit. Sure, it might make them more likely to try. And if they did I'm sure a judge would be happy to award the defendents significant damages for the company trying to waste their time and the courts time with a frivolous intimidation lawsuit.

Re:I have heard of attempts to sue...

[bugnuts]

You were escorted out? As in, fired??! For what reason?
Simple answer: counter-sue for wrongful termination.

Talk to a real lawyer if you ever get a notice of lawsuit, not the ianals on a message board.

In the meantime, don't lose any sleep at all. Enjoy your extra week of vacation!

Cheap skates

[simm1701]

Sounds like they were just trying to get out of paying you yoru last weeks pay....

Normally companies can tell you to stay at home during your notice period but still have to pay you (unless you mutually agree to terminate the contract early)

I certainly can't see how that would have grounds for a law suit but then IANAL...

Personally I'd counter sue for the weeks wages and if you really felt like it then also stress, loss of say 2 years wages if your new employer decides to back out, costs and legal fees.

Re:Cheap skates

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as they fired him, is he not entitled for severance pay now?

Re:Cheap skates

[mwvdlee]

Or just countersue for harrassment, which seems to be the only logical explaination for their actions.

Re:Cheap skates

[bleh-of-the-huns]

If you are fired, you are not entitled to severence, and if you went to apply for unemployment, they can contest it. However, in this case, it appears he has a wrongful termination suit he could file. Getting fired after giving your 2 weeks notice, if you did nothing wrong, is illegal. That being said, a company can always find some reason to terminate the employment agreement, but you usually end up with severance at that point.

Re:Cheap skates

[Shadow99_1]

There is also the possibility that he lives in an 'At Will' state, with a company that has a 'At Will' working agreement. In both cases without notice you can be terminated for anything or even nothing. This is supposed to be useful for an employee (so you can leave employment at any time without needing to give prior notice), but mostly is just a big axe over your head for whatever company you work for...

My state and employer are both that way, so I'm quite aware of how that works...

Now the problem if he is in such a situation... Is that he won't be able to counter sue for wrongful termination (it doesn't exist in states like that).

Re:Cheap skates

[arivanov]

Speaking as a side observer (I live elsewhere, but used to work for a company headquartered in such a state) - it is a two edge sword. At the low end or during rainy days the company points a gun at your head, at the high end or in boom times you point it at the company's.

If a company has tightly knit highly productive technical teams with established personal and working relationships "at will" is bad for the company. I have seen quite a few cases when entire teams get up and go to the competition and the company is suddenly facing a total failure in a number of projects. At will allows this.

In fact the "at will" changes only the rate things happen. Realistically, if you are at the high end of the qualification scale it takes on the average 3-6 months for a company to fill the gap from you leaving. 1 minute or 2 weeks do not really change anything. Similarly, if you at the factory floor you can be replaced in under 7 days. 1 minute or two weeks once again do not really change anything.

Re:Cheap skates

[SQLGuru]

Texas *IS* an at will state. He's good to go: whereever, whenever. Look at Randy Mott. He left Dell for HP. He's located at the HP office in Austin. You would have to imagine there was some sort of non-compete clause in there for that sort of move, but nothing they could do.

Now, that being said, the whole "trade secret" / NDA stuff you might have signed is all still valid.

Layne

Re:Cheap skates

[geekoid]

I don't think it's illegal, but it does make it very easy to win a wrongull termination suit.

Re:Cheap skates

[EastCoastSurfer]

This is supposed to be useful for an employee (so you can leave employment at any time without needing to give prior notice), but mostly is just a big axe over your head for whatever company you work for...

As someone else pointed out, this is good for both the employee and employer. In these states employees can also leave at will and most employment contracts won't stand up in court. This is a good thing for everyone involved since it allows employers the freedom to hire more readily since they won't feel like they are getting locked in with someone long term if they either a) don't work out or b) the company has to cut back for whatever reason. This is also good for the employee because it's easier for them to leave for a better offer and may be the only reason they were hired in the first place.

More freedoms nearly always == better!

Re:Cheap skates

[SnakeNuts]

Sounds like they were just trying to get out of paying you yoru last weeks pay.... In a far distant past, one of my employers wanted to get rid of everybody in our retail outlet (computer shop) at once (I guess he didn't like that we actually gave good customer support instead of saying 'yes' to every question customers had) and found an ingenious way to do it: He had us all arrested for theft.

All 8 of us spent at least 1 night in jail whilst being interviewed by the police (I can't call it interrogated, because the police, in difference to our employer, were actually nice and polite) and afterwards used every legal tool in our bag to get our money anyway. We all did. Some of us sued (I didn't) and a year after the case, the guy who started it all got sacked with what amounts to an dishonourable discharge for lying to the CEO...

Sadly this is years ago and not in the US, so I dont think our success afterwards is any indication of legal jurisprudence.

Re:Cheap skates

[Shadow99_1]

True, however where I live this tends to be used as a weapon by companies due to a bad job market (having to move 100+ miles to get a better market doesn't help if you can't afford to move either because those better markets have higher costs of living and they have no need to pay moving expenses of a new employee as the market is strong with about as much demand as availability as is).

Piss off the wrong upper up? Goodbye... I knew someone who had one manager who visited the office he worked in decide he was 'not nice enough', he got unemployment from that company. However what a way to go...

Do something that the business takes note of (negatively)? Goodbye... Knew another guy who was involved in a young professionals group who got involved (publicly) in a split of said group and his employer didn't want to get any press over it so he was tossed out...

I could go on and on really... I personally feel a better balance has to be made than 'At Will'. It shouldn't really be such a weapon for either party.

IANAL Either, but...

[ArchKaine]

I'd strongly suggest you go over any paperwork that you might have, and make sure that you didn't inadvertently, through lack of knowledge, sign something that can be construed as a non-compete, or other type of non-disclosure agreement. As the old saying goes, cover your butt with paper.

Good luck on this.

Re:IANAL Either, but...

[MadCow42]

Non-compete agreements are tenuous at best, and very difficult to enforce. Essentially, in most regions in North America at least, you cannot lawfully stop someone from gainful employment.

In most cases, the ONLY way to ensure the effectiveness of a non-compete is to continue paying the person for the full term of the non-compete. I.e., if you don't want me to work for a competitor for the next 12 months, you have to pay me for the next 12 months instead.

Now - you CAN legally bind the person from not sharing confidential information or inside understanding of your business... but proving that is much tougher.

This is not a legal opinion (IANAL), but it IS a summary of legal advice was given to my wife (HR Manager) regarding employees of her company leaving.

MadCow.

Re:IANAL Either, but...

[ArchKaine]

Understood. But, the point I was trying to make was simple. Be informed, so that any actions taken can be taken with full information and awareness of any potential outcome.

It might be rare for people to be successfully sued for such things, but it is still possible. So going in blind is a bad idea, even if the chances of his former employer winning are slim.

ArchKaine

Re:IANAL Either, but...

[Pablo El Vagabundo]

"This is not a legal opinion (IANAL), but it IS a summary of legal advice was given to my wife (HR Manager) regarding employees of her company leaving."

Your from the US and your wife is a HR manager?? I though HR enquiries there went straight to Legal....

Re:too short?

[simm1701]

2 weeks is the norm for the US, much as its 30 days in the uk unless your contract says otherwise?

Yes

[tgd]

In America you can sue anyone for anything.

Its a pain in the ass, it'll cost you some money, but they don't have a case so don't let it stress you out. The new company will need to deal with the suit on their end, the likelihood is their attorney can handle your suit as well.

Its happened to me twice, I think the total it cost me in legal expenses was $500 and a few hours to show up in court.

You may have good luck counter suing. Blog about it, too. Make sure potential customers of theirs know how they treat their employees.

The important thing is to not let it stress you out.

Re:Yes

[anthony_dipierro]

In America you can sue anyone for anything.

And that statement makes about as much sense as "In Germany you can shoot anyone for any reason." Sure, in America you can sue anyone for anything, but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.

Re:Yes

[Ihlosi]

Sure, in America you can sue anyone for anything, but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.

Then let's put it this way: In America, you can ruin/make the life miserable for/generally fsck up a person (or even a company) by suing them repeatedly, even if you lose every time, as long as your budget for legal fees is bigger than theirs.

The lawsuits don't need to be frivolous, they just need to be baseless, but not baseless enough that they're thrown out immediately.

Re:Yes

[mattpointblank]

I think just by linking to the hosting company in this story, he's already done some damage to their rep. I host with Dreamhost anyway, but if I ever had to change I'd definitely steer clear of The Planet now, if this is how they treat their staff.

Re:Yes

[Thansal]

Blog about it, too. Make sure potential customers of theirs know how they treat their employees.

He did:
I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor

The fact that he wrote this as AC kinda makes me want to scream sour grapes or an attempt at a smear. Hell, if you want you can see the name of the guy who served up the news that they were going to sue him.

Re:Yes

[Lonewolf666]

The lawsuits don't need to be frivolous, they just need to be baseless, but not baseless enough that they're thrown out immediately.
As I understand it (IANAL) the lawsuits need to be NOT completely baseless, otherwise the other guy might be able to convince the court (in a countersuit) that they were frivolous. In that case, you might end up paying his lawyers too.

Re:Yes

[anthony_dipierro]

In America, you can ruin/make the life miserable for/generally fsck up a person (or even a company) by suing them repeatedly, even if you lose every time, as long as your budget for legal fees is bigger than theirs.

Maybe in some rare instances this is possible, but not in general.

The lawsuits don't need to be frivolous, they just need to be baseless, but not baseless enough that they're thrown out immediately.

If you repeatedly sue someone for a baseless reason, surely the judge will award legal fees to that person. And if the lawsuit really is baseless, then your legal fees don't need to be very large in the first place.

I think you're confusing baseless lawsuits with lawsuits which are based on quite a bit of reason, but ultimately fail. These types of disputes can be expensive for both parties, to be sure, and US law is complicated enough that they do come up with some frequency.

Re:Yes

[Lord_Slepnir]

Even better: host the blog on one of your old company's servers for a nice touch of irony.

Re:Yes

[dr_dank]

The new company will need to deal with the suit on their end, the likelihood is their attorney can handle your suit as well.

It could also cost the submitter his job. What company would want to hire an employee that comes with a ready-made hassle of costly legal problems when its far cheaper to recind the offer and find another person from the vast labor pool?

Re:Yes

[Panaqqa]

Take a look at the Church of Scientology and how it uses lawsuits to destroy lives. That is the best example I can think of of this tactic being used. There are journalists out there with frivolous lawsuits against them filed by Scientology right now. They file them in all kinds of different jurisdictions, and each of them requiring at least a statement of defense and a court appearance. And try not defending or showing up for even one of them, and the Scientologists will go for default judgment then proceed to try for your bank account, cars, house, everything you have.

They spend an estimated $20,000,000 USD per year on legal actions. So yes, a sufficiently determined and wealthy opponent can wreck your life with lawsuits.

Re:Yes

[TheBracket]

As has been pointed out, your former employer can sue for anything they feel like. Their chances of winning, however, are a different story entirely. Without a non-compete or other binding agreement, their chances are very slim (I am not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree; this isn't legal advice, blah blah blah); you should have a good chance of recovering your expenses defending the lawsuit, also (see a real lawyer about that).

Even if you did have an agreement not to quit, it would be on shaky ground. Most states ensure the freedom to change employer (not permitting it sounds a bit like slavery!), and in most cases that right cannot be signed away. I actually had a client ask me to sign a contract that should I quit my parent company, I would be liable for expenses incurred finding and training my replacement. I (politely) told them exactly where to stick it, but consulted an attorney anyway - who informed me what while signing it was a bad idea, it wouldn't be enforceable anyway because here in MO I have the right to quit any job, for any reason.

Re:Yes

[huckda]

They'll sue him for wasted productivity while surfing slashdot at work...

and win.

the rest of you beware!

Re:Yes

[AK Marc]

Sure, in America you can sue anyone for anything, but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.

Is not legal? My mother was named in a suit accusing the judge of treason. The flag in the court had a gold fringe, so the plaintiff asserted that was violation of US law and showed he was under a foreign flag, thus treason. She accused my mother (a case worker in a custody hearing who never physically touched anyone involved) of kidnapping for recommending that the child not stay with the unstable mother (the plaintiff). I would consider this frivolous. However, it was not "illegal." Your grasp of law is obviously not good, and you should probably not give legal advice out. Sure, the case didn't make it far, but my mother was issued a subpoena and other inconveniences.

Re:Yes

[RexRhino]

but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.

Huh? What? Something is totally legal, if you can't get in trouble for it. The worst you can get for a frivolous lawsuit is having to pay the other guys legal fees. But that in itself is extremly rare in the United States - So rare as not to even be a concern.

Re:Yes

[computer_chacham]

Well there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry Barratry...

Re:Yes

[RexRhino]

I hear you on that... technically, frivolous or harrasing lawsuits are illegal. But, people getting in trouble for frivilous lawsuits is so rare in the U.S., that it isn't even a concern. I am not saying that bad lawsuits aren't illegal, I am saying that for all practicle purposes they are legal.

What's the basis of the lawsuit?

[WaterDamage]

If they gave you no explanation then they're full of hot air! They're only attempting to discourage you from sharing your knowledge with the smaller competitor. If your future employer refuses to offer you employment due to a possible lawsuit them you may have a VERY big check coming your way if you counter-sue your former employer for defamation and damages.

I used to work for a Fortune 500 company a few years back that attempted the exact same stunt to a coworker that quit, they were hoping to scare him accepting employment from a much smaller consulting company which happened to compete with them. In the end, the big Fortune 500 employer never sued, but the ex-coworker sued them for defamation and won a real nice 6 figures out of those a$$holes.

Re:What's the basis of the lawsuit?

[Tweekster]

Which is extremely stupid to threaten someone like that. Empty threats of lawsuits can become a liability very quickly.

Re:What's the basis of the lawsuit?

[Tablizer]

If they gave you no explanation then they're full of hot air!

I concur. They are probably just blowing smoke. I would ignore it unless real papers are served. I've seen companies do similar things in a huffy mood. Once they threatened to sue our small company for sending a script that was not running properly, but it was a mainframe script and we had no mainframe. We were told to wrap the data in some template job control code and send it on a daily basis. We did just that but it was not working on the other end without any notices of failure. It took the geniuses a few months to notice there was no data being processed. They were slow to monitor their precious data but quick to sue over it.

Re:too short?

[AudioEfex]

Two weeks is pretty short, IMHO. AFAIK, in Germany you have to let them know three months before leaving. BTW: Wasn't there this case between Microsoft and Google, when some search engine specialist was hired by Google?

1. In the U.S., two-weeks is the customary length of notice for non-contract employees. A common phrase is, "They can't fault you, you gave them your two-weeks." Of course there are exceptions for people who are extremely unique in their position, but two-weeks is the customary time frame, and employers must pay you for those two full-weeks even if they choose to not let you stay after you give your notice.

2. I believe in the Google issue there was actually a contract saying one could not go work for a competitor, or start your own company in the same field (or some variation of such). Those are pretty common, but has nothing to do with two-weeks notice but what you do after you leave the company. These don't always hold up well - especially if the person didn't have any proprietary knowledge that will benefit the other company.

3. To the OP, all I can say is your company already screwed up by threatening a lawsuit. Unless there is some big info being left out, of course, they cannot sue you for quitting your job, UNLESS you signed a no-compete contract. The VP tells you this? There is some shady stuff right there - no one but HR should even discuss such things.

Sounds like you are getting out just in time. Again, if the situation is as described, I don't think there is anything to worry about - sounds like a couple of people who don't know what their legal rights are and aren't were trying to scare you. Now you just need to decide - do you just wash your hands of the place, or make sure that the jerks who tried to pull this crap on you are known for what they are.

I just have a feeling, though, that SOMETHING isn't being fully disclosed here.

AE

Don't worry about it

[dgun]

The guy was just being a jackass. As a matter of fact, if you want to have a little fun, hire an attorney to send that VP your own notice of intent to sue. Maybe state that you are going to sue him for being a jackass.

Re:Don't worry about it

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Yeah. For maybe $200 you can get a lawyer to send them a letter stating your intent to sue them for making your life SO miserable at work that you HAD to quit. Of course it's bogus, but it would probably make them sweat a little. $200 well spent.

Re:Don't worry about it

[risk one]

Maybe state that you are going to sue him for being a jackass.

God bless America!

Smear?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, did anyone check that this anonymous guy actually worked where he claimed to?

Re:Smear?

[peterpi]

You can't.
So maybe the "Large Hosting Company" should have been left anonymous.

Re:Smear?

[Donniedarkness]

No worries! Nobody on slashdot actually RTFA's!

Re:Smear?

[Flyboy Connor]

Seriously, did anyone check that this anonymous guy actually worked where he claimed to?

You must be new here.

Re:Smear?

[clonmult]

What, there actually is a FA? I only ever see a headline and dive straight into the "discussion".

Silly

[bloobloo]

That seems ridiculous. Of course without any evidence to back this story up, Slashdot could probably now be sued by ThePlanet for libel.

Re:Silly

[poot_rootbeer]

Of course without any evidence to back this story up, Slashdot could probably now be sued by ThePlanet for libel.

Nope, Slashdot could only lose a libel suit if they had evidence that they KNEW this story was a fabrication, but published it anyway. Taking the submitter at his word, for better or worse, gives Slashdot protection from charges of libel.

Then again, this same "protection" explains why the news media calls LED advertisements "hoax bomb devices" and vectors tales about Barack Obama attending a Muslim school in Indonesia. If they do any research, they could bring liability upon themselves.

Re:too short?

[kfg]

This isn't Germany and we do not have anything resembling a socialist work structure. Unless your employment contract states otherwise the two weeks notice itself is a mere courtesy, not a legal requirement. In fact, in many businesses you can expect them to have security escort you out of the building immediately upon giving notice; or fire you without any notice at all.

KFG

Been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife had a former employer threaten to sue her if she took a local job in her industry. She went to a lawyer, and showed him the letter. The lawyer basically laughed at it, sent his own letter back and that was that.

Having said the above, not all lawyers are created equal. Get one who knows what he's doing about employment law. Our local bar association has a lawyer referral service and will give you the names of lawyers with the correct specialization. Call your local bar association and see if they have a similar service.

Re:Been there, done that

[The_Mr_Flibble]

When my friend left his last job his former employee tried to sue him (all the customers left as when my friend left so did the rest of the engineers).
Everything my friend did was fully legal the customers left after the director of the original company told the clients that enquired about him told them that he was sacked.
Then the old company hired a lawyer that only ever dealt with family law to take them to court.
That was just hilarious.
The old company is currently being investigated for corporate manslaughter due to the fact the idiots they hired to replace the engineers managed to shut down all the power in a hospital.
I think my friends company is going to be getting that contract now as well.

Re:Been there, done that

[binaryspiral]

For the sake of the OP... someone mod this up!

1. Call Bar association
2. Get reference for lawyer who know stuff about your case
3. Talk to lawyer.
4. Counter sue
5. Profit!

Re:too short?

[DarkGreenNight]

I guess he's in the USA. Diferent countries, diferent laws, even inside the EU. In Spain, for example, the notice needs not be sooner than 15 (working) days before. Anything more and your are being generous. For leaving in good terms I'd say one or two months. With that they should have plenty of time to start to search your replacement.

We have this little thing in the US...

[ccarr.com]

...Called the 13th Amendment. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.amendmentxiii.html

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Re:too short?

[gujo-odori]

As the CP says, two weeks is the norm in the US, and even that is only a matter of tradition and courtesy, not a matter of law. If you decide one day to quit your job, you can just say "I quit" and walk out and that's that.

Microsoft did sue Google, but they settled out of court, and Lee works for Google today.

Even if the guy being sued did sign a non-compete without realizing, they still can only sue to block him from working for a competitor. They can't sue him just for quitting. And depending on what Texas courts think of non-competes, they might still be on thin ice. Here in California, courts have generally held non-competes to unenforceable. I have a non-compete, like most other tech workers, and the major reason courts have generally held them unenforceable is that (especially in a narrow specialty like mine), a two-year non-compete clause would be tantamount to forcing me to leave my chosen career completely and work for a lot less money in some other industry.

Add to that the fact that the standard employment agreement states that you have an at-will relationship with your employer. They can terminate your employment at any time, for any reason, or for none. Likewise, you can quit at any time, for any reason, or for none. If an employee is going to be at-will (yes, you can still sue for wrongful termination in some circumstances, I know), companies can't expect to have it both ways. If they can do whatever they want with respect to their employees' employment, employees likewise should be able to do so.

I agree with that idea, both because I'm an employee, and because I have fairly libertarian principles regarding the free market for goods and services. My job skills, like my house, stocks, car, or any other assets, should be worth whatever the market will bear, to offer to any bidder, without restriction. If a company can keeps its employees happy (and that takes a lot more than salary; salary may not even be the top thing; I'd rather make a medium salary at a great place to work than a top-of-market salary at a bad place to work), they'll stay there and work. If it can't, they'll go elsewhere. Maybe to a competitor. That's fair. Employees should have the same relationship with a company that customers do: make them unhappy and you'll lose them.

Texas

[Jaysyn]

Is Texas a right-to-work state like Florida?

Re:Texas

[LordNimon]

Yes.

Re:Texas

[Jaysyn]

Then the company doesn't have a leg to stand-on. Even if they do have a NDA with them all it can prevent is him from stealing their technology &/or taking their customers. IANAL, etc, etc...

You may still have a non-compete in place

[GBC]

On the facts provided, I think the only basis for your old employer being able to sue you would be if there was some form of non-compete in place. In that case, they could sue you for breach of the non-compete clause and they could potentially sue the new employer for inducing you to breach that provision.

Generally speaking, you should always try to have a written contract of employment so you know where you stand with regards your employment. Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.

If you were in a particularly senior position and/or handled sensitive information as part of your job, then it is likely that there would some form of non-compete in place. If you are able to, check your staff handbook (if any) and try to obtain a copy of a contract of employment from a friend at your old workplace to see if there is any mention of a non-compete clause. If there is, then it makes your position weaker unfortunately.

IAAL and I think the only people that ever win in court are the lawyers. It is in everyone's interests to avoid going to court if at all possible as it will be a waste of time, money and effort.

Perhaps you could try writing to the employer? Explain reasons for leaving, that you want to leave on good terms, wish them well etc. Say you were disappointed to hear that they are considering taking action against you and would like them to explain the basis for doing so.

Worse case scenario is that they go ahead. Best case, you find out that they were never consider taking action in the first place or they realise they are being silly and move on.

(Standard disclaimer: Whilst IAAL this should not be considered legal advice. See a local lawyer if you feel the situation warrants it).

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[taumeson]

I know you have a right to get at your employee file, yes? Sounds like these jerks may try to dick him around a bit with it.

Another commenter mentioned that Texas is a right-to-work state. I've been told that non-competes and whatnot can be hard to enforce in right-to-work states, even had it existed.

I once told an old boss I was accepting an offer of employment elsewhere only to have a mutual acquaintance call up my wife to get the new location, call the new location and threaten them into not hiring me, and then want me to sign a contract saying I wasn't going to go anywhere. I quit right away.

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[Rob the Bold]

Generally speaking, you should always try to have a written contract of employment so you know where you stand with regards your employment. Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.

As movie producer Sam Goldwyn (and many others) said: "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on."

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[GeoGreg]

My impression is that employment contracts are the exception in the US for permanent, non-executive, non-union employees. Most employment handbooks that I've seen state explicitly "this is not a contract of employment".

Like many US states, Texas is an "employment at will" state. I have heard that non-competes are difficult to enforce in Texas, and without a signed non-compete on file, I can't imagine that any such suit could succeed (IANAL, etc). Even with a non-compete in place, there is no guarantee that the court will enforce it. These sorts of threatened suits are usually just that: threats. Unless the OP has some sort of super-top-secret knowledge in his/her head, I can't see how such a suit could ever succeed.

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[blueskies]

No way man. Someone called your wife to find out where you were going to work?

This is why you only tell your mistress these type of things...

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[GBC]

My knowledge and experience is from a different jurisdiction and I am not really familiar with "employment at will" situations so I don't even think this is worth $0.02. But to respond anyway - for non-competes to be enforcable, they must not be considered unreasonable restraints of trade. What that means is normally for a court to decide but the length of time of the restraint, geography and industry all play a part.

Having thought about this situation a little more, if this actually happened as described by the submitter, I suspect this is just a clueless manager mouthing off. Being told that you were being sued by a manager who is not from the legal department is not best practice (to put it politely) in these matters.

I also have to agree with some other commenters here in saying that the company in question should not have been named. It lends less credence to the arguments of the AC that submitted, but I would like to give whoever it was the benefit of the doubt.

And last, but not least, I had not realised having a written contract of employment is uncommon in the US (I am not from there). That seems crazy to me (and this from a card-carrying capitalist like me!).

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[RabidMonkey]

I didn't know there was even an IAAL acronym!

A real, "honest" to goodness Lawyer, here?

Next, you're going to tell me DNF is out ..

I have to sit down .. my head is spinning!

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[ChrisMaple]

Never give your reason for leaving unless you are fishing for a counter-offer. It usually generates ill will, and can be used as evidence against you.

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[bobsledbob]

Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.

Uh, you're a lawyer? And, this is your statement?

IANAL, but at least I know that in the lack of written contract, the courts have nothing more to rely on than laws and previous case history; in this case, the AT WILL laws. If the terms weren't given in written form and signed by the employee, there is absolutely no other terms than what has been established by the government.

That's not to say the guy shouldn't seek council, however his stance should be, "My previous employer never submitted any terms or conditions for my employment and therefore my employment contract was AT WILL."

The employer doesn't have anything on the guy. He's free to go, without any previously signed contract stating otherwise. He has to be careful about not sharing proprietary information, but other than that, he's set.

Re:You may still have a non-compete in place

[thecoolguy]

One thing many have not mentioned that could provide a legal basis for the employer's threats is if you signed a Term Employment Contract--i.e., you contracted to provide your services for a set period of time or until the completion of some project. In such a circumstance, your resignation (even without moving to a competitor) could be a breach of your term employement contract, and your former employer can sue for lost profits you'd make. Think of it as a pro sports contract: Lebron James on your team means increased ticket sales, and his leaving while under contract will result in lost ticket sales that the team could recover through a lawsuit if he breached the contract. This circumstance is often overlooked in American labor law because very few people sign term employment contracts.

If you were an at-will employee, the people advice everyone has given should be correct.

As I haven't discerned the locale of this case... This is not legal advice upon which you should rely. You should find a lawyer in your local jurisdiction competent and experienced in employment litigation. (I know it's lame, but it's lawyers and the law.)

Re:too short?

[Perseid]

I don't think employers are legally required to pay for the two weeks as such. If you say you are going to quit in two weeks that is not a valid legal reason for them to fire you. If they do you can sue for wrongful termination. If they really don't like you anymore it is reasonable to pay you what you would have made in those two weeks to, in a sense, bribe you into not coming back.

And as for the original post, IANAL, but you don't have to be to realize that this lawsuit is total nonsense. So much so that I'm not sure I believe you. But if you are for real, don't worry about it and sue back.

Texas is a work at will.

[will_die]

They can fire you for any reason execpt race,relgion,etc. In other words you are out of luck, just take the week with a smile; or since they fired you go file for unemployment.
However you could possibly sue them if they broke the employee handbook, that is generally considered a contract and breaking that has lead to million dollar lawsuits. However most companies settle out of court because of the bad press relations with future employees; how would you feel if when researching a company you find a message about that company firing people when they have given thier leave notice? When companies don't want soon to be former employees hanging around they normally just pay them the money for the remaining weeks and escort them out the door.

As for the lawsuit, time to hire a lawyer. Unless you were some grand person in thier company they probably don't have much of a recourse. You should get a lawyer and see if in Texas you can sue the other company for preventing you from performing in another job and see if filing for unemployment will hurt your case(it may strengthen it since confirms with an outside source that they fired you).

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[mark-t]

They can fire you for any reason execpt race,relgion,etc And how would an employee actually _prove_ that it was such an issue if it were? Even if he said so when he fired you, it'd be your word against theirs, wouldn't it?

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[tomservo84]

or since they fired you go file for unemployment.

Well...that wouldn't make much sense. If they are starting the new job in one week, they would be doing that for nothing, as there is always a one-week wait before getting any compensation.

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[will_die]

In most cases yes unless they do something stupid like put in in writing, and there have been plenty of people who have done that.

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[will_die]

Yea you would probably not get any money, but it would place it on record that they fired you and it would raise the rate that they pay to the state. Also if it was some stupid comment by the VP it would cause outside departments in the company, such as HR, to get officially involved.

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[honkycat]

Companies I've known are very careful to collect a paper trail before firing in order to justify exactly why it is that an employee is being let go. If a worker were fired and sued for discrimination, the company is going to need some evidence to explain why it was that they fired the employee. Even if they're technically free to fire an employee at any time, for any (non-discriminatory) reason, they can't just wake up and decide to let someone go for this reason.

I don't think this is unreasonable -- it'd be rare for a company to legitimately want to fire an otherwise productive, well-behaved employee. If he's not productive or well-behaved, then it won't be difficult to come up with the documented reason for termination.

If it's just a layoff (i.e., financially necessary firing), then things may be a little different. These wouldn't be for any cause. However, if a round of layoffs consists of entirely workers, the company will have a problem. Again, documentation will be important, probably of reasons for selection. This is why layoffs often go along senority grounds -- it's easy to explain that the least senior member of each group was let go, even if he's not the least-productive. That's clearly a non-discriminatory rationale. This is an unfortunate approach, though, and isn't always the case...

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[mark-t]

I realize that they can't legally fire somebody for these reasons, but isn't it going to be up to the former employee to prove that his accusation was true, and not the company's responsibility to prove that it wasn't? Anyways, the employee could always easily lie... especially if the employee was within probationary period, the employer could just say "It wasn't working out" as a formal statement if asked why, or something equally vague such as "he wasn't really fitting in" even *IF* he had directly said to the employee earlier that "I'm firing you because you are a homosexual" (assuming nobody else was in the room, so there are no witnesses), for example. Unless the employee's performance in his first few weeks had been quite a bit above par, a statement to the effect that he just wasn't working out could not easily be disputed. Near as I can see, the employee would be totally screwed over in such a case.

Re:Texas is a work at will.

[honkycat]

Well, not having direct experience with such a situation, I don't know for sure. I've just observed a few companies being very careful about keeping paper trails about this sort of thing. Given how easy it would be to keep there from being a trail that indicates discrimination, I suspect that a seemingly arbitrary firing of a member of a protected group would be scrutinized pretty closely if a complaint were filed. Otherwise, these laws would be utterly ineffectual.

It may be that a company can pull it off a time or two, but it wouldn't be hard to notice a complete absence of members of that class or a pattern of firing members without documented cause.

Note, also, that firing someone for being homosexual is perfectly legal in many states.

anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Now that's the idea.

I propose the poor guy sues his company. before it has time to sue him.

IANAL, but I'm sure a pro can find a few nicely worded offenses commited by this company (Breaking the freedom of choosing its employer, being considered as a serf belonging to the company while slavery has been abolished for some time, moral prejudice for unneeded sufferings, cruelty (in group), libel (?), being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is), intimidation, unheeded meddling in someone's affairs, etc ...

Anyhow, if they want to play dumb, he should just play harder...

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[91degrees]

being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,

If it's not barred by law, then it's still an inherent right.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Undertaker43017]

"being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is)"

Wrong, it's called the First Amendment. Organizations like: the KKK, PETA (or the ultra radical cousin the ALF), anti-abortion groups, MADD, etc have stood behind the First Amendment and been obnoxious assholes for a very long time.

Every American has the right to be an asshole, and I will use my Second Amendment rights to defend the right.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Dun Malg]

IANAL, but I'm sure a pro can find a few nicely worded offenses commited by this company (Breaking the freedom of choosing its employer, being considered as a serf belonging to the company while slavery has been abolished for some time, moral prejudice for unneeded sufferings, cruelty (in group), libel (?), being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is), intimidation, unheeded meddling in someone's affairs, etc ... Cripes, this is what's wrong with Ask Slashdot. The "offenses" you list demonstrate that not only are you not a lawyer, you haven't even watched a single episode of any TV crime drama either. With the exception of "libel", none of the other things have any basis in law. They sound like something out of a Monty Python skit!

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[markov_chain]

Hey, this makes me wonder, is there really a lawsuit? As far as the guy said, the asshole manager threatened it, but it's such a long shot that it seems kind of unlikely. Besides, does a middle manager really have power to initiate a lawsuit? That would be more in the HR jurisdiction, and even then if it was some hot shot C-level manager. (The summary doesn't say what the asker does).

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[kalirion]

In that case you should agree that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate term than "pro-life", right?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[scotch]

Actually, the correct labels are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion", imo. "Life" and "Choice" are of course much broader values than that which they fight over.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[corbettw]

One billion Catholics disagree with your premise that you must be pro-death penalty if you're anti-abortion.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[NormalVisual]

They sound like something out of a Monty Python skit!

So does that mean I can quit for having excessive spam in my inbox? I was told it's not got much spam, but I was lied to.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[scotch]

Or how about "anti-abortion" and "pro-death penalty"? Why get carried away, we have much better labels for these groups than "pro-life"?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

No, "pro-abortion" is not the correct label. "Pro-choice" is. The vast majority people who are pro-choice do not promote abortion, they want to promote the woman's right to choose, hence they are "pro-choice." The most strident "pro-choice" activist i ever met didn't promote abortion itself although she did work to combat the culture of shame that surrounds the decision to have an abortion. Her attitude was that even though having an abortion is never a good choice, sometimes it's the best choice available and women shouldn't be made to feel like criminals for making it.

I do believe that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate term for the other side than "pro-life," but if one side can make semantic distinctions about what their term means then the other side gets to as well. "Pro-life?" If you say so.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Skater]

It's all in the marketing! Because, after all, who is against life or choices?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[forlornhope]

Actually, I would say its perfectly fine to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The distinction comes in the fifth amendment to the U.S. constitution. "No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process of law..." In the case of abortion its one person desciding that another should die. No courts, no juries, no due process of law. In the case of the death penalty, the person has been found guilty by due process of law of a crime. You can argue that the punishment is to final for the inperfections of the process, but then I would argue that we should endever to make the process more perfect.

The problem I have with abortion is that I believe that the Roe v. Wade court did not have the right to say that abortion was legal up until the end of the first trimester. In effect the court said that the federal goverment has the right to establish the point at which life begins. There is no where in the constitution that says the federal goverment has this right, but the consitution does say that any right not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states. I would thus say that its for the states to descide when abortions are legal and when they are not.

Not all people's objections to abortion are based upon religion or life. If you were to classify me I would have to say I'm pro-consitution and pro-states rights. What I was pointing out in the original post is that you should call a group by the name that it has given itself. Otherwise someone could come along and start calling the pro-choice people pro-baby killing. Obviously they are not, they just have a different view of the subject.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[walt-sjc]

Most? You know this for a fact?

But let's assume that this is true for the sake of argument... Maybe they feel that babies have an inherent right to life, where some criminals behaved so poorly that they have forfeited that right. Our prison system doesn't seem to have a good alternative to the death penalty, such as a "hard labor" option, and we tend to keep letting really bad people go free to murder / offend again.

But let's get back on track, because this is WAY WAY off topic.

This corporate behavior is just insane. It sure sounds like someone needs to see a shrink and take some strong medications, because there is no way they have a case at all. This is simple malicious harassment driven from undeserved anger.

I was in a startup once that had about 25 people. Due to the wacky behavior of the founder / president, 20 people (including myself) quit within a 1 month period (I was early - number 2.) He tried to convince me to stay, claiming that he would double my salary, but I declined, saying that the new job offered a much more challenging and interesting position. Truth is that I would rather have taken a cut in pay than stay (which was true, but not necessary - I ended up with a job that paid 50% more.) Ironically, nearly the same thing happened 3 years later, when I quit that job, and had happened before at the 2 jobs prior. Everyone wanted me to stay and always offered a significant pay raise, but to me job satisfaction is more important than cash - even when I wasn't making very much.

On that note, just how do others feel about someone who makes a decision to leave, accepting another job offer, but then changes his mind when cash is thrown on the table? I guess it depends on the reason you are leaving. Is it for career development? To get away from a bad boss? To find something more interesting? Or just pay?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[drinkypoo]

The most strident "pro-choice" activist i ever met didn't promote abortion itself although she did work to combat the culture of shame that surrounds the decision to have an abortion.

If you are working to help people be able to get an abortion, then you are quite simply pro-abortion.

Her attitude was that even though having an abortion is never a good choice, sometimes it's the best choice available and women shouldn't be made to feel like criminals for making it.

Actions speak louder than words.

I do believe that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate term for the other side than "pro-life," but if one side can make semantic distinctions about what their term means then the other side gets to as well. "Pro-life?" If you say so.

One side can make incorrect semantic distinctions but it doesn't make them right. It makes them deluded.

Note that I am pro-abortion in the first trimester. And I do not lie to myself about what I am. Does that make me better? No. But it makes me less confused about what I'm really doing and saying.

There is no difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Either you think it is wrong, or you don't - either you think it's murder, or you don't. Or, I guess, either you think murder is wrong, or you don't, if you think it is murder. For the record (again) I do not think that it is.

I am not repeat not trying to start a debate over abortion here. Please please PLEASE don't let that happen. But trying to draw a distinction between pro-abortion and pro-choice is no different from calling anti-abortion "pro-life" which is also a bit hypocritical - these people brush their teeth right? They're killing thousands of bacteria. Why do they have less of a right to live? And of course, every time you have a wet dream, thousands die in your jockeys.

But I am carrying on the fight against political correctness. Both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are PC terms and as such they are both abhorrent to anyone who loves accuracy.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Undertaker43017]

"There is no where in the constitution that says the federal goverment has this right, but the consitution does say that any right not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states. I would thus say that its for the states to descide when abortions are legal and when they are not."

I couldn't agree more with this. I lean pro-choice, but strongly feel Roe was a bad, precedent setting ruling, allowing the Feds to (further) usurp states rights.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Citizen of Earth]

Actually, the correct labels are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion", imo.

I take it that you aren't employed as a PR coordinator.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[mcrbids]

Actually, the correct labels are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion", imo. "Life" and "Choice" are of course much broader values than that which they fight over.

I think you are right about "pro-life" being "anti-abortion".

I'm not "Pro-Abortion". I think it's perfectly OK for people to carry their pregnancies to term. However, I think that if a mother has decided that she's just not ready to have a baby, and is willing to KILL the baby inside her, she's probably right. I trust her judgement. Every woman I know who's had an abortion really was not ready to care for a baby.

Abortion is a form of humane, mercy killing. We do it with dogs (and people!) all the time - when somebody/something is suffering needlessly and irrevocably, we "put 'em down".

Rather than see the child suffer for life being raised in a broken home with a mother that would rather the child was never born, with the abuse, insecurity, criminal career, and so on, allowing an abortion to happen stops all this pain from happening.

And I believe that prospective parents should have a choice in the matter. Thus, I am "pro choice".

"Pro-Abortion" implies that I want YOU to have an abortion. That it not the case. I just don't want to take that choice away from you.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[xappax]

I agree with your objection to the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", as they're kind of glittering generalities - distractions from the issue. They lend themselves to questions like "Who could be against choice?" or "How can you not support life?" which are meaningless and don't advance the debate. I agree that "anti-abortion" is a fair characterization of the self-identifying "pro-life" movement, because it's a pretty neutral description of their entire position. They are against abortion, and don't think people should have them or be allowed to have them, hence anti-abortion.

"pro-abortion" is a bit of a misnomer though, since many people find abortion distasteful and would personally object to themselves or people they know having one, but think that the government shouldn't remove people's right to have abortions. This is not an unusual position, and these people would certainly object to being called "pro-abortion", since it carries with it the implication that they think abortion is great and encourage people to have them.

The best descriptor that I can come up with is "anti-prohibition of abortion", which may be accurate but is nowhere near catchy enough to be actually used.

I have to admit, though, that I do like the ring of "anti-life" as a fuck-you to all the grandstanding word games - or hell why not just cut to the chase and call it "pro-baby-death"? It's still the same position, no matter what it's called, but the implications and power of the very terms used to describe this debate is interesting.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[metamatic]

If you are working to help people be able to get an abortion, then you are quite simply pro-abortion.

Total bullshit.

When I help people fix Microsoft Windows so they can get their job done, that doesn't mean I'm pro-Windows. Quite the opposite, I explain to them that the brokenness is typical of Microsoft, and that they should switch.

When I drive someone to a restaurant and they order steak, that doesn't mean I'm pro-meat-eating. I remain a vegetarian. I'm just letting other people make their own choices.

You are falling into the "with me or against me" fallacy of thinking that neutrality is impossible. It isn't. There's a whole spectrum of positions on abortion, not just two polar extremes. There are plenty of us who are somewhere in the middle, and who think other people should be allowed to make their own moral choices within certain limits.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[drinkypoo]

When I help people fix Microsoft Windows so they can get their job done, that doesn't mean I'm pro-Windows. Quite the opposite, I explain to them that the brokenness is typical of Microsoft, and that they should switch.

See, I disagree. I think that does mean you're pro-Windows, although you may be more pro-something else. Because whether you realize it or not, by supporting Windows, you're supporting the institution of Windows. You are making it possible for people to use Windows. You are an enabler. Not that I'm not, mind you. I feel that the money I receive is worth the amount of support I give them; although I am not so delusional as to believe anything other than the fact that I am in fact working against my own best interests in the long term for a short-term reward.

When I drive someone to a restaurant and they order steak, that doesn't mean I'm pro-meat-eating. I remain a vegetarian. I'm just letting other people make their own choices.

Uh, that's not the same thing. It's much more like you cut someone's steak up for them.

You are falling into the "with me or against me" fallacy of thinking that neutrality is impossible. It isn't.

What are you talking about? Of course it's impossible! Frankly your stated position on something means absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, you are defined by your actions. PERIOD. End of story. I can say all day that I despise our government, for example, but at the end of the day if I go out and vote for the incumbents, then it's a very clear statement that I am in favor of the status quo.

By the same token, voting to permit abortion means you are in favor of it, at least as compared to the alternative. Period. There is no third way. And being in favor of it only compared to the alternatives is still being in favor of it. Only the reason for your decision changes.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[kalirion]

One billion Catholics disagree with your premise that you must be pro-death penalty if you're anti-abortion.

That's not my premise at all. In fact, the post I was responding to claimed that "anti-abortion" is an incorrect label, and "pro-life" does a better job of describing those who are against abortion. I was merely pointing out that if you talk "pro-life" without the context of "abortion", you'd have to take the death penalty into account. See, now don't you feel silly?

So, to reiterate, I never said that pro-death penalty has any conflicts with anti-abortion. On the other hand, I'd argue that anyone pro-death penality cannot be pro-Jesus (as I assume one billion Catholics are.) But that's a completely different issue alltogether.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[thing12]

There is no difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Either you think it is wrong, or you don't - either you think it's murder, or you don't. Or, I guess, either you think murder is wrong, or you don't, if you think it is murder. For the record (again) I do not think that it is.

Straw man. It is not a crime, and it is defined as a right by the only interpretation of the Constitution that matters (the Supreme Court's). You can support those constitutional rights of women to make their own decisions - to decide for themselves if they believe that having an abortion is wrong and whether or when it is not -- and still firmly believe that it is wrong and that these women are going against your morality or creed by having abortions. The two are mutually exclusive. Supporting our system of government and every right that we are guaranteed because of it has absolutely nothing to do with your personal morality.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[John Nowak]

I won't get into a rational debate here as it doesn't look possible. However, I will say that you seriously need to rethink this. Saying someone has a choice with regards to abortion is exactly like saying someone has a choice as to if they eat meat or not. Cutting up their meat for them would be more like helping perform the abortion without any thoughts or cares.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Achromatic1978]

Similarly, "pro death penalty" can more accurately be stated as "for punishment of, and permanently removing from society of, individuals who commit certain particularly heinous crimes, such as rape and serial murder."

Ahh yes. Very convenient, really, that there's no advocating the death penalty for those who commit the heinous crime of murdering people who work at clinics, or the families of doctors, with pipe bombs. Funny, how that one seems to get a pass, some martyrdom, and 72 virgins in heaven... oh wait, that last one is the heathen mob. My mistake.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Achromatic1978]

Does that include those who kill "in the name of" being pro-life?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[kalirion]

And now it seems I was the one who misread the post i'm responding to (corbettw's). Ah well, it's Friday, my brain is too full of thoughts of weekend to work.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[BarryJacobsen]

While typing that comment, you did not cure the world of AIDS. You are FOR AIDS. Your action of not curing AIDS is all that matters. You may be more for typing a comment than you are for AIDS, but your actions are all that matters.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

If you are working to help people be able to get an abortion, then you are quite simply pro-abortion.

I'm not going to argue that this statement is false (though i do believe that argument could be made), but it does miss the point. Pro-choice activist are not, for the most part, helping women get abortions. They are helping women maintain their right to choose to have an abortion if the need arises. Hence, even by your definition, they are pro-choice. Health-care workers help people get abortions, and for the most part, i would call them pro-helping-people.

But I am carrying on the fight against political correctness. Both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are PC terms and as such they are both abhorrent to anyone who loves accuracy.

They're not PC terms - they're PR terms. Pro-lifers want to be seen as up-with-people do-gooders instead of authoritarian meddlers. Pro-choicers want to be seen as defenders of freedom instead of baby killers. The fact that the pro-choice term happens to fit what they actually do and believe just means that sometimes there is truth in advertising. The fight against political correctness is all too often just the fight to be a dick.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Darby]

Really? I don't think being pro-life requires being pro-capital punishment. But since you asked, a fetus is innocent while a murderer is not.

It's not a requirement, it's just that there are massive numbers of hypocrites who hold both beliefs. Similarly the overlap between the anti-sex education morons is substantial. That overlap demonstrates that "respect for life" or any of the other nonsense crap they claim to support is just that.

The biggest problem with the anti-abortion freaks is that regardless of what nonsense they like to spout, what they believe is exactly this:

They feel that it is their right to hold a gun to somebody's head and force them to go through 9 months of pregnancy and have a child which they have already determined that they can not afford financially, emotionally or otherwise. The woman in question is , of course, the only one with the necessary information to make this determination which demonstrates the plain idiocy and contempt for liberty of the anti-abortion folks.
They, of course, will not pay for the kid which they would have to if they had any integrity at all. In fact, they're generally the same people who vote against any programs to either help these people or help prevent people from being in the situation where they would be faced with such a difficult choice.
Don't get me wrong, they're generally not fiscally responsible people since they love those farm subsidies, utility subsidies and all those other welfare programs they feel they're entitled to pick my pocket to fund in order to avoid being productive members of society.

The fact that they are generally forcing the poor to have kids they can't afford which will keep them poor demonstrates that there is no morality whatsoever behind their motivations, just pure animosity. As further evidenced by the rest of the hate-based legislation they're so fond of supporting.

The fact that they can't have their desires without massive government power demonstrates how dead the old Republican party truly is since their primary base has as it's primary desire something that can't happen without massive police state government powers. Of course, they generally despise America and want to replace it with a fascist theocracy, so they have no problem with that. Of course, the goals of the party elite require massive police state government powers as well so they're quite happy to cater to the extremist wingnuts in this respect as the destruction of the constitution is what they have in common.

So, yes, in specific, there isn't a requirement for such things, but in general, that is how it all shakes out.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[drinkypoo]

While typing that comment, you did not cure the world of AIDS. You are FOR AIDS.

This is obviously not analogous to my comment. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. If you are pro-choice, then you are helping to make it possible for people to have abortions, therefore you are working to keep abortions available, therefore you are working on behalf of abortions, therefore you are pro-abortion. Meanwhile, I have done nothing to support AIDS whatsoever.

I could be wrong, but this is not a valid argument against my statement. And I still don't think I'm wrong, frankly. I think that in this world we like to lie to ourselves about our influence.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

You are wrong. He's taking your own argument and showing its inherent weakness by extrapolating it to its logical extreme. Once you accept that only actions and results matter, you're not too far from "the ends justify the means" and i don't think you really want to go there.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Darby]

There is no where in the constitution that says the federal goverment has this right, but the consitution does say that any right not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states. I would thus say that its for the states to descide when abortions are legal and when they are not.

The problem with this though is that the right to hold a gun to somebody's head in order to force them to go through 9 months of pregnancy and force another unwanted child into the world is a far more overpowering assault on liberty than saying that you are not allowed to do so.

Constitutional arguments might well indicate that, regardless, the federal government can't do that.
However good luck finding any argument that outlawing abortion isn't the most egregious assault on liberty possible given the fact of what that entails.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[uglyduckling]

Or how about "anti-abortion" and "pro-death penalty"? Why get carried away, we have much better labels for these groups than "pro-life"?

Because it's currently fashionable to try to imbed both an argument for one's cause and a slur on the opposition into the commonly used label for that cause. The pro-abortionists are "pro-choice", implicitly stating that anti-abortionists are anti-choice (although that may not be the case, they may just believe choice should take place at a different time and in a different manner); the anti-abortionists are "pro-life", implicitly stating that the pro-abortionists are anti-life (although they may just believe in a different definition of "life" than the anti-abortionists).

It's also psychologically advantageous in contentions matters to state a positive lobby (pro-something) rathan than the negative. Unfortunately political lobbying seems to work best when the advantages of a course of action / point of view are shouted out and the opposing arguments ignored; reasonable debate the recognises the other side's valid points tends to bore the general public and everyone switches off.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Darby]

Why is there no party that truly represents a pro life agenda? I want no death penalty. I want quality of life --- for everyone. I could handle very limited access to abortion. I am pro life. Where is the party that represents me?

Well, if you're into just blindly buying into stated positions then that party would be the Democrats ;-)

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[drinkypoo]

Once you accept that only actions and results matter, you're not too far from "the ends justify the means" and i don't think you really want to go there.

I didn't say only actions and results matter. I said they define you. And frankly, if you accept that both actions AND results matter, that is the antithesis of the ends justifying the means. Are y'all just going to continually throw logical fallacies at me, or are we going to have a debate? I hate to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but that's most of the entertainment available on slashdot...

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

On that note, just how do others feel about someone who makes a decision to leave, accepting another job offer, but then changes his mind when cash is thrown on the table? I guess it depends on the reason you are leaving. Is it for career development? To get away from a bad boss? To find something more interesting? Or just pay?

Accepting a counter-offer is almost always a bad idea. If the sole reason that you were leaving because they weren't paying you enough then maybe it's worthwhile, but...
If you were worth that amount to them why weren't they paying you that to start with?
Is that counter-offer going to come back to haunt you later? E.G. "We love your work, but you're not getting raise this year because you got that big one when you threatened to leave." or "Now that you're making more money we're going to expect a lot more out of you."

If money was not the only issue then more money isn't going to change the other issues.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[hatshepsut]

I am pro-free speach. I strongly support the idea that (with the usual exceptions, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire) people should be allowed to say pretty much what they want. Should someone use this freedom to preach hatred for a specific group (or theory or person or whatever), my position that they should be allowed to say whatever they want DOES NOT TRANSLATE to me believing that whatever they say is right.

You could be the world's loudest holocaust denyier. I would think you were at best a dupe and a fool, or at worst an out-and-out anti-semitic lier, but I wouldn't stop you from having your say.

I cannot foresee any circumstances under which I would choose to have an abortion (and I would never want to make that decision). That said, if someone else IS in that position, and DOES have to make that decision, I firmly believe that they should make it based on their specific circumstances and morals, not mine.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[forlornhope]

The 'liberty' here involves ending the life of another person. There is a reason the founding fathers put life ahead of liberty. When the act of excersising a liberty causes the death of another person, the government must protect the life of the person. Thus, my point still stands. Also, saying that your forcing someone to have an unwanted child is bs anyway. There seems to be this direct link between having sex and getting pregnant that people don't seem to get. The best way to keep from having a child is to not have sex. There is no god given right to sex in the constitution and no where does the constitution say that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness without concequences. And before you bring up rape and incest, in those cases the woman will ussually get the morning after pill. And in cases where the woman hides it till its too late to get a legal abortion (assuming that the state she lives in allows abortions up until a certain point) then they should be able to go to a judge and get due process of law to authorize the abortion.

Oh look, I just found an argument that outlawing abortion that isn't an egregious assault on liberty. The constitution holds perfectly well for this situation, if people would just follow it.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[BarryJacobsen]

I do feel you are wrong. You are making the mistake of assuming that a person only cares about one aspect of their actions (or rather, you are saying the only important aspect of an action is something, when much more needs to be considered). If a person is counseling people on their choices regarding abortion, maybe they really are anti-abortion, but their desire to help people by presenting all the available options (and thus not forcing their hand by limiting the choices they see) is MORE important to them. Freedom is an important ideal to some, and though a person may be anti-abortion, that doesn't mean they should go against one of their other values if they value freedom more so than they value their anti-abortion ideal. I don't doubt that you are anti-AIDS, but typing your post was something you did when you COULD have been doing something to make it clear you were anti-AIDS - you just had other priorities at the moment; faulting people for not always acting upon all their principals is silly because some ideals are simply more important and sometimes you just have to make a choice between two ideals. Actions are not all that matter.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

I hate to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but that's most of the entertainment available on slashdot.

If you keep going down this road just because you're getting your ass handed to you in a debate then we aren't going to have a debate at all, we're going to have a flame war. And if that old retread "battle of wits with an unarmed person" is the best you've got to offer, you're going to get your ass handed to you there too.

Now that that's out of the way...

The fact of the matter is that your position is untenable. You can try to lump everyone in as pro-abortion or anti-abortion and say that there is no middle ground, but that is not an accurate reflection of reality.

There are people who work to provide contraceptives and sex education in order to ensure that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Many of those same people are also pro-choice. They vote and protest to keep abortion legal. Your whole argument falls apart in the face of this plain fact.

If your theory doesn't match reality, then who is wrong: you, or reality?

As much as you may be in love with the truthiness of your belief that people who are pro-choice are pro-abortion, that observation is ultimately useless because it ignores what they are actually doing and saying and does not give us any insight into the dilemma. Most pro-choice people know what an abortion really is. They understand the physical, emotional, societal, and spiritual repercussions of abortion. Implying that they are deluding themselves into ignoring the facts of abortion by using the term "pro-choice" is condescending and, for the most part, false.

The fact of the matter is that the terms we are discussing are situationally accurate. In the context of the abortion debate, "pro-life" means protecting the life of the foetus. It does not have to mean that they want to protect bacteria from being killed just becasue some pedantic nitpicker has a twig up his butt about the term. By the same token, in the same context, "pro-choice" does not have to mean you want to allow people to choose to kill any baby at any time.

The terms are as accurate as short catchphrases that encompass diverse groups of people can be.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

If you come at it assuming that someone who has an abortion is akin to a rapist then your analogy makes perfect sense.

If we come to it from the assumption that someone who has an abortion is in a difficult situation and needs help, then the same analogy would look like this:

I just want to make sure that people who are raped don't feel shame over what happened to them.

Which one is closer to the truth? Perhaps neither one.

That's the problem with analogies - they're almost never a perfect fit for the actual topic at hand.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[drinkypoo]

Most pro-choice people know what an abortion really is.

Uh, isn't the whole debate between so-called pro-choice and pro-life people over what an abortion really is? And don't many people have a wide variety of opinions of what it really is?

The terms are as accurate as short catchphrases that encompass diverse groups of people can be.

The two terms are strictly marketing terms for the sake of propaganda. They are not accurate, nor are they intended to be. They are intended to be evocative and to cause people to think a certain way, and this debate has proven just how successful they have been.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

Most pro-choice people know what an abortion really is.

Uh, isn't the whole debate between so-called pro-choice and pro-life people over what an abortion really is? And don't many people have a wide variety of opinions of what it really is?

Do you really not comprehend that i was talking about the details of the actual medical procedure? Pro-choice people don't kid themselves into thinking that doctors wave a magic wand and a zygote goes *poof*, therefore calling themselves pro-choice doesn't gloss over anything.

The terms are as accurate as short catchphrases that encompass diverse groups of people can be.

The two terms are strictly marketing terms for the sake of propaganda. They are not accurate, nor are they intended to be. They are intended to be evocative and to cause people to think a certain way, and this debate has proven just how successful they have been.

What is dinsingenuous about the term "pro-choice"? Yes, it puts a better face on the position than "pro-abortion" or "pro-babykilling", and yes it implies that its opponents are anti-choice, but it is also closer to the truth of a complex position than those other terms are. By that standard, it is accurate, and so is "pro-life".

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[drinkypoo]

What is dinsingenuous about the term "pro-choice"? Yes, it puts a better face on the position than "pro-abortion" or "pro-babykilling", and yes it implies that its opponents are anti-choice, but it is also closer to the truth of a complex position than those other terms are. By that standard, it is accurate, and so is "pro-life".

Well, to borrow an argument from the anti-abortionists, the term pro-choice is disingenuous because it deprives at least two other interested parties (the father and the fetus, although of course there is argument over the point at which there's a person in there) of choice in the matter.

As far as "pro-life", it's an absolutely horrible name. I do believe that it is more misleading than "pro-choice" which at least is rooted in reason. But they're both terrible terms, not least because neither one makes any reference to abortion, which means that without context, neither one actually means anything. If you took them at their face value, one would mean you are in favor of choice in general, and the other would mean you were in favor of life in general. They don't actually mean anything, and that is why they can never be anything other than marketing speak.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Darby]

When the act of excersising a liberty causes the death of another person, the government must protect the life of the person. Thus, my point still stands.

Your point would only stand if you could somehow prove that a clump of cells which can not possible exist independently of its host is a person. Good luck with that.

Also, saying that your forcing someone to have an unwanted child is bs anyway

Of course it isn't. That is the goal of abortion opponents. It's irrelevant that sex causes children. The fact is that there is nothing that gives you any rights to say shit about whether or not somebody chooses to scrape a bit of gunk out of themselves in order to prevent a horrible tragedy which is what unwanted children are.

There is no god given right to sex in the constitution and no where does the constitution say that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness without concequences.

Noe does it say that you have the right to force others into having children they neither want nor can afford.


Oh look, I just found an argument that outlawing abortion that isn't an egregious assault on liberty.

Except for the failings I pointed out. Nice try though.

The constitution holds perfectly well for this situation, if people would just follow it.

Indeed it does. Nothing there grants anybody that most extreme power over another living breathing person. Clumps of cells need not apply.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[forlornhope]

Congratulations, you entirely missed my point and then warped it into a nice strawman that you could tear apart. Two things. One, if a person does not want to get pregnant, then they should not be having sex. The liberty you speak of does not free people of the concequences of their actions when it affects someone else. Two, the question of life begins is at the heart of the issue. It is a very controversial issue. One could argue that the main metric at the end of life is when the heart stops beating could be applied to the beginning of life, which occurs at 6 weeks. Just because a person is weak and can't survive without the help of another person doens't mean they are less of a human. The point is that the federal government has no right to descide that life cannot start before the end of the first trimester. This is a decision for the state to make.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[theghost]

If you took them at their face value, one would mean you are in favor of choice in general, and the other would mean you were in favor of life in general. They don't actually mean anything, and that is why they can never be anything other than marketing speak.

But we don't have to take them at their face value. They don't exist in a vacuum. They are always used in context of the abortion debate, and even if you were walking by a conversation on the street and all you heard was the phrase "pro-choice" or "pro-life" you would know what the topic of discussion was.

I will grant you the point that if i were attempting to explain the issue to someone who came from another planet, those are not the terms i would use to describe the positions, but since the vast majority of situations where those phrases might come up do not exist in a vacuum, the ambiguity of the actual verbiage is irrelevant.

As a follow-up: what would be better. Pro-abortion certainly does not present a better viw of the position for the very reasons we have been discussing.

You could probably convince me that anti-abortion was a more accurate depiction of the position, but using it in the context of the real-world abortion debate does not provide a better picture. As a matter of fact, with context, it provides less information to the listener. Anti-abortion is a term used both by pro-choice parties and by neutral parties. If someone says pro-life, at least you usually know that they are on that side. By the same token, calling someone pro-abortion, in context, usually implies that you are on the opposite side of the debate.

Dictionary-precision is actually less informative than context-driven meaning in this situation.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[grmoc]

OK, normally I don't get involved in this argument, but your arguments seem to be from the gut, and not from the head, and this level of insensitivity pisses me off.

> The 'liberty' here involves ending the life of another person.

Define 'person', and when a mass of cells becomes a 'person'.

For instance: Is a sperm a person? What about the egg? What about a newly fertilized egg which hasn't yet been attached to a uterous?
How about when it is 32 cells? ... etc.

I find your statement to be ill-founded. Come up with a better foundation. I'll be absolutely shocked if you can come up with a defintion of 'person' that most people agree with here.

> There is a reason the founding fathers put life ahead of liberty. When the act of excersising a liberty causes the death of another person, the government must protect the life of the person.
> Thus, my point still stands.

Youre being somewhat incoherent. What I believe you want to say is something to the effect of:
Your right to liberty ends when it would infringe on someone else's right to life. Since gov't exists to protect these rights, it must protect people's lives so that they may exercise their liberty.

> Also, saying that your forcing someone to have an unwanted child is bs anyway.

No, actually it isn't. Please make a sensible argument about how the gov't wouldn't be forcing someone to have an unwanted child assuming that people have sex, and don't always want the child.

Saying "Well, they shouldn't have gotten themselves into that situation in the first place" doesn't change the fact that they do, and are then prevented from dealing with the pregnancy before an unwanted child is born.

> There seems to be this direct link between having sex and getting pregnant that people don't seem to get. The best way to keep from having a child is to not have sex.

You're right. But arguing that people should do without is simply unrealistic.
Sex is a perfectly natural thing. It is ingrained and instinctual, and we're built to enjoy it, ostensibly so that we will procreate.

Since, as we're using too much of the planet's resources, that procreation may be a bad thing now (though catholics may disagree), there is a strong impetus (often economic) that people shouldn't have children.

> There is no god given right to sex in the constitution and no where does the constitution say that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness without concequences.

I love this line of reasoning.. You shouldn't be able to have sex (assuming that you cannot have an abortion) unless you're willing and able to deal with the consequences. This is fun! Eventually, when you take this line of reasoning to the extreme, what you're saying is that only rich people can have sex because only they are equipped to deal with the consequences.
Fun!

> And before you bring up rape and incest, in those cases the woman will ussually get the morning after pill.

Incorrect. This can be labeled 'abortion', and some pharmicists DON'T DISPENSE THESE PRESCRIPTIONS.
Some pharmicists won't even SELL THESE DRUGS if they're OTC.
Even more fun, you get assholes who will not fill the prescription, and who will hold onto it so that no other pharmacist may fill it. .. EVEN MORE FUN, if there is an unwanted pregnancy in a underage child, they'll have to go get parental concent for the drugs in most places (if not all places now) in the US for a large class of the morning-after pills. This is especially fun when they've been raped by their dad, or uncle, etc.

> And in cases where the woman hides it till its too late to get a legal abortion (assuming that the state she lives in allows abortions up until a certain point) then they should be able to go to a judge and get due process of law to authorize the abortion.

You're making no sense. You're saying that a woman will go to a judge to get a dispensation to have an illegal abortion?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[Darby]

One, if a person does not want to get pregnant, then they should not be having sex. The liberty you speak of does not free people of the concequences of their actions when it affects someone else.

Right, and a fetus isn't "someone else".
It is a part of the mother. Hell, more fetuses spontaneously abort and are reabsorbed/expelled than are ever born, so you can't outlaw abortion without arresting pretty much every woman in the world and be at all consistent.

Just because a person is weak and can't survive without the help of another person doens't mean they are less of a human.

However the fact that they can't live *outside of the other person's body* does. That's a parasite, not a person. Given the harm and drastic changes to the mother's body by pregnancy, it's really ridiculous that you're trying to argue that forcing that on somebody at gunpoint isn't a horrific violation.

The point is that the federal government has no right to descide that life cannot start before the end of the first trimester. This is a decision for the state to make.

I disagree that it's the business of either entity to involve themselves with the interior of another person's body. Nothing at all gives them any right to do so.
I would think that the 14th amendment would prevent the States from violating their rights in such an egregious manner though.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[JudicatorX]

It's nice that an anti-choice bigot came along and downmodded all the posts that criticised the 'anti-choice' label. Regardless... >>> if a person does not want to get pregnant, then they should not be having sex I suppose she asked for it, didn't she? Also, as other posters have enumerated: you're mistaking a parasite for a human again... I sliced my hand on a knife the other day. Must have killed thousands of skin cells. Because we could theoretically clone humans, does that make me a mass murderer?

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[schotty]

Thats the first thing I thought -- countersuit. Sue the shit out of them. Make it a 20M countersuit. When asked why, reply "You wasted my time, and I find this fun."

Really, the cock n balls tactics that this employer is trying is just sour grapes and trying to instill fear into the OP. I would make this as expensive as humanly possible for the fool of an owner that thinks this will fly. Just for the fun. Why? Because its asses like this that clog the system, and the faster we stake their balls to the wall, the better off the world is.

BTW I know this works from experience. I only got 40K, but thats 40K I didnt have to start with.

Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything

[volpe]

being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is)

If people could sue each other for being an asshole, we'd need a few dozen more cable channels to cover around-the-clock showings of "The People's Court" and "Judge Judy".

Re:too short?

[WebCrapper]

Ah... I don't believe that. I'm an american that has worked for a German Company and my _contract_ stated 2 weeks. Since almost all employees are contracted in Germany/Europe, I would think that your contract states what you have to give. 3 months just doesn't sound right.

Re:too short?

[Alphager]

This isn't Germany and we do not have anything resembling a socialist work structure. Last time I looked, i didn't live in a socialist country. It's a federal liberal (not in your political sense) democratic republic whose economic model is called "social market economy", which (as the american system) is considered one of the "middle"-systems. Germany (well, the BRD) has _nothing_ to do with socialism.

IANAL and all...

[Lonewolf666]

But without a non-competition agreement I can't see that theirs would go very far. Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.

AFAIK that is correct. They can cause you some nuisance but probably not win. If this actually goes to court, ask your real lawyer about the chances to recover your legal fees because plaintiff brought a frivolous lawsuit ;-)

Re:IANAL and all...

[Capt James McCarthy]

Actually, a non-compete is pretty much worthless anyway. A company cannot stop you from earning a living. This has been beaten down in courts already, but companies still try to use the non-compete as a hammer.

Re:too short? Not in CA, USA

[Anna Merikin]

According to California labor law (IANAL too) 72 hours notice is all an ordinary employee without a contract needs give an employer before leaving. The ONLY penalty for not giving even this amount of notice is one might lose accrued vacation time.

72 hours. That's all. Just enough time so you can't quit on a Friday after work and never show up again.

Check your local laws, but I'll bet it's similar anywhere in the US of A.

With respect to the Google case, there was a non-compete clause in the worker's contract, IIRC.

Shit List

[Bios_Hakr]

You need to keep a shit list. I've been with one company for about 12 years now. For the last 5, I've kept an offline diary about my work there. Every time I think I was wronged, I write about it while it's still fresh in my mind. Every time I do something really good, I write in another diary.

For your own sake, keep these private. Fireproof box with a combo or a key you *always* keep with you is okay.

When something goes bad for you, decide how you want to treat it. Do you want to pull out something from the "good book" or from the "bad book".

If you get threatened, you can easily turn the log over to a lawyer for a quick browse. Something as simple of 15~20 minutes of overtime (why does the boss call at 4:58PM for a chat about an e-mail I sent at 9AM) every week over a few years can leave a company with massive fines. Every racist/sexist joke you hear is handy too.

Even if nothing ever goes wrong, maybe one of those jackasses will run for office one day. Then, you can call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party. Maybe get a nice retirement bonus out of it. Or you could just end up dead like one former President's old buddies. Hmm...

Re:Shit List

[LizardKing]

Monday 29th:

Bob from accounts looked at me funny. I'm sure he knows my secret.

Tuesday 30th:

I hear the directors laughing in the boardroom. They know too.

Wednesday 31st:

Arrived at work to find a crow standing on the window ledge outside my office window. I think this is a sign.

Thursday 1st:

The assault rifle, handgun and stun grenades are safely stored behind that old Vax in the machine room.

Friday 2nd:

Goodbye cruel world.

Re:Shit List

[mgblst]

Ha, if that is not the definition of cynical, I don't know what is. Have you ever felt of working at a nicer place?

Re:Shit List

[Bios_Hakr]

The place I work at is great. My boss is the kind of guy you can go and have a beer with every now and again. My coworkers are the nicest people in the world. If someone from another company started talking about my department or boss or coworkers, there would probably be physical violence to right the wrongs.

We are a tight group and we get things done.

However, if you make a wrong step, it can all turn sour in a minute.

Don't ever mistake the place you work for anything other than a symbiotic relationship. Don't ever mistake the people in the next cubicle for your friends. If you start something that devalues their stock or makes them work harder to pick up your slack, then you'll be out in the cold.

It pays to keep ammunition for those times. It might just literally save your life.

And, if it's never needed, then it's no blood no foul.

Re:Shit List

[mustafap]

>For your own sake, keep these private.

Well, duh!

Look, you need to relax a bit and find an employer where you can command some respect, and perhaps even show some. You only have one, short life. Don't waste it being a petty, screwed up individual.

p.s. That's not you sitting across the office is it? With the boom mike and binoculars?

Re:Shit List

[iangoldby]

I don't think I've ever read such shocking cynicism before.

There are things called friendship and trust.

If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.)

And, if it's never needed, then it's no blood no foul.

It is wrong to think that such a secret list will have no deleterious effect unless you actually decide to deploy it.

This is the same myth that 'private life' and 'public life' are separable entities. They are not. What you do secretly affects the way you think, which affects they way you act, which affects how you treat others. It just isn't possible to do something in private without it subtly (or not so subtly) affecting the public aspects of your life.

Re:Shit List

[Mr. Slippery]

There are things called friendship and trust.

There are indeed. Just don't expect to find them in relationships with your employers.

Re:Shit List

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to keep a shit list. I've been with one company for about 12 years now. For the last 5, I've kept an offline diary about my work there. Every time I think I was wronged, I write about it while it's still fresh in my mind. Every time I do something really good, I write in another diary.

Guys like you just saved my ass. I work as a manager in an office that just about imploded. My boss actually thought that the statements in all those demotivation posters were motivational. He actually tried implementing the subject of several of these as policies and wondered why morale went into the can. There was be regularly cursing out of people and basic violations of just about every workplace law in existance. After one really spectacular incident of incompetence half the company threaten to walk. The owners fired him.

Fast forward to present. He sued the owners for being fired and blamed me as the source of his ills. Claims we all conspired against him. Well one guy in the lot, whom I defended from such shenanigans (I view my role in management is keeping the management BS out of the way of the people doing the work), was like the above poster. He kept detailed diaries and recorded all curse out rants. He turned all this over to the legal team.

I kept notes as well, but there's nothing like recordings and detailed records from another witness. I recommend to my direct employees to keep detailed notes of everything and I expect honesty. One day I'll get busted for a crass remark, but that's minor compared to being a dyed in the wool asshole and having it all end up before a jury.

Re:Shit List

[DMoylan]

"keep a diary, one day it will keep you"

mae west i think

Re:Shit List

[Oligonicella]

Expect, no. But, that can happen. I'm still fast friends with two managers I worked with in 1990. Now, if I'd kept a shit list and squirreled it away, that might have tainted the friendship. Then again, if they'd kept a shit-list about me, it might have as well.

People who keep a job that requires them to keep shit-lists are asses.

Re:Shit List

[crgrace]

I'm pretty sure you've been trolled.

Re:Shit List

[duffer_01]

A friend of mine has a similar rule. He has an email folder labeled TFTKITA (Thanks for the kick in the A$$). As soon as it gets to 10 in one year he quits.

Re:Shit List

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.) You do realise that most HR departments do this to their employee's right? You would be amazed what they can use against you when they decide that you are no longer necessary and want to fire you.

Re:Shit List

[kalirion]

It pays to keep ammunition for those times. It might just literally save your life. Um, you might want to word this a bit differently....

Re:Shit List

[delinear]

If someone from another company started talking about my department or boss or coworkers, there would probably be physical violence to right the wrongs.

We are a tight group and we get things done.

However, if you make a wrong step, it can all turn sour in a minute.

You work for the Mafia, right?

Re:Shit List

[Thaelon]

How have you never heard of CYA (covering your ass)?

There's no harm in doing it as long as it doesn't get to the point where you're really shifting blame rather than protecting yourself.

I like the place I work now, for the most part the people are great to work with, but I don't for one minute believe they wouldn't ax me if it was in the company's best interest to do so. It's not shocking, appalling, evil or anything like that. It's every company's right and prerogative to do what is best for the company as a whole. In order to combat that I have to make sure that I work smart and hard enough such that keeping me on board is in the company's best interest.

Re:Shit List

[Hoi Polloi]

Please stay out of my diary. Thank you.

Re:Shit List

[ReverendHoss]

I agree with you, with one caveat.

At my current job, sharing the same taste in video games, books, etc. and a relaxed work environment. As such, I started to consider my boss a friend. I'm pretty sure it cut both ways.

Unfortunately, his snarky comments in several consecutive meetings almost made me quit in a spectacular, unprofessional, obscenity-laden fashion. I was absolutely furious with him, but when viewed objectively, I couldn't tell why it was.

Finally I realized that had a friend made comments to that extent outside of work, I would have blasted him verbally, and gotten into a shouting match/argument. Obviously these are not options when the person in question is your boss, and the venue is a company-wide meeting. His position as my boss shackled me, even though he had no restrictions.

My job became much smoother when I reminded myself that, in the end, what we had was a business relationship. I was paid to take his snide comments in stride. Each time he said something like that, I weighed the comment against whether or not it crossed the threshhold of what I was willing to take. If it did, I would resign. If it did not, then he was my boss, and that was life. After that, a cool "Yes, sir." and brushing off what amounted to jokes lowered my blood-pressure, and made my work considerably more pleasant.

Be friends with your employers and coworkers, certainly. It's the best benefit in any job. But keeping an eye on the bottom line is just as important.

Re:Shit List

[honkycat]

I damn well expect to be able to trust my employer. I would not work for someone whom I felt I could not trust. However, one has to be reasonable about what that means. You can't "trust" them not to have to fire you if you screw up badly, not to have to lay you off if times get rough, etc. That's not dishonest, that's just part of the job, and trust or not, they may have to do that.

Re:Shit List

[penguin_dance]

I agree that if you have to keep a shit list and you find it filling up...well maybe it's time for you to quit taking notes and find another place. Unless you're just an oversensitive prick and then maybe YOU need the help.

But I've got to agree with the cynic. You can be buddies with your co-workers, maybe even managers. But if you leave, are laid off or heck, even retire, it's 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'. Chances are you'll never hear from any of these people again. Basically, most work friendships (we're talking without benefits and not the office romance) is just to get along and ease the workflow. If you get emotionally involved (again as in a true friendship) you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. You're just not going to make the type of friends like you had growing up. Because trust me, if something goes wrong, these fair weather friends are going to scatter like birds. They are NOT going to stand up for you. You are the only one who can do that.

The cheese stands alone.

Re:Shit List

[Eric Pierce]

Brilliant!

Re:Shit List

[metamatic]

I don't think I've ever read such shocking cynicism before.

Hi, you must be new here.

Re:Shit List

[poot_rootbeer]

Something as simple of 15~20 minutes of overtime (why does the boss call at 4:58PM for a chat about an e-mail I sent at 9AM) every week over a few years can leave a company with massive fines.

Not if you're overtime-exempt, which if you're an IT professional you almost certainly are.

you can call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party. Maybe get a nice retirement bonus out of it.

What the fuck, dude. If you hear your employer tell that story, the right thing to do is not to write it down in your little Book Of Secrets so you can use it as blackmail material later. You call the fucking police and report an alleged rape.

Re:Shit List

[JhohannaVH]

Hahahahah... you work in SoCal, huh? :D

After getting the shit beat out of me at the last two jobs I had...I tried being 'friends' with my teammates and coworkers here for the last two years. Things went great until I started outshining my two coworkers... and now, it's war. In a month. They even went so far as to openly attack me about my marriage to a disabled veteran husband, literally telling me that "if he can walk, he can work, and you need to kick his ass to it". Did I mention it was in front of *everyone* in the Data Center?

Envy is evil, in all of it's forms. But it's only in the last 4 years that I've been the object of it for my talent rather than my beauty. It's had some very bad effects on my physical person. But... I'm hopefully out of here in a month or so... depending my latest round of interviews I'm being flown out for. :D

All that being said, I have continued to maintain the high road. Just because my direct coworkers hate me doesn't mean that I should look bad to other teams or upper management. It just would reflect badly upon me, something I seriously do not want.

But yeah, the workplace bullshit has seriously gotten out of hand. Who here remembers PROFESSIONALISM????

Re:Shit List

[gosand]

There are things called friendship and trust.

There are indeed. Just don't expect to find them in relationships with your employers.

True. And not true.

I used to work for a small company, where the majority owner of the company had hired several of his buddies. They were essentially untouchable at the company and got perks nobody else did. Several had quit a few times over the years, only to be brought back.

However, there were other people over the years who were friends with the executives of the company. They were unceremoniously fired for no reason and with no explanation. They weren't stellar performers, but didn't really deserve the treatment they received.

Me? I wasn't buddies with the execs there, but I had made a few friends. I was fired as well with no real explanation. They had actually hired someone to replace me, and introduced me to the guy as working in a different area of the company. I was fired a couple of weeks later. The best reason I got for being fired was that I didn't move quickly enough in a direction that the executives had vaguely asked me to move. (I'll avoid any specifics, but it was the wrong move, and I explained to them why I thought it wasn't a good idea. It was never confrontational, and I was never given clear direction to move in that direction) The new guy was going to be able to get them there. 6 months later, he was fired, and they said that it was the wrong direction for the company.

I found out a LOT of things after I was fired, from some long-time employees and ex-employees. There were people fired for comments that were made that rubbed the execs the wrong way. It was THAT simple. They had been sued several times over the years, but I never heard any of the outcomes. Me? I was actually relieved because I got my life back, and ultimately it was a good thing.

Re:Shit List

[numeralxvi]

Be careful there. The toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!

Re:Shit List

[Dread_ed]

The only reason you do not posess this level of cynicism is your lack of firsthand experience with the fucking end of the stick from someone you thought was a friend at work. In my workign career I have seen people fired, charges borught, and lawsuits flying left and right because of imaginary incidents, mis-perceived slights, and self preservation.

Yes, there are things called friendship and trust, however there are also things called downsizing, layoffs, him-or-you and "if I cut this guy loose I get a promotion" scenarios that can trump your so-called work friendship in a half a heartbeat. If you have friends that will walk off the job so that you can stay, that's great. However, if you don't you might need to reconsider just how far you trust your work friends.

Take care of yourself first and remember that someone's livelihood will always come first in a work relationship. Think about this: Your boss is your friend. The company says that he can get a 20K/year raise if he can get 20hrs/week of unpaid overtime overtime out of his team for the year. What do you think your "friend" will do? Use his friend influence to get you to work more, or forego the raise and risk unemployment out of friendship?

Or, consider: What if upper management said that employees needed to take a 4K/year pay cut, but your boss would get a bonus and possible promotion for each staff member that didn't quit as a result of the pay cuts. Are you 100% sure that your friend would not be swayed by the bonus and possible promotions and would advise you with 100% unbiased motives?

Secretly documenting the things that you do and that other people do is just a nice way of maintaining your status and protecting yourself from the vicisitdes of cutthroat office politicking. Personally I think the guy is a genius.

If you want a friend buy a dog. If you want to work with friends own a pet shop.

If anything, the way this guy documents his work experience probably helps him. If he subconsciously thinks that someone else could be doign the same thing he will be on his best behavior. And his attention to the details of his work life probably makes him more contentious.

Re:Shit List

[Morty]

Whoa.

Where I work, not only can you drink with the boss, but when good people leave, we stay friends. We encourage them to come back if they want to. And most of the people are good people. And, in fact, most of them come back.

One of the current bosses himself left and came back.

One of the guys left, came back, left, and we're in talks to bring him back again.

One guy "left" on a Friday, and was back at work on Monday -- they made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

IMHO, it's in the interest of an employer to do this kind of thing. It's a lot easier to bring a former employee back up to speed than to train a completely new person. But, of course, different work situations vary.

Re:Shit List

[NaveNosnave]

.
.
.
18) In 1988, Charlie Babbitt squeezed and pulled and hurt my neck in 1988.

Re:Shit List

[pilotfactory]

Friday 2nd: They took my red Swingline stapler. I'll set the building on fire.

Re:Shit List

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought of keeping my own list a few times, but realized that if I really need to do so, I should start looking for another job instead.

If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust.

But in all fairness, you should realize that every business big enough to have an HR department, keep such a list against employees.
A new manager decided that a purge was needed a few years ago, 20% of the workforce had to be replaced by "new blood".
Looking at what some co-workers got as "reasons why you are let go" I could not believe it. Mostly very generic and hard to prove things done by everyone, like:

Stay more than 2 minutes at coffee machine talking, disturbing co-workers.
Get in late at least once a month. (No mention of the daily unpaid overtime).
Do not constantly pay attention in meetings.
Unnecessarily use large amount of paper in printer. (WTF?)
Leaves computer on at night. (Compiling at night)
Sometime eat at his desk, not at the cafeteria. (Hey! When works need to be done)

And so on for about 12 pages. I let you imagine how the moral was after that stunt.

Re:Shit List

[rickshaf]

Two thoughts: 1. I don't find your comment funny at all. Reason is this item: "Then, you can call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party." Plain and simple, if the guy "did Stacy while she was passed out", he committed the crime of RAPE! If the author actually had knowledge of that, he should have reported it. If it didn't happen that way, then he shouldn't write about it as if it was just another example of "boys will be boys". (And, BTW, I'm a guy who knows the difference between making love with someone, and raping someone. Do you?) 2. If you "call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party.", AND if you attempt to gain anything of value from it, you're committing the crime of BLACKMAIL! I doubt if you actually intended to convey the meaning that I took from your words. However, your words said what they said. I'd suggest that you think about what you write next time....

Re:Shit List

[Raenex]

I'm pretty sure you've been trolled.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't. This guy's attitude about keeping a shitlist seems very real to me. Being cynical is a pretty common Slashdot trait.

Re:Shit List

[Raenex]

There's no harm in doing it as long as it doesn't get to the point where you're really shifting blame rather than protecting yourself.

Except that the original poster sounds like he's keeping a shitlist in case he gets fired for being incompetent or slacking. And then what is the list for? Extortion?

Communists and socialists in the US

[Per Abrahamsen]

Some Americans have very broad definitions of socialist and communist. Ronald Reagan has been called a communist because the federal government under him continued to "send out armed men in peoples home to rob them of their possessions", which is their code-speak for tax collectors backed by the police.

Unions

[Per Abrahamsen]

Stories like this makes me happy to live in a country where unions are the norm. The union would handle this case, and I wouldn't have to worry about it.

[ Most of the employers are actually happy with the unions as well, the unions tend to prevent strikes and make the salaries fluctuate less, which makes long time planning easier. ]

Re:Unions

[DonnieD701]

the unions tend to prevent strikes and make the salaries fluctuate less, which makes long time planning easier. Yep, they also make sure that even the worst employee keeps their job, and no matter how much you excel, you will still be paid the same amount the schlub only giving 50% does. I've worked in union and non-union shops. I can't stand unions....

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Stories like this makes me happy to live in a country where unions are the norm. The union would handle this case, and I wouldn't have to worry about it.

[ Most of the employers are actually happy with the unions as well, the unions tend to prevent strikes and make the salaries fluctuate less, which makes long time planning easier. ]

Yeah, unions are great at keeping the young and skilled OUT of work and keeping the old and unskilled protected from real job market competition. I have been denied work plenty of times because of unions.

The average workweek of a unionised employee is laughable. It won't cut it much longer, the good times are gone boys. Unions are obsolete and will eventually extinguish themselves.

Negotiation as an individual is far more rewarding for both the employee and employer.

Unions = racketeering, extortive monopolists, extremely damaging to international competitiveness and perpetuate unsustainable lifestyles.

Eventually younger generations will no longer put up with it. I daresay they're just about cocky enough these days.

Re:Unions

[SaDan]

I'm with you 100%. Ugh... Unions need to go away, and people need to grow a backbone. Stand up for yourself, or find another job.

Re:Unions

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Yep, they also make sure that even the worst employee keeps their job,

Not where I live. Firing people is easy, with a few exceptions (like pregnant women). High unemployment benefit has meant that the unions have not demanded "job security" clauses. Since it is much easier to fire people than in most other EU countries, employers are much less reluctant to hire people, and companies can easily adjust to changing market conditions. This also gives us one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU.

> and no matter how much you excel, you will still be paid the same amount the schlub only
> giving 50% does

That is true, we have one of the lowest spread in pay for any non-socialist country. I have a master degree and earn only twice what someone with no education (apart from mandatory school) does. And the other people with a similar degree as me at my place of work, tend to earn within 15% of what I do.

Money becomes much less of a motivation factor, for good and for bad. Also because the education of my children and my retirement plan will be ensured no matter what mess I make of my live.

Society seems to function nonetheless. Compared with US (where I worked for two years), I see many more people who do a good or adequate job, and less people who do a fantastic job.

Re:Unions

[the_B0fh]

Bleh. Even though I have never been in a union, and don't plan to be in, I can see where it can be useful. For example, a friend was on the H1B. Did great job, manager even said she can't afford to lose him. He thought about starting his own company. They fired him. Screwed up his green card application. And he just had a 3 month old baby at that time. And when he was terminated, they told him that if he ever thought about starting a company doing what he wanted to do, they'll sue his ass into the ground, no matter where in the world he went.

Re:Unions

[Dachannien]

Unions have a limited purpose, and this case probably qualifies.

However, unions almost always go beyond this limited purpose, because they are a representative democracy of their members. When the president of a labor union is essentially a career politician, rather than, say, a career electrician, and he earns a paycheck from the union itself, then he becomes motivated to provide whatever token considerations to his constituents that he can. I mean, he wants to get re-elected so he can keep drawing that paycheck, right?

What this means is every time the company contract comes up, the labor union is pressured to offer more than a par deal to its members. Rather than securing their reasonable inflation-based COLA, they end up bringing in overinflated medical and pension benefits. Several decades of this later - long after the general mistreatment of workers had been mostly resolved in the US - the older airline and auto companies are crumbling under the weight of an aging-but-not-dying former workforce, with an even worse future in store for them.

In addition, since worker mistreatment in the US is mostly nonexistent, the unions end up defending the laziest, most worthless workers who deserve to be fired, because the good workers don't need the union's assistance. They have to do this, because otherwise, it would seem to the good workers that the union (and its dues) are a waste. The good workers know they don't need the union's help now, but when the union defends some moron who should have been let go for incompetence years ago, the good workers think, hey, the union defended them, so if I ever have problems, I'm sure they'll help me.

Now, I'm not saying unions should be nonexistent. They do serve a useful purpose. But they should stick to that limited purpose, rather than becoming (or growing as) bureaucracies of their own that act primarily for their own survival.

Re:Unions

[dr_dank]

Negotiation as an individual is far more rewarding for both the employee and employer.

Negotiation only works when both parties are on level ground. David cannot negotiate with Goliath. Unless an employee has a rockstar skillset or the company by the balls, there is no such condition between employer and employee in many cases. Many employees are seen as replaceable cogs and will jump at offers that others turn down. Not like a union where, if you cross that picket line, you'll earn an ambulance ride.

Unions aren't perfect either. Some are piggybanks for the local mafioso while some are in bed with management. Theres no easy answer.

Re:Unions

[mutterc]

you will still be paid the same amount the schlub only giving 50% does

This happens to me, even though there is no union.

You may be making an incorrect assumption about hard work and/or competence leading to a reward.

Re:Unions

[Achromatic1978]

I wouldn't have thought you could be self employed as the holder of a H1B visa...

Re:Unions

[Goose3254]

My dad was in the UAW for a great number of years. Through those years he watch the union get thieves and drug dealers thier jobs secured, not to mention the common, clock-in-and-leave-the-plant types, people who slept their shift through, people who wouldn't show for the shift during the week but be there early to do nothing on time-and-a-half or double-time days. But with that said, when the average worker had some integrity, the unions made great strides to protect the little guy against the slave-labor types.

Sorry incrediably OT. On face value of the original post, the OP seems to be in a position to countersue for a ton. And damn, what were they thinking, Oh you're gonna SUE me into staying, Oh definately, it'll be a pleasure to work for you.

In Soviet Russia, the job works YOU.

Re:Unions

[CrankyOldBastard]

I'd advise you have a look at the history of Organised Labour around the world. I understand that a lot of Unions are like you describe in the USA, but in the majority of countries the Union does a fine job of protecting the Interests of the Workers.

It seems to me that Unions are more likely to get out of hand in countries like the USA, where Capitalism is running at the extreme end. As a result corruption and graft can easily become the norm. Mind you, the extreme Left also has the same result due to human weakness combined with perceived shortages.

Unions work well when they concentrate on provision of Social Justice in the Workplace, and fail when they become an Instrument of Applied Industrial Inertia. In both cases the principle of Collective Bargaining is the strength and weakness.

Re:Unions

[the_B0fh]

He was looking for VC funding. If the company ever got off the ground, then the thought was that the company can legally hire him. It would have been a C corp or some such, iirc.

Re:Unions

[Tsagadai]

I'm with you 100%. Ugh... Unions need to go away, and people need to grow a backbone. Stand up for yourself, or find another job.

See the problem with this argument is the inequality between your employer and you. If I stand up to my employer he has an army of lawyers, security guards and media hounds behind him. It's not as idealistic as just standing up to one man equally, like fighting in a pub. It's standing up to hundreds and depending on the circumstances animals too. I was involved in one strike that had attack dogs and bees were released on us. Unions are about evening this gap.

sounds dumb

[anthony_dipierro]

They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me.

What did the new employer have to say about this? Are they willing to offer you free legal representation?

Personally I think I'd just ignore what the VP said until I see a formal notice in writing, assuming the new employer agrees that the threats are baseless. I personally wouldn't spend any money hiring a lawyer over such a thing, at least until I get some sort of notice to appear in court, but maybe that's dumb of me.

do not discuss law on slashdot

[acidrain]

This is an international forum, being used to discuss a state-specific legal issue. People from all over the world, and from all different states will discuss what the "law" is without realizing that they may not be discussing the same thing. Thankfully, this post had the decency to mention the jurisdiction, but what percentage of the people reading *and posting responses* are from Texas?!?

Next, this post would be 100x more interesting if we learned the outcome of the situation. So what if somebody's ex-employer was a dick and said some shit about suing? Like that won't happen again. If this individual was telling us about an actual outcome based on real law, then this might actually be worth reading about.

Finally, the "editor" should be fired *and* sued for posting this kind of clueless "get a frickin' lawyer when and if it happens" crap.

Re:do not discuss law on slashdot

[eratosthene]

Dude, 90% of the world lives in Texas. Duh. We're huge.

Re:do not discuss law on slashdot

[LordEd]

I disagree. I'm from Canada and I always find the playing of the great American sport (of suing each other) funny. By being an international forum, the community can comment on the laws of their own states/countries to compare with.

For example, I believe that in Canada, working is an agreement between the employer and the employee. Either party can end that relationship at any time (with some exception for discrimination/etc). The poster didn't give enough detail about the job, but I can't think of any scenarios that quitting would result in a lawsuit, unless it involved something else (delete * from everything, format C: D: E: F: ..., or the mentioned NDAs/contracts).

At worst, if somebody figures out that this is legal/appropriate, it serves as a warning not to work in Texas.

Re:do not discuss law on slashdot

[digitig]

Is it true that Alaska is considering splitting into two states, purely to relegate Texas to the third biggest State from its present position of second?

I had a similar experience...

[erroneus]

In my case, the company I was working for had difficulty paying with checks that didn't bounce. Eventually a couple of us got together with another party to form another business. Somehow they discovered this plan, fired us and threatened the other party with a lawsuit and they wouldn't return our calls.

Texas is an at-will employment state. It allows either party to terminate employment for any reason or none at all. Employment agreements and non-competes still exist, however, and are often one-sided so one should be careful about working for people like that. (I once got a job offer from just such a company and their non-compete and other employee policies just made me feel creepy so I turned them down flat.)

The lawsuit is most likely an attempt at preventing him from being hired at a competitor's site. If the poster is truthful about the conditions stated, the employer's suit doesn't have merit and is merely a form of intimidation. This leads back to the other concensus which is the management at the bigger company is just not good. "Executive Hubris" is a term used is a previous Slashdot discussion and perhaps this is yet another example of such. I should hope that other employees at the bigger company are taking note of management's attitude...

Re:I had a similar experience...

[bdh]

I had an almost identical experience. Paychecks were bouncing, and the company was continually living on the edge. Eventually, a competitor offered to hire a group of developers en masse, and suddenly our employer was able to pony up the cash to threaten us with collusion and conspiracy to defraud the stockholders.

Needless to say, that just pissed us off. They didn't have money to pay our paychecks, but they had money to hire $300 an hour lawyers. That's when the offer stopped being idle talk and became a serious plan.

Essentially, their argument was the R&D work in our heads belonged to the shareholders (it was a public company listed on the VSE), regardless of whether we were paid or not. This wasn't just mouthing off, we all got a threatening letter from the corporate law team.

Fortunately, the new company also had lawyers, who told us not to worry, and that they would cover it. At that point, they backed down, claimed they were in the right, and were never heard from again (at least by me).

This happened in 1986 in Canada, so it's neither a recent problem nor a Texas or America specific issue.

What did your union say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you called your union yet? What did they say?

Re:What did your union say?

[Anonymous Coward]

I picked up the phone and dialed their number. I heard a constant tone for an awful long time, followed by a series of 3 beeps escalating in pitch. Of course, maybe the fact that in "dialing their number" I didn't actually hit any buttons had something to do with it. "My union" not having a number, as it does not exist, could be playing a factor here. If I did have one, they'd likely tell me that I'm getting paid the same as the schmuck down hall who plays solitaire all day, and that I'm going to have to stand outside in the freezing cold holding a sign for the next few months getting paid minimum wage for a while, or that I'm going to have to give them a cut of everything I earn there if I wanted to continue working there. Sounds kind of like an extortion racket if you ask me, but not having a union, I hung up the phone and got a lawyer. He advised me that he'll work pro-bono on the lawsuit I intend to file, and while I cannot comment on the details of the suit, I'll tell you that the Greek islands they have for sale are sounding like a good homeowners investment.

Re:too short?

[Doctor O]

Blödsinn. (Bullshit, for our English readers.)

In Germany, the standard is four weeks to the end of the month or the 15th of the month, unless your contract states something else. If I were offered a contract telling me I had to wait three months until I can walk away, I'd ask them to have their heads examined. Also, companies want to get rid of people *quicker*, that's why there is so much discussion in Germany about changing the work laws to allow companies to fire people with no delay whatsoever.

Notice there's a difference in whether you're quitting or you're fired. You can always quit with four weeks notice, but if they want to fire you, it depends on how long you work at the place. A coworker has been fired after 11 years at the company and they had to give her four months notice.

There go my mod points, but this was SO wrong I had to jump in.

As a side note - I've got so much overtime and vacation left that when I find a new job, I can leave the same minute and they still have to pay me for eight weeks. (Of course I will offer to freelance at a fair rate to not endanger my projects, but that's only because I don't want to leave my coworkers stuck in the shit.) So there are your "three months notice".

Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

My understanding is that we all had a little brawl back in the 1860's which was based, in part, as to whether one man could FORCE another to work for him.
The result, I believe, was a rather empathic NO!

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[Drunken Priest]

That's a weak understanding of the Civil War. And especially ironic, given that by that point the north had switched to a wage-labor format, which is actually cheaper labor (use a person up, throw them out, find the next one).

No, the civil war had a lot more to do with the dynamics of power between urban and agricultural centers. Slavery was just the touchy subject that set it off.

(And in the end, the south actually won... if you look at an electoral map; or the balance of power in the Senate).

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[z80kid]

We had two, actually. The first was in the 1780's, and established the right of a free thinking people to spearate themselves from a government that they felt no longer represented them. The second one in the 1860's revoked that right.

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[Politburo]

A very idealistic reading of history. However, I seem to recall some events in Scotland (and elsewhere) that predate the 1780s and dealt with this whole free-thinking and separation thing.

In any case, the Revolutionary War did not "establish the right of a free-thinking people to [declare independence]." All it did was show that when you've got enough guns (including French assistance, mind you), and a convenient ocean between you and your enemy, you can declare and maintain independence.

As for the 1860s, the Confederacy just didn't have enough guns (or they did, and mismanaged them, depending on your view).

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[radl33t]

Or that's a rather weak expression of reading comprehension. GP published a slashdot comment not a PhD dissertation. I fail to see how the comment reflects his entire understanding of the issue given you are in complete agreement, grandstanding insults aside. I would say that setting off that conflict certainly requires that it played a part.

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[susano_otter]

(And in the end, the south actually won... if you look at an electoral map; or the balance of power in the Senate).

And yet neither the electoral distribution nor the balance of power in the Senate has enabled the Confederacy to keep either its slave-based economy or its independence from Federal authority, nor has it allowed them to successfully complete their secession.

No, I'd have to say that the south that fought in the civil war lost, and thoroughly. What you see now is a south that has learned to accept its place at the federal table, and has become accustomed to participating with the north in joint governance of the union.

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[RexRhino]

That's a weak understanding of the Civil War. And especially ironic, given that by that point the north had switched to a wage-labor format, which is actually cheaper labor (use a person up, throw them out, find the next one).

Look, we all understand that the Civil War was a complex subject, and that slavery was only one of the many causes of the Civil War. But don't give me this bullshit that the wage system paid less to workers than they did as slaves!

And in the end, the south actually won... if you look at an electoral map; or the balance of power in the Senate

And I can look at a map, and see that the greatest amount of poverty in the United States is in the South. Slavery totally messed up the Southern economy, and impoverished both black slaves, and whites as well (who had to compete with slaves cost-wise, even if they weren't slaves). Slavery, like Communism, is an attempt to escape the market value of labor - and it has the same economy destroying effects as Communism.

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[RexRhino]

We had two, actually. The first was in the 1780's, and established the right of a free thinking people to spearate themselves from a government that they felt no longer represented them. The second one in the 1860's revoked that right.

Funny, the people back in the 1860s South weren't too keen on the right of slaves to seperate themselves from those who they felt didn't represent them! Southerers were damn quick to revoke the right to self-determination, and with extreme prejudice.

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[Drunken Priest]

Let me just clear up the misconception on this (because I honestly wasn't trying to flame-bait).

I was just treating "cost of capital / deprecation" and "cost of labor" as interchangeable things and suggesting that maybe it's in fact cheaper for "the man" to just pay wages on labor and let the government/society worry about health-care, housing, welfare, etc.

This is apropos the conversation to me, because if you go read books like The Jungle you'll see that egregious stuff went on in the factories too... so in fact, the civil war didn't change much at all about the rights of workers. You can't be whipped any more...; but you can still treat people like crap, flood the ghettos with crack to fill the prisons, manipulate the cost of labor through myriad techniques and drive people into so much debt that "freedom" just becomes the freedom to starve if you don't like it.

Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once???

[mfrank]

The reason they wanted to secede was because changing demographics (North growing in population much faster than South) meant that slavery was going to become illegal. Read Texas' Articles Of Secession. It becomes pretty flippin obvious why they wanted out of the Union.

Perhaps you're just a pawn

[smchris]

How big are they and how small is the competitor?

If their legal has a healthy wallet maybe they think they can crush the newcomer in legal expenses even if the case has no merit?

Also sounds like you are worth fighting for. If the competitor gives in and backs out of employing you, they have also won.

Most likely, you're an excuse. Isn't fighting your competition in court instead of fighting them in the marketplace the new front line of battle? They may have estimated the strength of the competitor, spreadsheeted it out and decided it makes sense to pursue this line.

There's got to me more

[VoxCombo]

Am I the only one who thinks there has to be more to the story? I know there are a lot of silly lawsuits out there, but c'mon...

Since the company escorted him out of the building they are not trying to leverage him to stay, so they must be trying to recover some damages. I'm not saying the company is right, I'm just saying that a large company with a legal department wouldn't waste their money on a lawsuit unless they had at least a CHANCE to get some money.

For example.......
Did he recently get a promotion that included relocation, which carried with it a minumum commitment? Something else? What's the rest of the story OP?

Re:There's got to me more

[kannibal_klown]

Sure, one can't ignore the comedic circumstances: We're angry at you quitting, so as a result we're suing you and kicking you out. But even if the story has all of the important elements, I could see security escorting him out.

One of the main reasons for security escorting employees out is to ensure they do no damage (to physical or information property). This is usually as a result of just getting fired and the company doesn't want to give the employee a chance to "act out" or "fight back," but it can also include scenarios with similar potential dangers: like an employee getting investigated for something or whatever.

I'd say getting pissed at the guy and suing him would initiate the same scenario. I mean, what do you see happening:

• "Umm Bob, we are angry with your actions and are suing you. As a result we've deactivated your accounts and are having security to escort you out."
• "Umm Bob, we are going to sue you and our team of lawyers are going to crush your stones like ripe grapes. So please feel free to go back to your desk with all of your database password intact. I'm sure you'll be an adult about this."

Re:There's got to me more

[0xdeadbeef]

Why do people keep pointing out he was escorted out of the building? Most companies do that as policy for anyone getting sacked.

This sounds like nothing more than someone with authority getting pissy when he discovered the guy was leaving for a competitor, and a bitchy sales guy talking some smack that could get his own ass fired. There is plenty of room in this world for tactless and reckless idiots to rise to positions of responsibility.

Re:There's got to me more

[kalidasa]

You're all missing it. This is about intimidating their OTHER employees into sticking around. "Oh my god, we can't quit - we might get sued!"

Re:There's got to me more

[SecurityGuy]

I'm not saying the company is right, I'm just saying that a large company with a legal department wouldn't waste their money on a lawsuit unless they had at least a CHANCE to get some money.

One word. SCO.

Never underestimate stupidity or ego.

Re:There's got to me more

[Kohath]

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, even when there's absolutely no hope of winning.

The company probably wants him to sign some kind of agreement not to poach old customers or something. They are suing him to make it expensive for him in time and legal fees to resist signing the agreement.

We need a loser-pays rule in the US so he doesn't have to worry about legal fees.

Re:There's got to me more

[BeProf]

I concur.

If the facts of the case are even remotely like the OP suggest, the company's lawyers would be tossed out of court and possibly be given a good dressing down by the Judge for even bringing the suit in the first place. There *has* to be something else going on here.

And just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean that you're off the hook automatically. If there was a "meeting of the minds" at some point regarding his terms of employment, then he's in a contract, paper or no. Sure, it'll be harder to prove the terms of the contract in court, but it's hardly impossible. Suits based on verbal contracts are brought and won all the time.

IANAL. YMMV.

Re:There's got to me more

[flappinbooger]

That does seem to be a plausible explanation, but is almost more insane.

What kind of maniac manager would try to increase retention by suing someone for quitting in the hopes of intimidating existing employees? Yeah, it's possible but the company would have to be a bizarre, tormented hellhole to work in before this happened - because this person was around before, and insanity like that doesn't usually happen overnight...

The submitter makes no mention of leg irons or whippings. "Hey Vern, the canings aren't working, Fred just quit. Time to sue!"

I'm going to have to side with the idea that there is something missing from the story. My guess is he got cocky and was talking about how he is taking key concepts or technology with him to help his new employer. Not that he stole, but the info that is in his head...

Re:There's got to me more

[Pop69]

Personally, I'm surprised they let him stay there for a week without supervising him clearing his desk and escorting him off the premises

Re:There's got to me more

[chord.wav]

This article shows the editor's lack of even the most tiny bit of responsibility.
I'd advise The Planet to sue /. and AC(if they find it) for defamation.

Re:There's got to me more

[abb3w]

Now, now. They had a chance when they first went in that IBM would just buy them up to shut them up. Of course, once they started, the best way to get money was to run the company into the ground, selling stock to fools who'd buy it, and keep talking big to keep the stock price up while they dump.

Re:too short?

[Peter La Casse]

we do not have anything resembling a socialist work structure

Ever hear of unions? Some definitely resemble socialist work structures.

Ever hear of a 40 hour work week?

Not everything that has ever been touched by socialism is bad.

Bullshit.

[Shihar]

Am I the only one that finds it a LITTLE suspicious that this article links to two wikipedia articles, the "evil" hosting company, and is posted by an AC? Can we say smear campaign or disgruntle employee? People, this is a completely transparent ploy to smear the poor bastards who are being accused. It is a travesty that this crap was even posted in the first place. It would have been one thing if the hosting company hand not been named, or if the accuser had named themselves. The fact that only the 'evil' hosting company in question is named and there is absolutely zero evidence that they did anything wrong, not even an angry blog, should be causing all of your bullshit detectors to go off.

Personally, I am deeply disappointed that this blatant smear was even posted in the first place.

Re:Bullshit.

[MikeBabcock]

Its pretty easy to prove. Someone nearby can check for court filings. They are after all public record.

Re:Bullshit.

[Hollins]

Slashdot denizens seldom read the actual article behind a story to check for consistency, and you want someone to actually venture out to stand in line at a courthouse?

Re:Bullshit.

[mcguyver]

I second this article as bullshit. Anyone with the least amount of common sense knows to take an issue like this to an attorney. The only purpose /. has is to smear his old employer. I pity the new company that's going to put up with someone like this.

Re:Bullshit.

[mrcaseyj]

I also wonder if this is bogus. If it's true, why be anonymous since the former employer will instantly know who you are anyway. On the other hand if this is bogus you'd need to be anonymous so they couldn't sue you for libel.

Guess I'll throw in my 2 cents as well..

[StressGuy]

Most state have employment that is "at will" so, I unless there are some details we are unaware of, I can't imagine they would have a case. Then again, talking to a lawyer is probably not a bad idea.

As far as "non-legal" advice is concerned. I'd say that you should "stay professional". Be polite, be nice, keep everything "above board" and document everything you can. In the unlikely event it does got to trial, it just increases the odds that a jury will "like you better".

I can't say I was ever threatened to be sued over leaving, however, I was once told by the quality control guy at a place I worked at the [un-named company] maintained a stable of prostitutes for "entertaining" customers. He offered me the...uhhh...."on-going services" of one of them if I would re-consider.

I know what you are thinking but, when that happens in reality, it's more creepy than anything else.

Re:Guess I'll throw in my 2 cents as well..

[reyalpdemannu]

I knew you could pick up chicks in a tank.

WTF?

[CodemasterMM]

"OBJECTION!" (Sorry, been playing Phoenix Wright...)

But seriously - how is it that you are being sued? You have done nothing wrong. You gave the company ample notice, have been very kind with them (or so it seems), and have been honest. I don't see where they are even obtaining the grounds to sue you.

I hope you win; your old company sounds like a plethora of pricks.

Re:too short?

[Harlockjds]

>I guess he's in the USA

I didn't have to guess. Texas is a dead giveaway...

You are sued when you are served papers.

[jafiwam]

Not before. When that loser-guy in the crappy car shows up and hands you an envelope, then marks it down on a list. THEN you are sued. Until then it's just more useless hot air from management.

Smile sweetly and tell him he's an asshole.

Then go on with your life.

Oh, and tell everybody else that works there they threatened to sue you for trying to quit on amicable terms. That sort of stuff sticks in people's minds for _years_ and may influence what they do in the future.

Sometimes it's better to be the first out and lose a little bit of money and opportunity than to go down with the (obviously) sinking ship.

If you are really pissed off about being threatened. Call the BSA on them.

Re:You are sued when you are served papers.

[geekoid]

I have been screwed by companies very, very hard.

But I will be damned before I give the BSA one iota more power.

They are the storm troopers of the IT industry, and as such should be fought tooth and nail.

Re:You are sued when you are served papers.

[Tweekster]

Fire code and OSHA violations are always a good one...
agreed about the BSA though

Re:Right to Work

[amosh]

I'm also not a lawyer... but I do study it all day. And neither right-to-work nor at-will employment prevents noncompete agreements. In fact, the leading case, CAB v. Ingram, takes place in Tennessee - a state with a 'right to work' law, and the court judges the noncompete - which was forced on the employee months after he had started working there, under threat of being fired - valid.

OP - Whatever you do, if you're really being sued, GET A LAWYER. Don't listen to ANYONE posting here, INCLUDING me. If you can't afford one, talk to your new company; if they're being sued too, you can probably get the case joined and ride their legal coattails. If not, just go in for a consultation; it's possible that if they REALLY have no case, you can get attorney's fees, and they'll have to pay for your lawyer.

The rest of the world - if you're really being sued... Ask Slashdot is NOT the place to go for legal advice. If you want more reliable and useful information, tea leaves are a big step up.

Re:too short?

[twistedsymphony]

That's interesting. Most places I've worked (in the US) had a 30-90 day "probation" period at the start of your time there meaning the employer or employee could terminate the relationship for any reason what-so-ever before the contract kicked in. The idea is it gives both parties the time needed to feel comfortable with the decision and not worry about legal ramifications if they change their mind.

Re:too short? Not in CA, USA

['nother poster]

Are you sure that isn't 72 regularly scheduled work hours? For your "average" 8 hour a day schmuck, that would be 9 work days which is just about that mystical 2 weeks. Allowing you to quit on a monday and leave on the friday 2 weeks hence and still get your accrued vacation.

Slavery ?

[LouSir]

The last I checked, slavery was against the law. With no non-compete or some other form of employment contract they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Of course, consult with a local employment attorney.

It depends on the state

[Alchemar]

You can sue anyone for anything, so the question is not "can they sue", but "can they win?" In a lot of states, your employment is considered a contract that neither you or your employer can break for no reason. Even in most of those states, giving two weeks notice is adequate to disolve the contract. Texas, however, is a right to work state. You are not required to give notice or a reason for quitting. The downside is that your employer can fire you for any reason that is not covered under some kind of discrimination or harrasment law. As long as there was not a seperate contract setup stipulating when you could quit, they will lose. They are just using the legal system as a legal form of harasment and retaliation, which it seems well suited for.

Re:too short?

[sqlrob]

This is Texas. You can say "bye" and walk out, no notice is required.

They have no basis

[szembek]

If you signed no contract for your job, than you or your company can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason. That is what I have been told by HR at every job I've ever had.

Re:They have no basis

[geekoid]

They nmay be right, but I wouldn't trust HR on this issue unless you have worked with them before and they seem to be pretty accurate.

It is in the companies best interest that you believe that whether or not it's true.

Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Benanov]

No, your goal is to not lose money from your employer while they are still your employer. :)

Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[fitten]

Yep. Due to the nature of the work I do, I haven't given anything less than a full month notice at my last three jobs (and just over two months notice at one of those). It gives your current employer time to work with you to transition your duties/work/etc to someone else early and for you to give some oversight/kibitzing to your replacement to make sure things transition smoothly.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[eclectus]

It's always a good idea to give at least a month of notice, in writing. The worst case is that you leave on good terms with the company, the best case is that they immediately escort you to the door, and have to pay you for as long as your notice was for. (If they fire you after you give them notice, you can sue them for unlawful termination). I had a friend that got a 3 month 'paid vacation' by submitting his resignation letter to an employer with 3 months notice.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[badasscat]

It's always a good idea to give at least a month of notice, in writing. The worst case is that you leave on good terms with the company, the best case is that they immediately escort you to the door, and have to pay you for as long as your notice was for.

They don't "have to" do anything in most (perhaps all) states. I don't know the breakdown, but the vast majority of states are "at-will" states unless there's a contract involved, meaning either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason.

There is neither a need to give notice nor is there a requirement for employers to pay you for that time if you do. They're only required to pay you for the time you actually work. If your friend got a "3 month paid vacation" by giving 3 months notice, it just means his company's HR department forgot to terminate his employment and the payroll department never caught the mistake. That's pretty unlikely at most companies.

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references, and there is absolutely nothing any company can do to force you to stay at work in an at-will state. You're not in jail, you have no obligation to your company if you want to quit. Your company in turn has no obligation to you.

Look at it this way. Your company does not have to give you two weeks notice to fire you, nor would they. Why would you need to give two weeks notice to quit? Neither side is obligated when employment is terminated, and it doesn't matter who is doing the terminating.

That is, of course, provided you're not under contract or a non-compete, which are both different situations.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Cauchy]

It legally can not affect recommendations or references

Why can't it affect references? If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference. And, I wouldn't want to hire an employee who I knew had a history of failing to give proper notice. And, btw, as an employee, I would not work for a company that I knew had a history of failing to give proper notice and/or severance pay in all but the most egregious or extraordinary of situations.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[colinbrash]

No, your goal is to not lose money from your employer while they are still your employer. :) Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references.

It's more than that. Helping them out doesn't need to be for selfish reason. There are a host of reasons why you might leave a company you care about, and if you care about the company, it makes sense to finish up projects. For their sake, not for the sake of a good reference or just in case you might want to come back.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[hobo sapiens]

In many cases it works to your advantage to give notice. How many times do you hear about sysadmins or like jobs (where you could do a lot of damage) being walked out after giving notice, but being paid for the two weeks? I remember stories right here on slashdot about that, and many of the comments indicated that was not a totally unusual experience. I don't know about you, but what better way is there to leave a job than with two extra weeks vacation (because you'd drain all your vacation first, right)?

Maybe my theory is based on anecdote, but look at it like this: you stand to lose nothing from turning in notice. Ok, so people may not be nice to you any more. Who cares? In two weeks it'll be a memory. Unless you just have an axe to grind and want to screw over your former co-workers (because the company itself won't care much) just turn in notice. The courteous thing is often the right thing. I guess I sound like Jiminy Cricket now :)

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[ifdef]

Look at it this way. Your company does not have to give you two weeks notice to fire you, nor would they. Why would you need to give two weeks notice to quit? Neither side is obligated when employment is terminated, and it doesn't matter who is doing the terminating. Huh? Actually, they DO legally have to give you two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice, and you legally have to give them two weeks notice. Or maybe that's just here. Is it different where you are? (Just joking. I know that the laws are different in some primitive places, like where you apparently live.)

In any case, I believe in not burning my bridges. In fact, I gave a month's notice from my previous job, but then I ended up in the hospital for over a week, so I OFFERRED (and was taken up on the offer) to delay my departure until I could finish handing everything over to my successor. My new company was not especially pleased by that, but they certainly supported me in it, knowing that I would do the same for them.

And so I remain on good terms with all of my previous employers. I am welcome to come visit and join my ex-co-workers for lunch, I still get Christmas cards from the president of one of the companies I worked for, I've gone back and done contract work for ex-employers. Only in one case did ex-employer A try to prevent new employer B from getting work from customer C because of me, but they were slapped down with threats of legal action, and in fact A later hired B to do work for THEM, specifically, work performed by me.

I'm really, really rotten at negotiating salary for a new job, but it has happened more than once that a new employer has come back and said "Actually, we can do better than that" and improved the deal AFTER I had already signed the contract (in one case, after I had started working there). And, maybe I'm just kidding myself, but it seems to cause great sadness when I leave a place, in contrast to some other workers where the manager seems almost relieved to get rid of them. But I make a point of NOT leaving any of them in a lurch.

Sometimes I wonder, though. Why do they keep me on, when they could take my salary and use it to hire at least two other engineers? It sure can't be because I'm so productive! Why do I have a window office, when generally only managers have offices, and at least one has to be satisfied with a window cube? I bet HIS sadness at me leaving would be at least somewhat tempered by his change of workstation. :-) I don't know. I don't even know why I'm wasting time writing this post, which is getting more and more off-topic, when the build machine keeps sending me emails to tell me that something I checked in is breaking one of the builds. Maybe I should attend to that ...

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Skreems]

Possibly because you're not legally allowed to say anything bad about a former employee when acting as a reference. You can either say something good, or refuse to comment.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[avdp]

I suppose it's nice if you have that luxury. But most people won't quit unless they've found a new job, and the new job is not gonna wait forever for you to start. I suppose you could say don't even look for a new job before the project ends, but typically if you're leaving a job there is a reason (not happy, not enough money, whatever) and so that may not be something most people are willing to do, especially on long running projects.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Tweekster]

Incorrect.

You can state facts. including bad ones but you just gotta watch your step.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[sakshale]

I have always given at least two weeks notice. Only once was I terminated immediately, but I didn't care. Why? I had discussed both options with my new employer and they were prepared to wait until the two week period was up, or hire me immediately if terminated.

I was laid off from my last job due to corporate financial problems. This was during the post dot.com bust period, where jobs were hard to find. My employer helped me juggle vacation time and such to extend my employment as long as possible -- thus extending my families medical benefits. Since then I have gone back as a contractor, many times, to help the person who assumed my responsibilities.

Given that both sides behaved honourable and professionally, both sides are very happy and comfortable with the outcome.

If you take pride in yourself, then you should behave in a praise worthy manner, no matter how unprofessional the other side behaves.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[JazzLad]

Looks like Skreems is lucky that -1 Wrong mod doesn't exist :)

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[ocbwilg]

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references, and there is absolutely nothing any company can do to force you to stay at work in an at-will state. You're not in jail, you have no obligation to your company if you want to quit. Your company in turn has no obligation to you.

One common thread that I have noticed at all of the companies that I have worked for (in Indiana and Ohio) is that the company policies tend to say, "If you give us at least 2 weeks written notice then we will pay you for all of your unused PTO/vacation when you leave." So while there may be no legal requirement to give notice, there are certainly financial incentives in many cases. For example, I just turned in my notice at my current employer on Tuesday, and I gave them roughly 2.5 weeks notice. When I leave they're going to pay me about a month's salary in unused PTO. I would have been foolish to have passed on that money, unless there were some extenuating circumstances (my boss threatening me or something).

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Shakrai]

One common thread that I have noticed at all of the companies that I have worked for (in Indiana and Ohio) is that the company policies tend to say, "If you give us at least 2 weeks written notice then we will pay you for all of your unused PTO/vacation when you leave." So while there may be no legal requirement to give notice, there are certainly financial incentives in many cases. For example, I just turned in my notice at my current employer on Tuesday, and I gave them roughly 2.5 weeks notice. When I leave they're going to pay me about a month's salary in unused PTO.

In my state (New York) it's required that they pay you for any accured vacation time regardless of whether or not you give them notice.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Tweekster]

I thought that too.

he is SOMEwhat correct, because some companies are simply afraid of crossing the line they will only verify employment details such as dates worked and job details.

But you still have some latitude particularly about fact based events.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Lehk228]

failing to give notice certainly can affect references, as many companys will consider you not eleigible for re-hire if you leave without notice

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[mdozturk]

Yes, but if you talk to a lawyer about this they will tell you NOT to comment on bad behavior. Watching your step when you are not a lawyer is dangerous..

My wife had some problems with one of her employees, her lawyer told her the only thing she should say as a reference is that "such and such employee worked for me from this date to this date". Also I would hope the other side would get the clue when you say "I really cannot comment on this matter".

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Registered Coward v2]

Possibly because you're not legally allowed to say anything bad about a former employee when acting as a reference. You can either say something good, or refuse to comment.

While that is not technically correct; many companies, in the US at least, have policies against saying anything and will merely verify employment. They don't want to be sued, whether it is by an ex-employee who has a different interpretation of the "facts" or by another company who hired someone you said was great but turns out to be a criminal. It's simply safer to say nothing in the US' litigious society.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Maxo-Texas]

Depends on your state bud.

In Texas (and many other states), you can be fired without notice and without reason as long as it is not one of the big protected reasons (race, religion, sex).

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[gmack]

That's the fun thing about Canada. Depending on the province there are lengths time required that the employer has let you know in advance before terminating without cause. If an employer doesn't want you around they will often just pay up front for the required notice time amount and tell you not to come back.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[MysteriousPreacher]

Sounds harsh. In the UK the employer couldn't do this. If you hand in a resignation, the company has to pay you for the notice period unless you specifically consent to leaving earlier forgoing the pay for the period you would have worked.

If you handed in your resignation and you're on a permanent contract, if the company tried to then sack or terminate you earlier, you can sue them.

Notice periods can be enforced though, it depends on the contract you signed originally. Most of the time though, if you decide to run off without completing the notice it'll just result in no reference and they won't pay you whatever you're owed for holiday you never took.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yep, that's the nice legal way to give someone the kiss of death, we have that in Europe as well. HR people have their own little language and "He worked here but we decline to make any further comments" is just a legal way of saying that you didn't leave under the best of circumstances.

Saying negative things in a reference is highly illegal.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Hatta]

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references

What do you mean? It's illegal for me to say in a reference letter that someone left without notice? Under what law? Someone who leaves without notice is less than reliable, and that's a completely reasonable thing to tell a prospective employer. If it's true, then it's not libelous and therefore protected by the first amendment.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[anothy]

even in most "at will" employment states, there are still restrictions. one which applies in every state in which i know anything about employment law (all of which are "at will" states) is that once you give notice, your employer is restricted from firing you. there are exceptions, of course - if they were going to fire you anyway (and can document it), or you stop showing up, for example - and there's a concept of a reasonable period built in (no giving six months notice), and the details vary state-by-state, but that's the general idea.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[mdozturk]

Saying negative things in a reference is highly illegal.

I don't think it is illegal (at least in the US), the employee might sue you if he/she finds out you said something negative about them that is untrue (or at least they might think it is so). Since it is not worth that hassle just saying "no comment" is better.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[cloak42]

It's not illegal, just ill advised, in the States at least. My father, who is an HR director, has told me that while he doesn't generally say even factual negative things about former employees, there is one question that he has absolutely no problem answering: "Would you hire this person again if given the opportunity?"

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Atlantis-Rising]

It's not illegal, although it may be libelous. (slanderous, depending.) It can be the basis for such a lawsuit. However, that doesn't alter the fact that if what you say is the truth, there's not a damn thing they'll win on against you.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[chimpo13]

That would explain why the old place I worked for (bought up by an Ohio based company), tried that trick in California. It's not legal here, and they had a claim filed with them with the labor board for that shenanigan. Ended up paying time and a half for the employees who left.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Mister Whirly]

"If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference."

Depending on which state you live in, you may be breaking the law. Generally, the legal questions you are entitled to answer as an employer are -
1- From which dates did employee work
2- Job title/responsibilities
3- Rate of pay
4- Re-hire status - either they would or wouldn't re-hire you

So legally you could tell them the re-hire status is negative, but you usually can't give the reason why. One of my former bosses was sued by a former employee for divulging all kinds of information he shouldn't have.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Fordiman]

Mebbe not in your state, but it's actually a criminal AND actionable offense in PA.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Fordiman]

"Huh? Actually, they DO legally have to give you two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice, and you legally have to give them two weeks notice. Or maybe that's just here. Is it different where you are? (Just joking. I know that the laws are different in some primitive places, like where you apparently live.)"

It's a state-to-state thing. In PA, it's just a courtesy. Meanwhile, in PA, you can sue for an ex-employer saying bad things about you. With my employer, at least, they can fire you on the spot, but they do have to pay any unpaid PTO upon termination of your position from either party - even if you switch jobs within the company.

Yeah, that's a pretty sewwt deal, AFAIC.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[BobPaul]

In Minnesota at least the law clearly states what you can say. Basically when they worked there, what they did, and what training you provided them. You can say more if you want, but you aren't protected from lawsuits if you do.

Linky

I wouldn't be surprised if many larger companies have policies that they provide only a bare minimum of information so as to protect themselves from disgruntled ex-employee lawsuits.

And think of it this way. If the person no longer works here, why do I care if someone else hires him? He's not my problem anymore. Providing bad references is vindictive, serves no purpose for the company, and only adds risk. Even if I say "He's great, I'd hire him back in a heart beat!" and he does a really bad job at the next company, I could get into trouble there, too. It's less risky for the company to keep track of such things internally so they do/don't hire back people but not share that with others.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Anonymous Coward]

It legally can not affect recommendations or references

Why can't it affect references? If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference.

If the employee listed you as a "personal reference", you are perfectly free to do this, as you aren't speaking for your company. If, however, you were being contacted as a "previous employer", the only thing you are legally allowed to do is verify dates of employment.

To be on the safe side, though, you better not say anything more than you would be allowed to as a spokesperson for your company

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Tweekster]

Which is why you state specific facts...
it isnt libel when it is true, or slander for that matter since it would be spoken not written.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[MysteriousPreacher]

You might be right actually. Technically it seems to be legal but very dangerous to say negative things.

http://www.11kbw.com/index.php?category_id=6&art_i d=310

Seems that (in the UK), the safest thing to do is provide the bare minimum but avoid refusing to provide a reference or mentioning negative things. I'm sure that a decent HR person could get the message across though in a perfectly legal way.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[pthisis]

Yes, "Would you hire this person again?" is the right question to ask when checking references. It allows the person on the other end to say "no" without actually saying anything negative about the applicant--they have the cover of "I was just giving my own opinion, I didn't give any reason not to hire him/her".

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[esobofh]

Saying negative things in a reference is not illegal. If someone is asking you for historical performance you must relay the facts, positive or negative. A negative opinion or reference is highly sue-able, but it's not illegal. The fact is, if you lie and say a positive thing when that wasn't the case, you open yourself to more liability.

At my company, giving business references is strictly prohibitied. You can only give "personal references".

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[pthisis]

Do you have a cite? Not doubting, just curious.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[ozeki]

You are only allowed to say whether or not you would hire them again. You are not permitted is saying much more since it can be considered slander if the person didn't recieve the job because of it.

Termination policies for companies have to be standardised, so if 1 employee gets serverance or whatever for giving notice it is the same for all employees. Employers can not choose to randomly give more or less to individuals, by in fact doing enacting a certian payout that in fact then becomes the precedent.

So far I have had 2 employers pay me for the 2 weeks even though I didn't have to show, not including vacation payout.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Tim Browse]

A friend told me that his Dad had a book on various aspects of employment, and had a section on how to write references. It had a special list of phrases that sounded good on first reading, but if you thought about them for a second or two you would realise they could be both positive and negative - hopefully, the reader will get the point.

Examples include:

• Exceptional time-keeping and attendance
• One of our most challenging employees
• etc.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Dare nMc]

It legally can not affect recommendations or references

Why can't it affect references?

actually it depens on what "references" means. I have been told it is a privacy violation for any company represenitive to give any information other than validate basic employed dates... to a outside person. So if they are contacted " X-employee John Does says he was employed from date a to date b and made $x /hour. the HR rep could say yes/no if they had documentation backing that up (or say we say they have no documentation on that person.) They could only verify, but not elaborate without violating the persons right to privacy.

Now any person John Doe gave as a personal reference is not acting as a representitive of the company, and is now acting on John Does behalf, and is now free to talk about how/why he left.

Now keep in mind this is only a outside company, you can bet if you work for a mega coperation, and try to get on at a different site of said mega corp your screwed.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[AuMatar]

THey legally have to do that anyway. PTO/vacation is salary you've already earned. You must be compensated for it.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[FrozenJack]

> Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references

That's too broad of a statement. An awful lot of companies refuse to give recommendations at all for fear of being sued, (BTW, IAAL) but there's nothing blocking them from saying "Employee X quit abruptly". Plus, prior coworkers move on and are no longer bound by company policies. You'd have to lose them as a reference.

> there is absolutely nothing any company can do to force you to stay at work in an at-will state.

It happened to me. I'm in an at-will state, and I attempted to give 4 weeks notice to my employer about a year back. I foolishly told someone where I was going, word spread, and it turned out that my new company considered my prior company a very important customer.

Next thing I know, my current employer decided they had a few projects for me, contacted my prospective employer and renegotiated my start date, pushing it out a few months.

Technically, I might have been able to sue for tortious interference, but that would be a sign to my employer-to-be that I was trouble. Then I could have found myself out of a job altogether.

In the end, I accepted the extension, but only with a written guarantee that they wouldn't seek to extend the date further. I made it dead clear that without that guarantee my original 4-weeks notice would become 90 seconds notice. I'm not happily employed at the new company.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Valiss]

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references

Not exactly. I used to work for a background screening agency, and here is how it can affect your recommendation. The reference who wants to hire you will call your Old Employer for verification of past employment, and it will go something like this:

NewCompany: Hi, I'm HR from NewCompany and we have a Bob Smith who said he used to work at your company, is that correct?
Old Employer: Yes.
NewCompany: How long did he work for you?
OldEmployer: 3 years.
NewCompany: What was his job title when he left?
OldEmployer: Tech Support
NewCompany: Did he leave with notice?
Old Employer: No.

And right there, many companies would scrap a candidate because they assume that this person can/will at anytime walk without a notice.

Employers like a notice. You dont have to give one, but you may not get a good reference. Keep in mind that not all references are as cut-n-dry as "good" or "bad" reference. Sure this guy in my example walked, but then again maybe he's the best programmer this side of the Mississippi and they'll hire him anyway.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[ifdef]

True, but it's amazing how often one runs into people that one has worked with before, or people who know people that one has worked with before, so one's reputation is also important. But you're right, it doesn't have to be for a selfish reason.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Xeger]

Notice that the friend in question didn't quit and keep receiving his paycheck. He gave three months' notice, and his employer decided that they didn't want him working on projects if he was going to leave, but they wanted to avoid the risk of terminating his employment and being at risk of a lawsuit. So, they paid him three months' wages for being employed but not doing anything.

Surprise, surprise! HR departments are rational, and they will gladly part with 3 months of an employee's salary simply to avoid exposing themselves to potential legal action. Even if the employee swears she won't sue, the company would rather pay her off than trust her.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[jedidiah]

What he said.

Take the high ground and always insist on giving your current employer
a basic professional courtesy. If it doesn't work out, you just take
the extra time off (with or without pay) and get yourself a vacation in
before your PTO time resets itself to zero.

I left my heart in Chichen Itza...

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[eison]

At at least two of the jobs I have worked, not giving notice causes HR to flag you so that you are not eligible for re-hire.

And, one question that a new employer may ask a prior employer, and the prior employer may choose to answer, is "Would you re-hire this person?".

So, it can indeed affect the quality of your references, by burning that bridge or not.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How much clue can you convey when that's becoming standard practice?

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I don't believe you. Some states may not protect you from a lawsuit, but I have yet to see a state actually restrict what you can say about a former employee. It sounds like a 1st ammendment violation.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[corecaptain]

It is generally not illegal for you to say just about anything that is true. But whether or not someone gave you
notice is a question of fact. Can you prove that someone did not give you notice? Perhaps he/she
gave you a verbal notice and you just didn't hear it. Maybe you didn't get the email. Maybe the letter
got lost in the mail....

Are you ready to prove this in court? Are
you willing to spend the $$ to prove it? If so, then please enjoy your rights. If not, then the
best thing to do is simply confirm the persons' employment and leave it at that.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Lord_Dweomer]

Look at it this way. Your company does not have to give you two weeks notice to fire you, nor would they.

Here's an interesting flip of the situation though...lets say "theoretically" that my employer has mentioned to me that due to lack of business they may need to lay me off in the future, but that they would give me 8 weeks notice and allow me to use company resources to look for my next job. I'm on very good terms with my employer and they have always been exceedingly nice about these things. If they say they are laying me off in 8 weeks, am I obligated in any way shape or form to continue to work for them for that period? Or am I considered fired from the moment they tell me that?

I understand it is a courtesy they are extending to me and would most likely not just walk out if they gave me 8 weeks notice, however I am curious what my options would be if I found another employer before the 8 weeks was up.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[belmolis]

This is absolutely false. You can say bad things about former employees. Many people don't because they don't want to run the risk of the former employee finding out and suing for defamation. If you are confident that what you say is true and that you can defend it if necessary, or are confident that the ex-employee won't find out, you can say negative things. Its a matter of how much risk there is of a suit for defamation.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[ckaminski]

I do believe you can LEGALLY say whatever you want as long as it's the truth.

It's HR departments and Legal departments trying to minimize frivolous lawsuits who hamstring people from giving anything worse than a mediocre reference.

It's why when hiring someone, if they're not getting a glowing reference from their previous manager/coworker, they are absolutely not worth hiring.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[j_snare]

Not entirely accurate. This depends on how the company accounts for the time, and how it's handled. Some places that's time that you own, and others it's just a benefit that they give you. Ours actually just switched, which made for an interesting contrast. They had to pay out the time that people had built up under the old one, but now if someone quits they have no obligation for this.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Alchemar]

"you stand to lose nothing from turning in notice"

This only holds true if you don't live paycheck to paycheck. I have a lot of friends that are forced to work near minimum wage jobs for one reason or another. A lot of them are under the false belief that they are required by law to give two weeks notice. They have all seen someone at work give notice and be escorted out the door. They then had no paycheck for two weeks while they were waiting for the next job to start. If they have a set training date or are waiting for the results of a drug test, then asking to go to work two weeks early is not an option. I have seen it take people years to recover from this if they live in this pay scale. Once they have the bonced check fees and other late fees, they can never catch up. Corporate America's way of saying Thank You! for giving them time to hire and train a replacement. Ask just about anyone that works for a grocery store, low end departments store, or fast food. Unless you work in a professional field. You take all your vacation, wait until you are in a position that you don't need the money from the rest of the day on, then give notice. If you want to be nice, do it right before your scheduled day off. They can and will replace you in 24 hours. If you feel that you owe your company more, then you need to consider why you are leaving.

On 90% of the jobs I have left, I did give two weeks notice, but I was prepared to sit at home for two weeks. Over half of those I was excorted out the minute I gave notice. Number of times that I have been given more that 5 min notice - 0%, and I was never left alone for those 5 min. Someone was always there to watch me gather my tools. I even went and explained to a boss once that my car was having problems, and that I was considering putting a down payment on a new one, is there even a chance of a layoff. He told me not to worry about it, that they had enough work for months. I was handed a pink slip at quitting time the next day. Got to drive my new car back to the lot and negotiate how much money it would cost for them to take it back. Money I could have lived on while looking for another job. It had been prepared and signed by that boss the week before. It is different a little better now that I am skilled labor instead of manual labor, but I have only seen the very top managers get any notice.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[HomelessInLaJolla]

They can do what Battelle did to me. I gave my two weeks notice hoping that they would remedy the issues which I clearly addressed in my letter. When the two weeks passed without even the slightest attempt at negotiation I reiterated, in a meeting with my manager, the issues governing my decision to part ways with them. When I was treated with crude disdain I followed through on my notice and left.

The company then, over the course of the next week, notified me that I had been terminated unwillfully (making the official stance, in the eyes of corporate HR, a "firing") and made two direct deposits into my bank account. A month later they sent a collection letter to my address stating that I had been overpaid and demanding ~$1300 payment.

It's probably still on my credit record.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[sumdumass]

And think of it this way. If the person no longer works here, why do I care if someone else hires him? He's not my problem anymore. Providing bad references is vindictive, serves no purpose for the company, and only adds risk.

It might not even be case of being vindictive or caring if someone else highers a person. If the company handbook says you will need to give notice apon termination of employment and you decide to just quit by not showing up one day, then that company can say you were fired for not showing up as the reason your employment was terminated. This doesn't even need to be mentioned when the reference was checked either.

The interviwer calls and get someone who never worked with the person, asks a few questions and then asks how was his attendence. You look in his record and it shows he had a good attendence record for the majority of the time but turned out to be the reason he was fired/let go. And this isn't lieing because the facts are you didn't give notice and the handbook said you will be let go if you missed so many days.

Or the interviewer could ask if you would hire them back, and the reply is, we have a policy of never hiring someone back if they were fired. And again, for the above reasons, they are correct.

Even giving notice but not serving it out can result in the same thing. It is the same thing of quiting by getting fired. I know a guy who worked at a factory were the rulles said no fould language and no sexualy oriented talk to the oposite sex. He was quiting and on the way out, told some, fuck you, girl to go fuck herself, shove it up her ass and a few other things. It started when the line he was working became backed up and everyone was yelling at him to fix it but he didn't know were the problem was. He was walking out and someone jumped him on it again, he said how the fuck should I know, then proceeded with the rest acording to her reactions.

Officialy he was fired for using leaving his position unattended, foul language and sexualy harrasing someone. Unofficialy he quit and told someone off on the way out. The official reason stuck when he went to unemployment services and the factory fought his unemployment compensation. Nobody's story was different except he said he claimed he had already quit, but every other detail of the actions remained the same.

Give your notice and let them fire you for wearing red shoes instead of something like that.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Atlantis-Rising]

The problem why nobody does it is because even if you're completely legally in the clear... and they sue you... you're still out legal fees. And you have to wait for a court date and all that. It's really just a total mess, which is why everyone reccomends against it so strongly.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Bimo_Dude]

I don't know if this would apply to your situation, but here's what happened to me a couple years ago...

I worked for a very large company, and they had several rounds of layoffs for about four years. During the fourth year, my "number came up." The layoff was handled very well, IMHO:

1. The company gave 2 month's notice (I believe they were required to by law due to the number of people being laid off at that time).
2. Everybody who was laid off did not have to show up to work during those two months, but were still on the payroll with full benefits, including medical and 401k with company match.
3. The severence package over and above the two months on the payroll was an additional month's pay in one lump sum.
4. Terminated employees had one year to exercise any stock options they had before the options expired.
5. The company contracted with an outplacement agency to hold a couple of job fairs for [former] employees and help them with their resumes. From one of the job fairs, I have my current job.
6. If they found a new job before the two months was finished, employees were allowed to start working at their new jobs without affecting their "employed" status with the company or their severence.

All in all, I'd have to say that I was treated much better by the company when I was being laid off than when I was actively working there ;)

YMMV

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[sumdumass]

Sometimes the contract you sign is the company handbook they give you when you are first hired. Usualy in there, a provision about terminating employment as well as reasons you can be fire and how other actions should be handled (wether wirten notice, suspensin with or without pay and so on).

Most every place i have worked at had one of these with something about notice in it. I have heard were people were fired and rehired because the hand said they should have recieved a wroten notice and I have heard of employees losing lawsuites because it is placed in the handbook.

Outside some protect reason like discrimination on race or whatever, the handbook usualy trumps any "at will" employment laws. I picked some girl up one night at a bar and behold it was the wife to be of the manager who was transfering to our location in the next week. They were moving and she came down early, was a waitress, an alcoholic, and a line cook junky. All you needed to get with her was the apearance of being in charge.

The moral was, He found out, I was terminated for showing up ten minutes late and saying "I was with someone special", about three weeks after he started. I made a stink about it because I was supposed to get a verbal warning acording to the handbook. The company transfered him, hired me back, payed for my time off then fired me for cussing in front of a customer two weeks later (in which i'm not sure if i did cuss or not, I was drunk at the time).

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[BitGeek]

If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference.

If the employee found out, this would likely result in you being sued and found liable for the value of the job you caused them not to get. Even if whatever you say is true.

Every time anyone gives a reference, they take the risk of being found liable. Really, there is no reason to give references and companies with any sense (EG large companies) forbid their employees from giving references.

Companies that ask for references before hiring you are ones that should do a better job in the interview process.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Hatta]

But whether or not someone gave you notice is a question of fact.

So is anything else that one might put in a reference.

the best thing to do is simply confirm the persons' employment and leave it at that.

That's hardly useful to a person trying to decide whether to hire someone.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[mfrank]

"You will be lucky to get him to work for you" is my favorite.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[ocbwilg]

NewCompany: Did he leave with notice? Old Employer: No.

I've never heard that particular question when giving references before. Usually they use the far more subtle and inclusive question, "Is he eligible for rehire at your company?" If you leave without notice, the answer is usually "no." If you're fired for Xeroxing your ass and passing it around, the answer is "no." If you're fired because one day you threatened to kill a coworker, the answer is also "no." No matter the reason why you're not eligible for rehire, the mere fact that you are ineligible sounds bad. And in most cases the company will be unwilling to elaborate on why you are ineligible. Funny how a fairly harmless thing like failing to give notice can result in your getting blacklisted, isn't it?

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[tompaulco]

It's required in every state that they pay you for accrued vacation/PTO/etc. For non-accrued leave, you need not be paid.
My last employer (in Oklahoma) did not pay me for my accrued Paid Time Off, and they also cancelled my medical insurance the day that I quit, but still pulled the usual medical amount out of my last paycheck.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[The_Wilschon]

No, your goal is to not lose money from your employer while they are still your employer. :)

And how do you know this? If he said his goal was one thing, and you said it was another, I'd be inclined to trust him over you. It is his goal after all.

If I said "my goal tonight is to get drunk", would you turn around and tell me "No, your goal is to get ahead in life"? No. That'd be ridiculous.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Dutch Gun]

That would speak volumes to me (as someone hiring) if I asked about a former employee and got "no comment" in response.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[thebigbluecheez]

Well, and then there's this guy. Milton Waddams. Now, we couldn't find any record of him actually being employed here. We did a little research into this, and it turns out that he was fired some three months ago, but nobody ever told him. Unfortunately nobody through some glitch in payroll, he's been collecting paychecks ever since. So we, uh, fixed the glitch.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[lactose99]

If you take pride in yourself, then you should behave in a praise worthy manner, no matter how unprofessional the other side behaves.

Words to live by, I wish more people did.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Fulcrum of Evil]

(BTW, since when did the First Amendment - which explicitly states in its very first word that it applies only to Congress - restrict state governments?)

Since the 14th ammendment.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[MaelstromX]

(BTW, since when did the First Amendment - which explicitly states in its very first word that it applies only to Congress - restrict state governments?)

Answer: since 1868.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[chef_raekwon]

They're only required to pay you for the time you actually work.
if a company escorts you out, after giving them 2 weeks notice -- they are obligated to pay you for those two weeks. You have given formal notice that you will leave in two weeks. If they don't pay you, they are essentially firing you ... which in this case they cannot do.

of course, this is Ontario Canada I am referring to, but I'm sure it is the same legally, all over the US. Definitely there is *no* requirement to give two weeks notice here -- its more of a courteous gesture. However, if the job offer which you signed at the onset of your career with said company, states specifically that the company requires 2 weeks notice (and many companies do this) -- by law, you are required to give such notice. And in such a case, make sure you have all your vacation days available to take once you've given notice ;)

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[GiMP]

I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference.

Assuming that in your state/country, that saying such a thing isn't unwise. Regardless of where you are, a bad reference can open you up to potential litigation. Some places have laws that prevent you from revealing certain details as it would infringe on the individual's right to privacy. If there is anything untrue or misinterpreted, you can be sued for defamation.

There are some places, of course, where none of this matters.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[DocSponge]

They don't "have to" do anything in most (perhaps all) states. I don't know the breakdown, but the vast majority of states are "at-will" states unless there's a contract involved, meaning either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason. Unless of course they have a track record of providing such a courtesy to their employees. I have seen situations in which a company provided this for several well liked employees (they still had them leave early for 'security' reasons) and then upon failing to do so for a regular joe ended up doing so anyway (after some very polite letters from regular joe's attorney) on the advice of their lawyers (i.e. it never went to court). IANAL however, it seems that absent policy any previous behaviors can be interpreted as de facto standards.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Valar Morghulis]

If your friend got a "3 month paid vacation" by giving 3 months notice, it just means his company's HR department forgot to terminate his employment and the payroll department never caught the mistake. That's pretty unlikely at most companies. This actually is most likly due to the factory closure law (aka the Mann Act) that requires a company to still employ anybody who worked at location to be closed for 90 days after notification of the closure is given. In most cases there is not 90 days worth of work for everybody to do and so you are generally paid through that time (a lot of companies will use it as a severence). Of course...there is always the chance their payroll was just staffed by complete idiots too.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[AmericanInKiev]

I suggest that you've over-simplified a bit.

"At-Will" may still have its limitations, if memory serves, employers cannot terminate an employee in order to hire someone else at a lower salary under Federal law, in addition, any manner of discrimination is grounds for chaos. And then there is unemployment which can be fairly costly to the employer.

The question of two-weeks, as you say, is merely conventional, not obligatory, moreover, I think there is a requirement for major layoff's to be pre-announced so that workers are encouraged to ease into new employment over a period of time. To some extent, this requirement can serve as the flip-side of the two-week notice.

AIK (NAFL)

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[SageMusings]

Nope.

Give them a month notice and you will be out of work for 29 days. Go ahead, try it

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[mokumegane]

Well, they're required to pay you for the hours you worked so long as they don't file bankruptcy or find a reason they can keep wages from you. The company can't sue you unless you make a breach of contract. What you should have done was re-read all your papers you signed when you were hired (if you signed any) or any others they may have had you sign as amendments- before giving notice. You can't do that with this company, now, but you can do this with future companies. Further, if they do go on with this and you win, you can definitely counter-sue for loss of wages, suffering, etc. Giving notice is a courtesy and may make for better references as well as a more likely re-hire. Personally, I wouldn't return to that company. I would report them so that as many people know how you were treated and hopefully, people will buy elsewhere. Sueing you for something not in the contract was harsh and shouldn't have occurred.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[aztracker1]

Around 1860, when the same bill of rights said congress couldn't make laws wrt religion...

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[KUHurdler]

Yep, you may not be able to "legally" say it directly, but it doesn't stop you from asking questions like:

Did he really list me as a reference?
or
Is he looking for jobs again?
or
Is that guy really not in prison yet?

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[Fordiman]

Nah. Last place I saw it was on my employment application. I think disclosure must be on the books too.

Re:Not the primary goal, yes :)

[tompaulco]

it's pretty unusual to axe health coverage on the day that you quit. Health insurance typically operates on the first of the month. They should have canceled you on the following 1st.
Even worse, the company was using an outsourcing service to handle their payroll, and the job I took 1 day later was using the SAME outsourcing service, and they promised my insurance would roll over. In fact, it did not roll over, and I was without insurance for 1.75 months. On the plus side, I was alos without an insurance payment for 1.5 months.

I actually keep a journal...

[StressGuy]

I've been struggling to find ways to be effective where I currently work and, in an effort to do so, I've struck up relationships with people who seem to be doing well and started keeping a journal of observations. The only rule is "be honest, but don't whine".

It's been helpful, mostly because it has enabled me to thread together events in time that I might not have otherwise seen if I wasn't keeping track. My effectiveness has been improving...but it is also becoming more and more apparant that this is one of the most disfuntional organization I've ever worked for.

On the plus side, I've picked up some useful skills on how to function in a dis-organized environment and learned some new FEA software along the way. All very useful things to bring to my next gig.

Keeping an objective journal (not a "shit-list") is a good idea.

Re:I actually keep a journal...

[ChrisMaple]

"be honest, but don't whine".

This is one of the best pieces of advice I've ever read. A corollary is "don't listen to whiners" unless you have to. They can make your working unpleasant, hurt your company, and make you less effective.

Where you worked

[ggKimmieGal]

Honestly, if I were you, I don't think I would have put this up here... nor would I have mentioned the actual company that I worked for. They can and will use this against you in court. Trust me, they will find a way.

Not sure about Texas, but in Colorado...

[Roogna]

It's a Work at Will state. Not only can an employer let you go for any (legal) reason at anytime with no particular notice (Again, there's catches to that for employers), but employees can quit for any reason whatsoever at any time with no notice. The two weeks notice is being polite and respectable, but as per the law isn't required. Of course individual contracts you've signed could change that slightly, but that'd depend on what you've signed.

If they weant to play, join in the fun

[maroberts]

Step 1. Check your contract and employment law. If 2 weeks notice is enough start to smile and proceed to step 2....
Step 2. See a doctor/ psychiatrist. Explain to them that though you think the suit is baseless, its causing you anxiety and sleeplessness. With a bit of luck Doctor will prescribe you some pills. Ask him if he can write an explanatory letter to your (new) employer.
Step 3. Countersue for damages!
Step 4. Profit!

Re:too short?

[dorzak]

IANAL

However it varies state to state if they have to pay you for the two weeks. In California for example, to the best of my knowledge they don't.

If they are shutting down a facility completely there are some Federal laws that come into play, and the company has to pay for a certain time period. I believe its called the WARN act.

Because THEY terminated your employment . . .

[DodgeRules]

They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building.

IANAL, but the way I see it, and consult your lawyer about this, you were still employed with your old company when they escorted you out the door one week before you planned to leave. Did they pay you for that last week? If not, they terminated your employment, not you. Because of this, you have a right to gainful employment anywhere, including the competition. Because you say you didn't sign a non-compete agreement, this "non-payment" of your proposed final week can only help you in court. (I say "proposed" because you could have always changed your mind and continued working there as per their request.)

Re:too short?

[Oligonicella]

Uh, no. You need to check out the state you work in. In Missouri, you can quit, work for a competitor or start a competing business. They, however, can terminate at their heart's content. YANAL.

At Will Employment

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at your original offer of employment or the employee handbook. Most will explicitly state the terms of your employment being "At Will" which protects them from being sued by their employees on the grounds that they had some sort of contract for employment for any specific length of time. This means they can fire you at the drop of a hat--it also means you can quit anytime you want.

If you see that phrase, they have no case and this is purely for the purpose of intimidation.

Why, I can't guess. Do they really think you're going to want to come back at this point? What can they hope to accomplish?

Law?

[Chris whatever]

is it there any law where you live about that?

unless your bound by a contract, they cant sue you. In Quebec an employer have to give you 2 weeks notices or severance pay + whatever they owe you for vacation pay if you have to leave like right away but the employee has no obligation to give notice when quiting and he still gets his 4% or 6% depending on how many vacation weeks he had.

You should sue the hell out of them for making threats

Re:too short?

[shalmaneser1]

Texas, in theory, is a "right to work state". As it has been explained to me that means you and your employer's relationship ends the moment either one of you decides it to. I'm sure it's meant for the employer's good (texas in general not being super-friendly to labor), but it does work both ways.

Re:Tatics

[Apocalypse111]

Even if you do not give any notice, they can't sue you. In the US, 2 weeks notice is not a law, merely a good-relations custom. The only way that he could feasibly be sued is if there was some contract he signed agreeing to certain end-of-employment terms, but unless they were weighty enough to be signed with witnesses and a lawyer present, then they probably don't hold much water either.

Texas right!

[ZonkerWilliam]

Texas is a right-to-work state, theres very little ground they have in suing you. Even if you had a non-compete disclosure. It's ahrd to up hold in a court of law.

Re:too short?

[AudioEfex]

Uh, no. You need to check out the state you work in. In Missouri, you can quit, work for a competitor or start a competing business.

I think you misunderstood. In every state you may do those things, unless you have signed a document otherwise. It is quite common for these types of contracts to be signed before employment - hell, even companies like Blockbuster do it to their hourly employees (i.e. technically you can't go work for Movie Gallery after, if they choose to follow up). Or are you saying that those types of contracts are not valid in your state?

AE

sounds more ominous than that

[gelfling]

Some employers are complete dipshits. You should make sure what if anything they plan on suing you for. If they're really vindictive they could be suing you for theft of trade secrets or confidential information. It doesn't have to be true but it could really fuck with your life. And, if it winds up that your new employer rescinds their offer and you can't be employed then all the selfrighteous prattling in the world isn't going to do much for you. I would take all threats of legal action by an ex employer very very seriously. I would get a lawyer to at least correspond with them to find out what's what.

SLAM-DUNK!

[WgT2]

If you are working in Texas, you the priviledge in that Texas is a "employment at will"(PDF) state. The implications are that you can work, or not work, when you want to. That doesn't mean your boss has to keep your employed, but it means they can't stop you from leaving either (and unions can't stop you from working, too).

From the PDF link above:

Q: Does an employer need to provide an employee with the reason for terminating him/her?
A: The Texas Payday Law does not address the issue of termination. Texas, however, is as an "employment at will" state. This means that the employment relationship between employer and employee exists by the agreement of both parties. This gives the employee the right to quit at any time or for the employer to terminate the employee at any time and for any legal reason

(emphasis mine)

If I were you, I would have your lawyer look into whether this company has a history of such litigation. If so, I would have your lawyer counter sue, for a lot of money, for legal harassment. This is in light of the "employment at will" and previous behavior.

Re:SLAM-DUNK!

[WgT2]

WRONG LINK!

Here's the PDF I quoted from.

I even checked the link this time.

Re:too short?

[SharpFang]

In Poland the notice period is regulated by law - 2 weeks for a new employee, a month for one working over 6 months, 3 months for an employee for 3 years or so. Of course a company is perfectly free to fire you tomorrow, BUT they have to pay your salary for the whole pending period - so unless they really mean getting rid of you ASAP, they'd better leave you working for another 3 months, because they will have to pay your salary for that time, no matter if you work or not.
There's also some odd law about "abandonning job" - I'm not sure about the exact wording, but you can stop going to work any day, without any notice, without telling anyone, signing anything or such, and they can do really little about that except of cancelling your job contract.
There's an interesting clause about the notice periods too - the employer can assign you a shorter notice period than stated by law. Which you are then free to ignore - choice between entry in the contract and the one in law belongs to the employee.

Nice!

[Anon-Admin]

IANAL (but my sister-inlaw is an ADA in Texas!)

1) Can they sue you? Sure they can try, but will it hold up in court? Probably not.
2) Will you have to defend your self? Sure, so get a lawyer NOW!

Now for the fun part :)

3) (IN Texas) By verbally notifying you of their intent to sue, (I hope you have a witness!) they are now financially responsible for the cost incurred in your preparation to defend your self should they not follow through with it. This means that if it was a scare tactic and they had no intent of suing you, they have to pay all your lawyers fees!
I know this because I used to run a large anonymous service. Every time I received a letter threating to sue me, my attorneys eyes would light up! It was like a bonus check for him :>
He would put in all the work preparing a defense (and some people can make BIG threats) then when he found their intent was not to sue, we would sue them.

I hope this helps!!

Oh, and if you are leaving does that mean that they have an opening. ;) cl@xganon.com

Re:Nice!

[Falladir]

What is an anonymous service? Also, your webpage www.xganon.org is broken (HTTP Error code 500) and the link for the webmaster's e-mail is root@localhost.

Re:Nice!

[Anon-Admin]

The site is down right now.

It provided anonymous e-mail, Usenet news, and web surfing.

Texas is an "employment at will" state

[RebornData]

IANAL, but I believe Texas is an "employment at will" state. This means that there is very little regulation of the employer / employee legal relationship outside of a contract / employment agreement. This means that an employer can terminate without cause and no notice, and an employee can leave without notice, without any negative *legal* ramifications.

However, that doesn't mean they can't sue you... this will force you to spend money on legal representation and make your life a little miserable even if the suit is ruled to be baseless. If it is and you've got a halfway decent lawyer, you might be able to get it dismissed with prejudice and your legal fees covered.

So why are they suing? Clearly they are burning any bridges with you, and aren't expecting to try to get you back. Unless you are independently wealthy, it's unlikely even if they succeeded that they would be able to collect enough in damages to make this worthwhile. This leaves two explanations I can think of: petty revenge, or to intimidate the rest of the employees. I'm betting on a combination of both, with a heavy dose of intimidation.

-R

Re:Texas is an "employment at will" state

[CmputrAce]

Yes, Texas IS an employment at will state. No notice is required for termination from either side, and unless they can prove that you are stealing from them (taking and/or potentially sharing their confidential information or property), any suit from them would be considered baseless.

NEVERTHELESS, anyone can sue anyone for any reason.

You should contact an attorney IMMEDIATELY and have them advise you. More than likely, your employer made an idle threat and will not back it up with action. If they DO pursue a suit, your attorney will probably counter-sue charging them with harassment. Initially, he will just send their attorney a response to their suit and a letter claiming harassment with the threat to turn it into a full-fledged lawsuit should they pursue their claim.

It's sad, but the only winners here will be the attorneys. In all likelihood, your employer will do nothing but threaten you. jerks.

At Will Employment works both ways

[karlandtanya]

If they've got a legitimate claim against you, you'd probably know about it.

Did you take company documents with you when you left?
Did you have special access to trade secrets, business plans, etc?
Did you make any implicit agreement to stick around?
For example--If the policy manual says you can submit education expenses (get some license or cert) but you have to stick around for 1 year afterward--you agreed to stick around when you submitted the expenses.

Of course, anybody can sue anybody else for anything, and does it all the time.
The issue is not necessarily whether they can win the suit or not--you're probably being set out as an example for any other employees that might be thinking of jumping ship.

Thank you for raising an interesting question on /., but I sincerely hope you're listening the attorney you hired and not just us.

Just out of curiosity...

[MarkusQ]

If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.

Just out of curiosity, and assuming of course that everything he wrote is true, what exactly would that better case be? "Your honor, he told the truth about events that he personally witnessed, and in a public forum to boot!"? Or maybe "He directed more traffic to our web site and potentially posted our Google page rank, with malice aforethought!"?

--MarkusQ

Re:too short?

[eric76]

This is off the top of my head, so there may be an error in it.

Until last fall, non-compete contracts were very hard to enforce in Texas.

First of all, the reason for the non-compete agreement is that the employee is provided with confidential information that should not be given to the competition. If the employee has not been provided with confidential information, then the non-compete agreement is not enforceable since without that information, there is no reason to prohibit him from working for a competitor.

Prior to a recent court decision, the confidential information had to be provided to the employee at the time he signed the non-compete agreement. Even a waiting period of a few hours later the same day was enough to render the agreement unenforceable. Now, the agreement is enforceable as long as the employee was provided with the confidential information. Even then, it is best for the confidential information to be given to the employee soon after signing th eagreement, the sooner the better.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so don't even think about considering this to be legal advice.

Quite True...in fact..

[StressGuy]

since it was posted anonymously...but "named names" as it were, could Slashdot be liable? That is, is a blog responsible for some validation of the post that it allows?

Not to stir up contraversy, but it seems a valid question.

Re:Quite True...in fact..

[bloobloo]

From Wikipedia:

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements.

1. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published,
2. the defendant was directly or indirectly identified,
3. the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation,
4. the published information is false,
5. and that the defendant is at fault.

So in this case if /. was the defendant, a feasible route for The Planet if it chose to sue would be:

1. Available online. Clearly published.
2. Link's right there.
3. /. readers could very easily be considered to be potential employees and users for The Planet - if any are put off using the service then the reputation has been defamed.
4. Provide records of all recently terminated employment relationships
5. /. should certainly not have reported this anonymously

I think there is an extremely good potential case there. This may hurt /.

Re:Quite True...in fact..

[SatanicPuppy]

Public forums are never held accountable for libel posted on their pages. The most that will happen is that the company will subpoena them for the identity of the individual who posted the information in the first place.

Even that seldom comes to anything.

Re:Quite True...in fact..

[bloobloo]

Not if it's posted by a member of the public. But this was selected by an editor rather than just typed into a phpbb form or similar. I agree that nothing is likely to happen, but I also think that it would not be dismissed immediately by a judge if the ISP did try to sue. Linking to their page adds nothing of value for /.

N ice guys finish first

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Good companies dont treat the fired or laid off employees like dirt. Those who are not fired/laid off are watching how the company treats those who are fired/laid off. Usually they are friends/acquaintences. There is feedback. I make sure that even those who are fired by me get some subscription to placement/job search companies, decent health coverage for some months. Our company gives time for them to cash the stock options after they leave.

May be if would not be such a cynic if you read some of the articles by Robert Axelrod of Univ of Michigen on "Evolution of Cooperation", "Complexity of Cooperation", and BBC shows like "Nice Guys Finish First" by Richard Dawkins.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[Poruchik]

Here's how big financial companies (at least in New York) lay people off. One fine morning you come in to work to find a security guard and a box to put all your things into. You are then escorted out the door, never to return. The posts above are correct that it does NOTHING for morale.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[technomom]

Makes me wonder how they fire the security guards.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[Elvis Parsley]

One fine morning you come in to work to find an accountant and a box to put all your things into...

Re:N ice guys finish first

[FatAlb3rt]

Good companies dont treat the fired or laid off employees like dirt.

Assuming that the fired or laid off employee was a good employee to start off. If the guy is incompetent or dishonest, why afford him the respect he didn't afford you?

Re:N ice guys finish first

[UnknownSoldier]

So because the guy is an asshole, that makes it all right to be one too?! Way to go!

How about treating people with the respect, instead of stooping down to their level.

--
Wii: Because it has a better ring then "Gamecube 1.5"

Re:N ice guys finish first

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the guy is incompetent or dishonest, why afford him the respect he didn't afford you?

It is not about the guy/gal I fired. It is about the rest of the people I retain. Firing is punishment enough for incompetency. The money I spend in buying temperary office space in Robert Half or Accountemps for six weeks, giving them resources to hunt for jobs, giving them references (without being untruthful), enough time for them to switch healthcare providers, letting them keep their two year old laptops (after clearing the company data from it) and in general being nice, helps my reputation among the rest I retain. And I care about those I keep.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[cunamara]

Makes me wonder how they fire the security guards.

They are given a cement parachute.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[cunamara]

Good companies dont treat the fired or laid off employees like dirt. Those who are not fired/laid off are watching how the company treats those who are fired/laid off. Usually they are friends/acquaintences. There is feedback. I make sure that even those who are fired by me get some subscription to placement/job search companies, decent health coverage for some months. Our company gives time for them to cash the stock options after they leave.

May be if would not be such a cynic if you read some of the articles by Robert Axelrod of Univ of Michigen on "Evolution of Cooperation", "Complexity of Cooperation", and BBC shows like "Nice Guys Finish First" by Richard Dawkins.

Seems like they don't teach this approach very often in MBA programs.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[Doctor Faustus]

I've been putting my thing into an accountant for years. Now she's working for a big accounting firm, and looking around at her coworkers at her office Christmas party, I think I'd recommend others do the same.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[v1]

I was reading someone's termination story and found it rather humorous, your summary reminded me of it. He was one of the higher ups in the IT department and designed the security system the company used, including the keycard system. One day he came into work and the door refused his card. So he messes with it for awhile, gets out his pocket screwdriver, takes the reader apart and swaps the network connection to the backup server.

Card works now. Walks inside. Manager is there waiting for him. He tries to explain how the card reader is broken and finds out it's not broken, they just didn't know there was a backup server copy of the credentials. They handed him a shoebox of his stuff from his desk, took his keycard, and showed him back to the door.

OTOH, I know of several people that have given two weeks notice and for them it has been the worst two weeks of their life, spent working very long hours to train their replacement. One of them, it took almost six months to get his last paycheck.

One person I know who quit a key position at her company did not give notice. She locked in two weeks vacation and then gave her 2 wks notice. I asked why she did this and she insisted that if she had given notice, they would have realized the problem this would create, and have found cause to fire her a few days before she left and that would have eliminated her pension. She figures the company's determination to not allow her to train anyone else to know how to do her job (which she tried to get them to do for over a year) cost them an insane amount of money. (4 floors of a square city block size building were going home with pay at noon for 3 months because they ran out of work to do)

So I guess it works both ways.

Re:N ice guys finish first

[BillX]

They have the new security team escort the current security team out of the building for NOT ACTING like a TEAM.

Re:too short?

[surprise_audit]

My understanding is that it's based on the length of your pay period, and you're usually expected to give one pay-period of notice. So, most salaried people I know in the US are paid twice-monthly and would only have to give 2 weeks (well, 1/2 month) notice. In the UK, monthly pay is more common and you'd give 1 month notice. I believe folks on an hourly rate get paid every week, so would only be expected to give one week notice.

As other people have said, it's then up to the employer to decide if you're a risk. Where I work right now, anyone who hands in a letter of resignation is generally escorted to the door immediately. Other places have expected me to work right up to the end, doing a brain-dump to someone else.

Battle stupidity with stupidity

[SpinyNorman]

How about suing your old company for hiring you in the first place?! :-)

Re:too short?

[CrashPoint]

The term for that is "at will", not "right to work". "Right to work" is shorthand for laws protecting non-union employees, such as forbidding an employer from making union membership a condition of employment.

Smear campaign?

[Short Circuit]

I hope this makes people think twice before hosting with The Planet or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers........ And that, right there is the crux of this article. Have you ever noticed that every other time there's an Ask Slashdot that complains about an employer or other professional relationship, the offending party isn't named?

Not only does the article contain the name of the employer, but the submitter linked to them, along with a couple Wikipedia articles describing documents the poster didn't sign. It's like he wasn't looking for advice, and just wanted to announce to a million geeks that Company X is bad.

This reads like a smear campaign. I'm surprised the editors didn't edit out the employer name, at least. If it's legit, then there's going to be bad blood and possibly legal repercussions.

Re:Smear campaign?

[hotdiggitydawg]

I'm surprised the editors didn't edit out the employer name, at least. Editors? Editing things? On Slashdot? Man, if I had mod points right now you'd be +5 Funny...

Re:Smear campaign?

[suso]

This reads like a smear campaign. I'm surprised the editors didn't edit out the employer name, at least. If it's legit, then there's going to be bad blood and possibly legal repercussions.

If they edited out the employer name, you would be the first person to complain that they don't mention what company it was. You can't please people on Slashdot.

Re:Smear campaign?

[Short Circuit]

If they edited out the employer name, you would be the first person to complain that they don't mention what company it was. You can't please people on Slashdot. Nah. I usually don't speak up in Ask Slashdots; I prefer to read what other people say. This one A/. just seemed ill-advised.

Re:Smear campaign?

[ChrisMaple]

To be a smear campaign, it must be libel. In the U.S., if it's true, it's not libel.

Re:Smear campaign?

[anthony_dipierro]

To be a smear campaign, it must be libel. In the U.S., if it's true, it's not libel.

And if it's on Slashdot, then it's not true, so...

Re:Smear campaign?

[schotty]

The OP never linked to anything except the company. The other links were wikipedia entries detail what a non-compete clause is and soforth. Pleas ego thru the links if you are going to talk about them.

Re:Smear campaign?

[Short Circuit]

If you're going to criticize my description of the article, please read my description.

The OP never linked to anything except the company. The other links were wikipedia entries detail what a non-compete clause is and soforth. Pleas ego thru the links if you are going to talk about them. That's exactly what I said. The employer, and articles describing documents the submitter didn't sign.

A wikipedia article describing non-competes qualifies as a page "describing a document the submitter didn't sign." Ditto the other Wikipedia article. And one can assume that the hyperlink to "the company" was also intended as a hyperlink "to the employer."

Did I miss something?

Re:too short?

[FooAtWFU]

I seem to recall that the German labor system features mandatory severance pay, in contrast to the purely "at will" employment arrangements common in the United States. It probably also has higher unemployment insurance. This is more "socialistic" than the United States, certainly, but I'd prefer to avoid quibbling about terminology like "socialist" and consider actual differences.

These differences, incidentally, are probably also the reason that Germany has an unemployment rate of ~11.7%, compared to the US rate of ~5.1% (Google stats for 2005), and why the average duration of unemployment in the United States is shorter: companies are more willing to hire, people are more motivated to look for jobs.

Probably more to the story

[Ogive17]

If you are going to go work for a direct competator, why would your company want to keep you around for two weeks? I work in a highly competative industry, and in the past if someone provided their notice to leaving, they are immediately escorted by security out of the building. Any personal items are packed up my their manager and delivered at a later time.

Can you honestly say your loyalties remain with your current employer once you've accepted a new job with another company in the same industry?

This is why I think there's more to the story. They may have reason to believe the submitter was stealing information or using company assets to pursue the other job. No-one on slashdot can give proper "advice" based only on one side of the story.

Re:too short?

[Ihlosi]

These differences, incidentally, are probably also the reason that Germany has an unemployment rate of ~11.7%, compared to the US rate of ~5.1%

So ... how many additional States that were ravaged by ~40 years of real socialism (not to be confused with what is usually considered socialism in the USA) did join the US in the last 20 years, and how does this compare to Germany ?

Revenge

[ehaggis]

Maybe he thought he could get revenge by Slashdotting their website with the link in his post.

Nope

[mark-t]

The only way he could sue you is if he had given you either an advance that you had not repaid or perhaps purchased some equipment for you that you had signed an agreement with them to repay them for. He cannot sue you for wages or salary paid period. Contact your regional labour standards bureau, and they will help you deal with it.

I actually had this happen to me once. The case never even made it to court, and the employer actually even had to pay me!! (but I might recommend insisting on a money order or certified cheque up front... in my case the company wrote me a rubber cheque after the bureau got on their case, and although the bureau was good about contacting the employer to get me some guaranteed funds after I notified them, I still ended up being responsible for some NSF charges that never would have happened otherwise. I was told by the rep at the bureau that I could go and sue them for costs like that on my own, but that wasn't their concern... legal fees for doing that on my own would have been well in excess of the NSF charge anyways.)

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/01/22

[unmukt]

If you have given required notice to your employer then the employer can sue you only for not disclosing trade secrets or undisclosed information if you have acquired any during your employment.

Cliff has been trolled.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I think it is high time Cliff gets a lawyer. The poster is Anonymous. He calls the company evil and provides a link too. It could be a well orchestrated smear campaign by a disgruntled fired employee out to get vengence. Cliff has played straight into his/her hands by giving it by posting the story. Unless Cliff has shown that he has shown due diligence and had not been criminally negligent, the company has a case against Cliff. Since the story accuses the company of being sue-happy Cliff cant claim, "What! I never thought they would sue me!".

Re:too short?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Sometimes the hope of winning a lawsuit is the only revenue left to forecast when the sales pipeline dries up. Need I mention SCO here? No, probably not...

If your employer actually does bring suit, he's most likely done a risk analysis on costs vs. potential recovery of some of the dollars they've paid you, or perhaps (if you're a contractor) cash in on some of your professional liability insurance.

Either that, or he's just being a prick, as you said. I've worked for both types. The cold-blooded sort are the ones you have to guard against, i.e. bring in counsel of your own.

If in doubt, contact someone who IAL.

Texas is an "At Will" State

[E_Block]

IANALY, but, unless they are planning to argue fraudulent misrepresentation, or similar, there is no cause of action in Texas for "Quitting". Texas is an "at will" State. So, basically, either party can terminate the relationship without reason, cause or notice. They could walk you to the door and never tell you why. Conversely, you can walk to the door yourself, and don't need to provide notice or justification. If you committed some negligent or criminal act, then they may have a case, but simply "quitting" your job won't get them into a Texas court.

Get a Lawyer!

[curtvdh]

Assuming that all we have been told is true (seems to be a few details missing), then call your local bar association for a referral. In most places, the initial consultation will cost only a modest amount, $25-$50 or so. An employer will often use a lawsuit to try to scare an employee who wants to leave, or to prevent them from working with a competitor. Most of the time these suits are baseless, but on the rare occasion they may have some merit. Get an Attorney to go over your contract and give you an opinion. I found myself in a similar situation once - I paid just $25 for the consultation, and the Attorney (after reviewing the contract) said that a suit (in my particular case) would most likely be dismissed out of hand. I took his advice, and my former employer never followed through on their threat.

Keeping Future Employer a Secret

[information_retrieva]

This discussion makes me wonder if, when quitting, one is obligated to tell a current employer anything at all about a future employer.

Keeping it a secret would seem to prevent the kind of harassment (of your new employer) that might put your new position in jeapordy.

Anyone have any experience with this approach?

Re:Keeping Future Employer a Secret

[geekoid]

Yes, one of my earlier job offers in my career got sabotaged.I ahve seen other people get sabotaged.
In my case I just found a new job. I was young then, ifit happened today I would sue the pants off them.
In my friends case, he took my advice and went to talk to his prespective employeer and told them what was going on, and they gave him a job and told him their lawyers would take care of it. Which they did. BTW, he is still at that company after 10 years. There response was a strong indicator what kind of company they are.

I never, ever tell anyone where I am going. I will make up a place before I give actual information.

All it takes is 1anon phone call to blow a job offer, and if you are working with assholes the chance is too high.

I Am A Lawyer and I Say ...

[Compulawyer]

with the following preface: I do not know if I am licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction so I am not giving you legal advice. I am STRONGLY recommending that you consider the following GENERAL advice:

1. Consult with a lawyer who has an established track record dealing with employment issues involving trade secrets; and
2. Don't stress out about the threat too much unless you get served with a summons and a court complaint. Even then, (to borrow a phrase from Doug Adams): DON'T PANIC. However, DO get legal counsel and DON'T ignore any time deadlines set by a court.
3. Don't panic.

Re:I Am A Lawyer and I Say ...

[Tekfactory]

I am STRONGLY recommending that you consider the following GENERAL advice:

      1. Consult with a lawyer who has an established track record dealing with employment issues involving trade secrets; and
      2. Don't stress out about the threat too much unless you get served with a summons and a court complaint. Even then, (to borrow a phrase from Doug Adams): DON'T PANIC. However, DO get legal counsel and DON'T ignore any time deadlines set by a court.
      3. Don't panic.

Having recently been through this

Talk to a Lawyer specilaizing in Employment and Contract law.
Some of them will talk to you for FREE, not for long, but long enough. I got a 20 minute free consult, so look around, talk to a lawyer, it will make you feel better

If your old job is threatening to sue your employer. It happened to me, every lawyer I spoke with brought up 'tortious interference with contracts'.
Talk to your future employer, they may already have corporate counsel on retainer.
In my case corporate counsel sent a letter to my old company's counsel saying what a pathetic case they had and to start archiving all their corporate and counsel's emails.

Its been three months and we haven't heard anything back from them, except that the associate that had been sending us letters no longer worked for the firm representing my old company.

I had a non-compete clause in my employment agreement, but the laws of your state, AND case law may determine how well their clause holds up.

In Virgina, and with the clause I had, it wouldn't have, there have been a lot of changes in case law in the last 5 years, and my employment agreement as probably at least that old.

Not shilling for them, but for my own piece of mind I bought an info package from "break your non compete dot com". The documnets included cases where folks broke non competes, case law that was used in various states, a listing of lawyers in many states that work in this arena and will give you a free consult, and a package for your employer on what they can do to defend themselves.

This True non-AC story brought to you by the kaptcha keyword: illusion

Re:I Am A Lawyer and I Say ...

[stormj]

I'm a lawyer too that deals with employee mobility issues as a specialty, and I wouldn't be giving out legal advice in the comments section on Slashdot. To answer the question of whether you can be sued for leaving, the answer is yes. You can always be sued. Is there a basis? Chances are they are just trying to chill competition, but they may feel that you were enticed to leave due to some trade secret information (customer data?) that you had access to. These lawsuits are often aimed at the competing company more than the departing employee.

Re:I Am A Lawyer and I Say ...

[Matt Edd]

4) And don't forget your towel.

Re:I Am A Lawyer and I Say ...

[Compulawyer]

Hear hear!

No, it's not

[geekoid]

that well orginized.

Wait.... this doesn't make sense.

[neo]

They sued your for leaving. Then they escort you from the building before your two weeks is up.

So which is it; they want you or they don't want you.

Would /. be liable for posting a story like this?

[jmichaelg]

I don't know what the facts of this particular story are - this question is more of a hypothetical.

But say a guy got pissed off at his employer and fabricated a story like this. He puts it into /.'s queue and some /. editor posts it without bothering to check the facts. Since a /. employee actually put the story on /.'s front page, wouldn't /. be liable if the story was an outright lie? Wouldn't even have to be a pissed off employee - a competitor could fabricate a similar story to smear the company.

Who knows? If /. was liable, maybe /. editors might actually, you know, start editing?

Dude, I got marched out of an interview once

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall it well, a technology company in London.

I interviewed for the job, and the guy describe something I'd done very successfully on my previous project. I was perfect for the job, and the interview was going well from his point of view, but not from mine. The company was in a crap location, out on a dumpy industrial estate, and I'd done that work before, exactly that work, it was something boring and repetitive to me.

The second interviewer could see I wasn't so keen and asked me if I'd be happy in that role, and I explained the problem. You could see the anger in the main guys face as I basically turned down the role. He got up, went out the room, the second guy explained the managers short fuse, and the main interviewer came back with security to escort me out of the building.

If you were escorted out and sued, it means you are GOOD AT YOUR JOB and you are important enough to get sued. Dude, it was a compliment.

No

[Slashdot Parent]

In America, you can ruin/make the life miserable for/generally fsck up a person (or even a company) by suing them repeatedly, even if you lose every time

This is generally not true. In some jurisdictions, it is actually a misdemeanor to do this. In all states, it can get the lawyer in trouble with the state bar association.

Not to mention the fact that judges are not stupid and they have long memories. They're going to see what is going on and they will not tolerate shenanigans in their courtroom.

Enjoy

[mpeters13]

Texas is has AT WILL employment laws... Hope you enjoy that new ferrari (be it the car or the laptop :p)

you're ok

[datasetgo]

Texas is a right-to-work state. As long as you did not sign a non-compete or there was no restrictive clause in your employment agreement, you should be ok. Sounds likt the guys are just pissed.

Giving notice is dangerous

[mrobinso]

I've always felt that giving notice of termination in my field of work (IT) is
extremely dangerous. If I have root on a number of production servers and access
to a data center, I've often felt that giving notice leaves you wide open for
blame if you share root with others. If you give notice and things start screwing
up, it'll be your fault, bank on it. And if Joe IT across the hall doesn't like
you, its trivial for him to screw things up deliberately and lay the blame at your
feet. It's also feasible that if there are severe ill feelings from management
because you're leaving, what better way to screw you over than to arrange for some
sabotage (real of pseudo) and blame it on you.

Not a chance.

When I decide it's time for me to leave, I gather my things and leave. Great time
to use up all those vacation days or unused lieu days. If not, sue me. I have a
lawyer, a really good one, here's her card.

mike

Same story in Finland

[grimJester]

Generally unions provide legal help, pay unemployment benefits (everyone gets the "barely enough to get by"-part from the state, unions give out maybe 2/3rds of what you were paid for a few months) and lobby to counter lobbying by big companies, keeping laws sane. Income differences are low compared to the US, but I wouldn't say unions are the main reason for that. Firing an employee is the same regardless of whether he's a union member or not. One month's notice.

All in all I have a hard time understanding the US distaste for unions. There are probably fairly large differences between european and US unions I don't know about.

Re:Same story in Finland

[Flambergius]

History of relationships with organized crime? No.

Violence against non-union workers? No.

Protecting unproductive or incompetent members? Yes.

Re:Same story in Finland

[eison]

It is pretty standard in the US for unions to insist on a seniority system (where you are judged and rewarded primarily based on how long you have worked for a company), while a lot of common people and especially capable hard working people prefer the concept of a meritocracy (where you are judged and rewarded primarily based on the results you generate). So, many people who think of themselves as capable hard workers tends to dislike unions, because seniority systems lead to a lot of slackers.

Re:Same story in Finland

[grimJester]

Thanks for the explanation. I can't help but feel people in the US are shooting themselves in the foot by opposing unions. On the other hand, US unions also seem to work against their own best interest by causing their members to be inefficient. *shrug*

This totally happened to me!!!!!

[camusflage]

When I gave my notice at Initech, they found out I was going to Intertrode. A few days later, Bill Lundberg and Dom walked me out of the building and said they were suing me! Fortunately, there was some sort of disaster at Initech after I left, and since they kept their thumbs up their asses and had no backups, they had no case.

Re:This totally happened to me!!!!!

[amrust]

That totally sucks, man.

You should find yourself one of those hot waitress-type gal (preferably with lots of 'flair') to help console you, in your time of grief over losing your job. Or at the very least, get out of the house, go out and do something instead of sitting around in the dark, listening through the apartment walls at whatever your neighbor is watching on TV.

Or maybe go see a shrink? I hear they can do winderful things with hypnotherapy these days.

not a leg to stand on

[JustNiz]

They don't have any legal basis whatsoever.
They're probably just bluffing and not at all about to attack you, but are trying to send a scary message to the people still working there not to leave.

At Will Employment

[creativity]

Dig up your signing docs and carefully read them through them. Most tech companies contract states "At Will Employment", i.e. you can leave any time you want, they can let you go anytime they want. This became practice after the bust mainly to prevent ppl from claiming huge severance packages. Ask the company this could you sue them if they had let you go ?

Re:Would /. be liable for posting a story like thi

[geekoid]

Since slashdot is just quoting what someone said, they may not be commiting liable.

If I said "XYZ company dumps toxic waste in your water supply" I could be quoted and it's wouldn't be liable.

Before some dork thinks he has a great argument against this: No, you could just hire someone to scream things so you can quote them. The courts frown on people trying to get around intent on technicalities.

Xeroxing your ass

[EatingSteak]

Speaking of Xeroxing your ass, do you have to give two weeks notice if you're trying to quit before you get fired, say from an office prank gone wrong?

Re:Xeroxing your ass

[tigersha]

Thanks, you just made my day

Bad idea

[Slashdot Parent]

There are no rules about giving them sufficient notice, that is bunk.

Two weeks notice is a standard professional courtesy in the US. It is certainly not required, but if you walk off your job, you are:

1. Never going to work at that company again. You may think you don't care now, but you never know what things will be like 5 or 10 years in the future.
   
2. You may lose a job offer or two because of it. A lot of backchannel, off-the-record communication goes on in hiring decisions. Chances are someone at your new company knows someone at your old company. If you shout, "I QUIT!" and storm off in a huff, that can come back to haunt you.
   
3. Many companies won't report negative information about a former employee, but for something so provable and demonstrably true, they may decide to open their mouths. How do you think former employer would answer the question, "Do you think you would rehire Mr. Jones sometime in the future?" You'd have a hard time pursuing a lawsuit over a simple "No", and that tells the hiring manager everything he needs to know.

So, yeah, you're right that there is no notice requirement. But you would be well advised to give 2 weeks notice.

Re:Would /. be liable for posting a story like thi

[raind]

I don't know - how often the tv, newspapers or other websites get sued. So the answer is no - what exactly would /. be liable for ? Being lame?

There is no legal basis for this

[PHPNerd]

Texas is what is called an "at will" state. It means that you can leave your employer at any time with no reason at all. Period. You do not need to give two weeks notice. You do not need to submit anything in writing. The law guarantees this - it's written into the Texas constitution, an amendment that was passed.

They have no legal basis to sue you on. However, all that being said, we do live in a world where people sue McDonald's because they spilled hot coffee on themselves and burnt themselves, even though it clearly says Hot Coffee.

Re:There is no legal basis for this

[iambarry]

What makes you think they are suing for failure to give proper notice?

They could sue alleging the poster stole property or information. The could sue if he took equipment home and didn't return it. They could sue for anything. And, BTW, it could be that the poster has done something he deserves to be sued for.

Re:There is no legal basis for this

[PHPNerd]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't qualify my statement with "All other things being normal and the poster being completely innocent of anything..." (/sarcasm)

I meant, that with what the poster has provided, there is no legal basis for him getting sued. This thread isn't about what the poster *might* have done. You can only give answers based on the information provided.

One sided story

[iambarry]

Why is it so easy to be outraged with stories like this? Perhaps its because we've all had something similar happen to us (or someone we know). Its usually not exactly as extreme as the posted story. Maybe we've had an employer be upset when we've quit. Maybe we had to quit...a better offer...our sanity...then lost friends.

However, in this case, I think the poster's story is too extreme. I suspect there's more here than's being said.

Maybe some files where stolen? Maybe there was some financial impropriety? Maybe someone overheard someone saying something inappropriate in a corporate environment? I don't intend to immune the poster...other than to say that perhaps he's leaving out some key information.

Full disclosure...to avoid the glass house...I lease a server from the poster's former employer and host some stuff there plug.

Re:One sided story

[tomservo84]

I don't intend to immune the poster

I think you meant impugn.

Re:One sided story

[iambarry]

Hello, my name is Barry, and I have a spellcheck problem.

School?

[slim-t]

My employer will pay my tuition for graduate school, on the condition that I work for them for 2 years. If I quit, the employer could file a lawsuit to recover any tuition they paid in the last 2 years.

That's the only reason I could see an employee getting sued for leaving with short notice..

I've seen a lot of posts saying the employer doesn't give 2 weeks notice. I've seen a lot of employees let go with no notice at all (well... once we had a day where they started firing people in the morning and you had to wait all day and see if you were still there at the end). But every employee I've known to get let go from here has received at least a couple months pay.

It's not being cynical-- it's being realistic

[raddan]

I agree with the OP.

I, too, work in a great place. I have a nice office, a comfortable wage, great coworkers, my boss gives me a great deal of freedom to make decisions, and so on. But I am under no illusion that the company's fiduciary responsibilities don't come first. Fortunately, I work in a private company where those pressures to perform are lessened by having no stockholders, but if I start making decisions that lose the company money, I would most certainly be worried about my job. The OP is right-- make your coworkers work harder (or worse, you boss), and you're out on your ass. Unfortunately, top management's granularity doesn't extend down to people-- it's departments. So when a department gets axed, often lots of good, smart people go with it.

Corporations are only charitable to their employees as long as their employees are making them money. Distance yourself from your job to protect yourself, or when something unexpected happens, you will take it personally, and that will hurt you.

Shit floats. In a big enough company, some serious turds accumulate at the top. Just expect idiocy to happen and you'll be better prepared for it when it does.

Noncompete

[Khammurabi]

But without a non-competition agreement I can't see that theirs would go very far. Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.

The person may not have signed a non-compete document, but most companies make you sign a corporate policy / rules document. I've noticed that especially low-life corporations tend to put text into this agreement that reads like a non-compete. I was forced to sign such a doc or be fired. However, I made the CEO rewrite the flipping thing 2 or 3 times before it didn't sound like "any knowledge or experience you have gained while being employed here may not be used elsewhere".

Yeah. Like people have a "delete" button that will wipe out all work-related activity. It was a VC firm that bought out our company, so I wasn't surprised.

A weak case but it depends

[kilgortrout]

Without a noncompete, the only basis for a lawsuit would probably be using your former company's proprietary trade secrets to compete with them in your new position. This type of claim is usually referred to as "breach of fiduciary duty/misappropriation of trade secrets". You mentioned the VP of sales giving you the bad news. For salesmen, companies have tried to contend that customer lists and knowledge of the company's custmers are trade secrets and have brought suit on that basis. Whether or not that type of assertion can hold up requires a careful inquiry into the specific facts of the case and the caselaw in the jurisdiction where you live. That can best be done by a local attorney.

Generally, it's a very weak case but some employers will sue anyway for the in terrorem effect it has on their current employees. Make absolutely sure that the employer cannot demonstrate that you walked out with customers lists or other company sales aids. Make a big show out of returning all company materials in your posession to the company, i.e. mail it to them return receipt requested with a cover letter stating you are returning all company materials in your posession and that you have retained no copies. Generating customer lists and walking out the door really looks bad even if this type of info is later deemed not to be propriatary trade secrets. Everything you do now should be posturing for litigation. Make a paper trail that you are acting above board and that your employer is being a bully/jerk.

Re:A weak case but it depends

[iambarry]

Without a noncompete, the only basis for a lawsuit would probably be using your former company's proprietary trade secrets to compete with them in your new position.

There's lots that they could sue for. As we are hearing only one side of the story here, its hard to say what the suit would be about. If, for example, the poster had set up a fake supplier of equipment and bilked the company our of say $25,000,000, wouldn't you guess that they could sue him for restitution?

Wierd managers!

[redelm]

IANAL, but Texas is a "Right to Work" state and even a non-compete would have to pass reasonableness tests. They can sue, but won't win.

More interesting is why a Sales Mgr (of all people) would threaten you. Just sue! What good is the threat? They're not trying to get you to stay. Are they trying to threaten other employees indirectly? I strongly suspect that will backfire.

It's probably frustration talking, but mgmt doesn't appear to possess self-control and this is a very bad sign for those you left behind. Mgrs might be touchier than usual because things are going worse than they let on.

Loss of personnel

[coleopterana]

So I've read some pretty good replies regarding general legality of contracts, terminations, etc., but I'm not sure that given the very vague details we were given by our anonymous poster that that really gets to the heart of a lawsuit I think will end up being tossed quickly in whatever form it does take--keeping in mind that while I've done extensive reading and have a similar such education in said legalities, I am not a practicing attorney. It sounds to me like it is possible that this company, which I know little to nothing about, has become excitable (to say the least) regarding the pending loss of this employee and what they felt they may have been losing with him. We don't know very much about his projects, his role in the company, who is under him, and so on. We all know that sometimes, two weeks just doesn't quite cut it, and usually when it doesn't, you know that and you're professional enough to give your company more time to not fall apart. My guess is that the company's (potentially poor) reasoning for any such suit is that the loss of this employee with this amount of notice constitutes material harm to the company--in things left undone or personnel untrained or unhired or some set of requirements that were either invented or potentially stipulated in some fine print no one read in a hiring contract. I believe they would have to prove an actual material loss or breach of written contract to even move forward with the suit to not have it summarily dismissed--and depending on the judge you drew, you could potentially get any legal costs you'd already paid out (assuming they weren't negligible) recouped. But I think my advice for most problems that seem like they could blow far out of proportion with employers and end up going to lawyers and courts stands: I'd go to the party involved first holding my attitude and ego in check for 5 minutes and ask for a polite explanation.

possible claims

[queequeg1]

Even in the absence of a non-compete, there are potential causes of action. For example, many states have Trade Secrets Protection Acts which could apply. It's hard to say in this case because we don't know exactly what this person did or what sensitive information he might have. In Oregon, complaints based on violation of a non-compete almost always have trade secrets act violations tacked on. However, this is usually a scare tactic as it is recognized that this law (at least in Oregon) is not nearly as useful as a well crafted non-compete because there are many conditions that must be satisfied before the statute will apply to former employees. One of these conditions (in Oregon at least) is that the employer take reasonable precautions to protect the trade secrets. In many cases, employers that don't have non-competes have a difficult time satisfying this requirement. One could, of course, file a complaint based solely on a TSA violation (i.e. absent an NDA) but for the reason just mentioned, this doesn't happen often.

Additionally, some states has common law theories of an implied duty of loyalty that can create liability if the former employee were actively marketing for his new employer while still on his former employer's payroll. If the OP was honest in saying that he wanted to leave on good terms, it would lead me to believe this sort of thing was happening.

Of course, this is all speculation. If we could actually see the complaint, the issue would be out in the open.

Re:too short?

[Altus]

At will is the law, 2 weeks is customary. You can simply walk out without notice and they can escort you out without notice, but if you want to leave "on good terms" you generally give the 2 weeks notice.

Im not sure that you can sue for wrongful termination if they fire you during those 2 weeks, it probably depends on the state, but at the very least, if their only reason for the firing is that you are quitting, you could probably file for unemployment.

Constable Savage

[evilandi]

Dun Malg: They sound like something out of a Monty Python skit!

Actually I suspect you're thinking of "Not The 9 O'Clock News" (Rowan Atkinson, Smith & Jones et al). "Wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area after the hours of darkness", "having an offensive wife" etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZoSqPxsNtU

What could have happened...

[techsoldaten]

IANAL.

If you used company property (i.e. email, fax, IM over the company network) to find a new job, and your old boss happens to be diabolically evil, he may have grounds to sue. That's the only thing I can come up with, this sounds crazy.

M

Re:What could have happened...

[Intron]

... and be awarded damages of? The cost of the fax, phone calls, and email? Not worth it.

The business has to try to claim their lost revenue due to losing the knowledge carried by this employee to a competitor. An employment agreement spells this out, but why couldn't they claim an implicit agreement exists? The widespread use of employment agreements shows that there is an expectation of the terms claimed within them. It's like if you live with a woman long enough she can claim a common-law marriage exists even without a marriage certificate.

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE

[Siberwulf]

This is completely true. Its also known as "Right to Work" state.

wtf

[stachu trawki]

IMO the biggest WTF here is that you even need a lawyer to win such a case. If I was a judge, I'd surely rule that job is like any other good. The guy, the seller of his job, has the right to refuse to work for somebody unless his contract says otherwise.

In other words, if I loose a great night because the nearest shop is closing and the shopper refuses to sell me a condom, whose problem is that? [hint: I play the role of the company here]

If they are going to lose money because he is quitting and they didn't protect themselves by an appropriate clause in the contract - it's their problem.

If they are not going to lose anything, there's no case and the suit IMO should be dismissed outright.

If he won't/wouldn't win without a lawyer, that means US courts lack absolutely basic common sense and are just plain fucked up.

Sadly, that's probably the case :(

Dystopia?

[RockoTDF]

Anyone read Max Barry's "Jennifer Government"? Excellent dystopia about a hypercapitalistic future, one of the features is that corporations sue over everything, to include employees who quit on the grounds of "lost profits."

Anyone can sue anyone for anything

[s_p_oneil]

They may not win, but winning isn't necessarily the goal. Just the hassle and cost of fighting a law suit will cause most people to fold pretty quickly. It's called malicious prosecution, and it's illegal, but it's nearly impossible to convict anyone of that, especially if they have even a tenuous claim to a real grievance.

I've heard that most judges won't award malicious prosecution damages because it will piss off the lawyers, and the judges started out as lawyers (so many of their friends are lawyers).

How to quit, Bigtime Consulting style

[alohatiger]

http://www.bigtimeconsulting.com/?toon_id=124

Yes, I'm pimping my own cartoon, but it's applicable!

I dunno

[Slashdot Parent]

Is he sure he didn't sign anything? A lot of times new employees are just handed a stack of papers to sign and they don't even bother to read them. Better make sure he didn't sign anything.

Also, why is the VP of Sales threatening him? Is this guy in sales? Is he taking The Planet's clients with him to the competitor? Is he taking his accounts with him to the competitor? If so, he is in a really tricky position legally since The Planet will have suffered specific and quantifiable monetary damages.

At any rate, getting sued is a pain in the neck. At the very least, the poster should start looking for an attorney just in case.

Re:I dunno

[Tweekster]

Even if you did sign something most of the time they are unenforceable.

One company i worked for tried to claim that you couldnt ever work for a competing company, and you couldnt use any knowledge learned at that job...so wait i learned python so now i cant ever write a python script?

Re: From an Owner's Perspective

[Dr_Dimento]

For years I have had my own business and as such, I have felt that it was my responsibility to make sure that any client lists, private information, etc was kept private and confidential regardless of the terms of an employees departure.

Personally, this seems more like a reaction. Without knowing more about why you left or under what conditions, it is hard to offer more than just this:

Consult with a lawyer.

That being said, there may be a lesson in this. Why did you feel it necessary to tell your current employer where you were planning on going next? It seems to me, that information should be kept to you and your new employer. It avoids many of the issues here and ultimately may serve you better.

In the end, knowledge is power, so keep it in your hands.

Right to work state?

[f_g_goss]

Check of your state is a "right to work" state. In those states you can quit for no reason anytime and not have to give notice. The flip side is you can be fired for no reason with no notice.

Re:ianal but I do work in HR

[PreviouslySeen]

Are you part of a contract or collective bargaining arrangement with that 3 month requirement stipulated?

From what I am aware, there are no legal requirements for notice to your employer of your intention to leave.

Some employers offer carrots---e.g. will pay out vacation/sick in states where it is not mandated, and if you do not want to burn bridges, it is a good idea to give at least two weeks notice. However, most employees are considered "at will" and do not have to give more notice than "I quit and wont be coming back after lunch".

Employers are required to give 60 days notice under the WARN act if they intend to lay off more than 30% of the workforce, but an at will employee can be sent home without any notice (which I'm sure many of us have experienced!).

My last day at this job is the 15th of this month

[Il128]

And my current employer is doing everything in their power to make me pay for leaving. I've been in my current job for way more than two years and they are insisting that even though my contract said that I was free and clear after two years that I now owe them money for leaving, to the tune of 6k dollars. I got a lawyer and he's basically telling me that the costs for fighting the situation are going to be more than they are screwing me out of. I really don't understand their logic. Why would I stay?

This sounds like american idol

[Zebra_X]

You know where the really bad singer comes in and thinks he's/she's really good but is in fact atrocious.

Dude, maybe they didn't like you that much?

You did not quit!

[www.sorehands.com]

You were fired, you did not quit. Giving two weeks notice is saying, "I am going to quit in two weeks." You can apply for unemployement for the 2 weeks, unless you can start early at the new job.

They can sue, but it is not likely they would win. The new employer may not like it.

are you an at-will employee?

[capsteve]

what did you do to piss off your old company?

i feel your pain and internal conflict... in the last 5 job/17 years i've always given 2-4 weeks notice, i've never been a lame duck during my notice period, i've always left detailed instructions for all important logins and passwords(and the need to change them after i leave). i've worked very hard to keep everything i've done well documented and above board. and i never stabbed any of my employers in the back with back-biting and nay-saying during my notice. this has served me well without any backfires, EVEN when i went to work for the competition... i've had nothing but great relationships with all of my old employers(i'm on speaking terms with the last 4, i still do freelance for a couple of them). too bad about your former employer, sounds as if they really screwed the pooch on this one. escorting employees out the door and suing them just promote a sore loser mentality

if you didn't sign any special work agreement, you should be considered an "at-will" employee, which offers no guarantee for employement to you(length of time, notice of termination, reason for termination, etc). this is a two way street, so you also are not required to offer any reason or any time for notice. you might consider looking at employment information sites such as employment law information network to read up on the guidelines in your state. this site would prolly have some convenient links to labor law legal services in your state as well...

often times employees are asked to sign a non-compete or non-disclosure agreement regarding business practices, technology, etc. some of the more draconian non-competes that i've been asked to sign even went on to list specific competitors that i could not leave to work for... non-competes are hard to enforce because it's fundamentally not very moral(and possibly illegal) to prevent someone from making a living, even if you are leaving one company and going to their competition. they are usually enforeable when sometype of theft is involved.

the burden of proof would be on your old employer to show that you are stealing from them(knowledge, technology, software, etc) and taking the stolen asset to your new employer(the competitor). there may be very specific enforceable instances i.e. you developed specific technology at old company ON company time as part of your job, and didn't finish the project, joined the new company, taking the technology you started at old company to fiinish at new company.

remember even microsoft had a hard time getting a non-compete enforced against kai-fu lee... they did get an injunction(for a short period of time, but it didn't stop the hiring process or the ability to work), but consider the size of the organizations and the money involved, your scene is trivial in comparison(not trying to flame you, just putting it into perspective).

do yourself a big fucking favor, hire a lawyer who specialized in labor law. i bet this whole thing disappears quickly, once the company lawyer(who is prolly NOT specialized in labor law) is contacted by you lawyer... my labor law specialized lawyer can beat up your general corporate lawyer with one hand tied behind his back...

Re:too short?

[corbettw]

Texas is an "at-will" state, which means:

1) You don't have to give any notice, whatsoever, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, before quiting.
2) They don't have to give any notice, whatsoever, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, before shit-canning your ass.
3) You can't be prevented from seeking gainful employment after you leave, with some limited exceptions listed in non-competes (my current employment, also in Dallas, has no non-compete agreement, so I can take off whenever I want and go work for a competitor the next day).

All-in-all, I think the guy should not worry, the lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere.

texas worker's rights

[bmc13]

texas is a right to work state...you can leave a company whenever you want, and they can fire you whenever they want. so unless you where stealing stuff from the company, your former VP and/or legal team should have no basis for this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not Necessarily

[TheWizardOfCheese]

I had the same reaction - according to the claimed facts, the employer sounds too stupid to be true. So it can't be true, can it?

But then I rememebered a case we had here a few years ago, in which the local branch of an international investment bank (which I won't name, protecting the guilty) sued a junior mining company for maliciously declaring a profit. What had happened was that the investment bank had overhedged a long convertible bond position by a huge naked short position in the stock - more than the float, apparently. When the company declared a profit and paid a dividend, the bank got killed. They claimed that the profit was declared maliciously, to punish them for their short position (which was depressing the share price.)

The thing is, their suit never had a chance of success. Apart from the difficulty of proving malice, it would not even have been sufficient, as the fiduciary duty of the company executives was to people who own the company, not to those who anti-own it. But if you have money and want to sue someone, you can always find a lawyer.

Sue? Yeah right.

[ss_Whiplash]

I've always looked at jobs this way. It's a business contract between to parties. You agree to work, they agree to pay you. If and when either party decides that the agreement is no longer satisfactory, they can terminate the agreement.

It's really that simple. I once worked for a company that shut the doors at our branch with no notice whatsoever. We all came to work and the boss was there with a lock for the door. He told us we had 30 minutes to get our stuff and go home. You know, that's the way it goes sometimes. I have never held a grudge about it. And so if I find a better opportunity that is going to make me happier, or provide my family with a better income, I'm gone folks. No hard feelings.

Don't feel bad about being escorted out, that's a common practice in every IT shop I've worked for. A disgruntled IT employee can do a lot of damage in two weeks.

As for the lawsuit, sounds like a load of crap to me. What are you, an indentured servant?

You are not an astute person either

[AHumbleOpinion]

I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off. He went into a long explanation of how telling an employee he's getting canned causes all sorts of security problems and low productivity etc etc, to which I pointed out I would give him as much notice as I thought he would give me ... Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit. Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit.

That was a pretty dumb thing to do. The manager gave you the stock answer that he *had* to give you, saying anything else may create a liability for the company. What actually happens when you are laid off depends on how trustworthy you are, it depends on your rapport with management. You just destroyed any that you had. You also moved yourself higher up on the list of people to lay off since you are now considered more of a liability if tough times occur.

I survived numerous layoffs at one employer. When I was laid off I was given two months notice and spent part of that time pairing up with a surviving employee to finish off some features/bugs fixes and getting the survivor familiar with my part of our project. I asked for permission to take home a copy of some of the source code that I had worked on all alone so that if anyone had questions I could use it as a reference when giving them assistance over the phone. My manager did not laugh at my offer, and by my departure the VP of Engineering for the US division of this multinational gave me a letter permitting me to retain the source code for this purpose. Incidentally, they never needed to call, the source code comments were good enough. I'm not saying everyone at this company was treated this way, or that others companies will behave this way, but I am saying that your attitude has created a self fulfilling prophesy where you have assured that you will never receive such consideration.

Also note my experience with getting advanced notice of being laid off is not unique, various other posters are sharing similar experiences.

One thing to remember...

[NerveGas]

    For every 100 "I'm going to sue you" lines, I would be surprised if three resulted in an actual lawsuit. It seems to be the first thing that oh-so-many people say, but when the reality of (a) having to pay a lawyer, (b) having to invest their time, and (c) having to prove an actual case kicks in, they tend to just sort of go back to their regular lives.

steve

They took my accrued vacation

[sideswipe76]

My last employer took my accrued vacation (almost 2 weeks) saying I didn't give them a full 2 weeks notice (I tried for 3 days to get in touch with my manager). Another friend gave them 3 weeks notice and only had 2 days of vacation. He got his confiscated too. I am not too worried though -- I left the company because they decided they were going to move away from software contracting to ... home theater installation (insert Dr. Evil laugh here).

No legal leg to stand on

[Jon_Hanson]

Without a employment agreement and/or a non-compete agreement, your current employer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. What could they point to in court as just cause for suing you?

Arizona, where I live, is a "right to work" state. This essentially means that either party, the employer or the employee, can terminate employment for any reason at any time with or without cause. Your state may be similar but even if it's not I can't think of any legal precedent where an employer may sue an employee for leaving without any kind of contract to back them up.

This sounds like an attempt to bully you. Speaking with a lawyer is a must.

Jobs are like Girlfriends

[LoTechDave]

Most girls can handle 'the stars not being alingned', or 'it wasn't meant to be', or even 'I don't know -I'm just not happy anymore'. But when she hears you are leaving her for her hot little friend, you just might find out if this girl has any repressed phychotic genes. It's like you are waving other girl's panties in the air as you breakup with girlfriend. If you think your firm will get jealous then tell them that you are just going to work for your parents small business or something.

Texas is "Work-At-Will"

[gwayne]

Fortunately for you, I don't think they will have much of a leg to stand on. Under Texas law, you can quit or they can terminate you for any reason without notice. IANAL, but I don't believe there's much legal recourse for them, unless you maliciously damaged their systems before leaving.

It definitely sounds like some clueless asshole trying to inflict emotional distress, so counter-sue.

they fired you for quitting

[theonetruekeebler]

Dude, we don't even know what state or provence or prefecture or administrative sector you live in, nor do very many of us have law degrees, and those of us who do probably aren't going to waste much time and expertise on such a vague question.

I'm in the not-a-lawyer crowd, and won't be the first to say you should consult a lawyer, but I will add that you shouldn't bother with a lawyer unless you're actually served papers. And don't mention a damned thing to your new employer. No point in getting them skittish about bringing you on.

As for escorting you out a week early, etc.: Call your former employer's HR department and find out when your official termination date is. If it matches your submitted resignation date, then the VP dude was talking smack and you should quit worrying.

But if HR gives you a date short of the one you submitted, then you got fired for quitting and that's something almost every state's labor board would be delighted to hear about. A competent HR department will fix this very quickly. If you were fired without cause (or wrongfully, in this case), it puts them in a very different situation vis-a-vis unemployment benefits and other little things. BTW, just for fun you should send a letter to VP dude's boss asking for contact information in the legal department, since VP dude told you the company was suing you and your next employer.

The missing link in the story?

[Schnapple]

Some months back, the TWiT Podcast Network went down. Leo Laporte hosted the RSS feeds at The Planet (where the story's poster was working when he quit/got threatened). Leo was angry at The Planet's lack of response and feedback. Someone informed him that at some point in time, The Planet started to go downhill as a company for various reasons so a bunch of their employees got together, quit, then went off to form their own hosting company, Softlayer. A number of other employees followed as well. Leo took this advice and relocated the hosting to Softlayer.

I wonder if the missing part to the submitter's story is that he quit The Planet to move to Softlayer and so The Planet's management, mad that yet another employee was leaving for that company, threatened to sue him. It would jive with the theory that this was a warning to other employees. It will ultimately fail but in the meantime it works as a band-aid for the leakage of employees to the other company.

Re:The missing link in the story?

[stevesliva]

I wonder if the missing part to the submitter's story is that he quit The Planet to move to Softlayer and so The Planet's management, mad that yet another employee was leaving for that company, threatened to sue him. It would jive with the theory that this was a warning to other employees. It will ultimately fail but in the meantime it works as a band-aid for the leakage of employees to the other company.

Wow-- it's supposed to stop the leakage rather than make it worse? If anything I'd be polishing my resume! No stronger indication that it's time to find greener pastures.

Corporate pissing match

[sudoname]

I'm really sorry to hear you're being hassled about this. I have been in the same situation and what it came down to for me was my company was losing market share to their rival, my new company. Instead of being well wishers, they decided to use the matter to sling mud in that particular market space. It came down to corporate grudges, had nothing to do with me. If your old company finds this thread, and I have a clue who they are, I'd like to leave them a message. GROW UP! If you cant play well with other, take your ball and leave the hosting sandbox. Kindest regards.

My Duty

[fwarren]

I have been around the block a few times. I have worked for companies where during a downsize, they gave everyone a minimum of 6 months pay, retraining, and have an employment agency work with you.

I have also been at jobs, where in the middle of a document window reboots, and while you are trying to sign back in, and think you got your password wrong, security shows up and escorts you from the building.

With that being said, what terms I will accept when I start a new job or project. And on what terms I will leave. Depends on how the employer treats their employees.

If I am working at a place, where one day, mid day they will walk in, and dismiss me, and I have seen it happen all around me. They get ZERO notice. Period. If I am nice, I will show up, and quit. If I am not nice, I will work part of a day, and walk out.

If a company, gives the employee a notice of two or four weeks (and I have seen that), or gives them pay AFTER they have been terminated or fired. For such a company, I would give notice, and tell my new employer that they will have to wait 2 weeks or 4 weeks for me to start.

My duty to the company is as strong as the duty of the company is to me.

Is this for real?

[GreyPoopon]

I honestly can't believe this is for real. But if it is... It's already been stated that you should seek the advice of an attorney. Many attorneys will offer a free initial consultation. You absolutely should NOT go without legal representation, and before you even notify your new employer about the possibility of a lawsuit, you should go talk with the best attorney you can find. Based on the information you gave, I can't imagine that there is any basis for such a suit, and I'm guessing that they are just trying to scare you. However, if you have any witnesses who would testify to the threat that was made, I'm willing to bet you can return the favor with a counter-suit that WILL hold water. And if you do so, make sure that after all is said and done, the boss of the VP who made the threat is notified as to the reason for your counter-suit.

Not to Smart

[DesertBlade]

You posted as an Anonymously but listed the company you used to work for. I think they can figure out who it is. I also think that the VP of Sales(is he the hiring manager?) doesn't really know his legal rights and may be blowing smoke up your ass trying to scare you. It is good that you left. I would still hire a lawyer and have him contact the company and reverse the roles some.

Check with Texas Dept of Labor

[kilodelta]

If I'm right, Texas is like any other state in that it's an employment at will state.

What this means is that either you or your employer can terminate employment at any time without any notice whatsoever should you desire.

Re:too short?

[Tweekster]

That would not work in the blockbuster example in my state (unless you are in a unique position with trade secrets)
basically unless you have extensive knowledge of secrets in wisconsin you cannot be limited from working for a competitor.

Most contract stipulations are in fact illegal so it is not a big deal, they just put them in to scare people.

The company cannot enforce provisions against you that interfere with your ability to make a living in your chosen profession, except under special circumstances, and even then it is a "you better keep secret what you know" sort of situation.

Right to Work

[dptalia]

Texas is a Right to Work state, which means you can quit any time you want. Your employer doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I wouldnt worry...

[umask077]

How long you been in IT? You said a Sales guy said it? Vp or not its still a sales guy and there all full of sh*t. Never trust anyone in a sales department.

Good will...

[Savage-Rabbit]

No, your goal is to not lose money from your employer while they are still your employer. :)

Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references. It would be nice if things really worked like that. I have been dropped into somebody else's half finished project plenty of times after that person left for another job at short notice. I suspect that in this case the guy would not have been sued if he hadn't gone to a direct competitor. I don't live in the USA but over here companies have also used lawsuits like this, or threatened to do so, to intimidate their employees into not switching jobs. Of course they reserved the right to fire the employee at a moments notice, after all, what could be more natural than expecting complete loyalty from the employee but at the same time reserving the right to treat him/her like a commodity? When this issue was finally tested in court in this country the employee was backed by lawyers form his trade-association/union and the case was shot down in court even though the employer had put a clause into the guy's contract. The clause apparently violated laws about freedom of employment. The former employer had to pay the costs of the proceedings so this threat has lost a lot of it's terror value on this side of the Atlantic. Of course laws may differ in the USA.... Personally I will treat an employer with no more respect I get from him. The better the employer the nicer I will be about quitting...

Re:Good will...

[rifter]

The former employer had to pay the costs of the proceedings so this threat has lost a lot of it's terror value on this side of the Atlantic. Of course laws may differ in the USA....

Unfortunately they do. Despite all attempts to get a "loser pays" system in place here to stop this kind of abuse, it's never made it. That's why you see so many big companies abusing the legal system on this side of the pond.

Personally I will treat an employer with no more respect I get from him.

With some employers, that isn't much. But then you probably would not be as likely to quit an employer who treated their employees with respect.

That isn't right either.

[raygundan]

"Pro-Abortion" is an entirely different stance. I think you're looking for "Pro Abortion Rights." An actual "Pro Abortion" individual is probably pretty rare, although I imagine you could find one, possibly in some sort of eugenics or strict population reduction movement.

Trade Secret Misappropriation

[ipcounselor]

I am a California attorney and have represented several employees who left a large employer for a smaller competitive business or start up. In my experience with these type of "at will" cases, there is only one theory that the employer can make with a straight face -- misappropriation of trade secrets. Find a Texas attorney with employment AND trade secret misappropriation trial experience!

Re:Trade Secret Misappropriation

[Serveert]

Exactly, correct me if I'm wrong, IANAL, but in California it is very hard if not impossible to enforce non-competes unless there is evidence of sharing trade secrets.

Re:too short?

[TheSync]

Two weeks is pretty short, IMHO. AFAIK, in Germany you have to let them know three months before leaving.

In the U.S., two-weeks is the customary length of notice for non-contract employees.

Loose labor regulations is why the US has an unemployment rate of 4.6% versus Germany's 10.2%.

Re:ianal but I do work in HR

[russ1337]

"From what I am aware, there are no legal requirements for notice to your employer of your intention to leave."

See: http://tinyurl.com/yteu6x

Of course you are referring to 'no legal requirements in the USA'....

why not wait

[mrcdeckard]

i'm reading a lot of comments that go along the lines of, "i gave my notice, then stuck around to finish up any projects i was working on."

Why not wait unit the project is DONE, then, when you're at a good stopping point, so to speak, give your notice/quit then.

i guess a problem with this is if you've landed a new job and need to start before the current project is up. i suppose if you couldn't work it out with the new employer to wait until the current project is done, you're stuck.

it just seems that, rather than giving notice, then getting the project to a stopping point, it would be a bit better to work quietly to get it there first, THEN announce your imminent departure.

mr c

'At Will' states.

[Zapman]

Most states (in the US) have are what are called 'at will' laws. The short version is that either party can cease working there 'at will'. The 2 week notice is a courtesy to make hand off of job responsibilities reasonable.

Check into this in your state... the 3 months requirement certainly sounds harsh, and possibly illegal.

Of course, this only applies to Full Time employees. Contractors are another matter.

I got laid off, fired and quit

[guruevi]

I first quit a very good job to move to the US. They paid an extra airfare back and forth to the US and paid me for staying another 3 weeks in an apartment near the office. My contract stated a 2-week notice.

In the case that I was laid off, they didn't give me any notice nor any severance although the contract stated they would do so as a professional courtesy. I just got an escort to collect my stuff and get out of the building. The same happened to the 50-some other employees that got laid off. I did get paid for the rest of the day and they paid out my paid time off.

I got fired then and I just could finish the day (I was on contract) very laid back, but I didn't do anything that day anymore. Just filed my resume everywhere.

The employer will not give you the courtesy of the 2-week notice whether it's in the contract or not (especially for IT). They usually consider you a security risk and thus escort you out the building. Usually they don't want to pay you either for that time passing.

Sueing is something completely different and you'll have to check your contract to see what is possible. It might be you unknowingly signed a non-compete notice somewhere. Check with the HR-department of the company to make sure. In any case, I would get some legal advice as to their possibilities. It might just have been a threat because they were mad at you (especially coming from a VP of sales)

You can burn bridges....

[jotaeleemeese]

... when you are relatively certain you will not cross the same river. And perhaps when you want to teach a lesson to somebody obnoxious.

frequent situation

[kriskwo]

I am a Texas attorney, and, while I cannot give you specific legal advice without knowing the facts regarding your situation, generally in a situation like this I would suggest that the employee not worry about it until they are actually sued, but to be proactive. Unfortunately, companies with deep pockets sometimes just choose to make former employees' lives miserable. If there is no non-compete or employment agreement, suits such as this are generally based on common-law trade secret misappropriation or the Texas theft liability act. If the employee has no idea why they are being sued, it may be beneficial to send a letter (certified return receipt requested) asking why they are suing and what the employee did to cause this and what they can do to avoid it - as an effort to prevent litigation, this may provide grounds to recoup attorney's fees if a suit results. Another thing to keep in mind is that if the threats of a suit negatively impact the employee's relationship with their new employer, they may have grounds for a suit or counterclaim against the previous employer.

Slavery?

[chiraz90210]

The definition of slavery is that you are unable to terminate your labour "relationship" voluntarily... If you are forced to stay at work for a company due to any pressure and you cannot voluntarily reject, that basically conforms to "neo-slavery". This kind of slavery in different forms can also be found in the Amazon (numbers going around 80,000 people subject to this new kind of slavery). They do not work under the threat of violence all that often (well, work "under the whip"), but violence is an end-possibility. When they bring the "slaves" from other states to the farm, a month later they are kindly reminded that the bar tab so far plus the trip is actually to be paid for. Hence, the "slaves" are unable to voluntarily terminate their contract and this qualifies as slavery. High penalties exist for these kinds of farms, once discovered. It's a bit similar in your case. You should be able to counter-sue on the account of slavery perhaps and see what happens, if the worst case arises! :)

Re:too short?

[gnasher719]

'' These differences, incidentally, are probably also the reason that Germany has an unemployment rate of ~11.7%, compared to the US rate of ~5.1% (Google stats for 2005), ... ''

An interesting statistics is what percentage of the population is in prisons, either as convicted criminals, or as guards or in any other way involved in running a prison. If you add that number of people who don't do any beneficial work to the unemployment rate, Germany looks a lot better compared to the USA.

Re:ianal but I do work in HR

[PreviouslySeen]

Yep, and even then, within a country, the laws vary by state/province region etc.

It's a full time job just keeping track of them!

The devil is in the details.

[4105]

I wonder if the poster left out some information. I suspect that a company would have no basis whatsoever to sue and employee for leaving. Now on the other hand if you quit, and just by chance a few customers followed you to your new job, that might raise some eyebrows. The poster might be in this position even if the company suspected this was happening.

Methinks you misunderstand...

[VidEdit]

"In America you can sue anyone for anything."

And that statement makes about as much sense as "In Germany you can shoot anyone for any reason." Sure, in America you can sue anyone for anything, but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.

The fact that you can sue anybody for anything is critical to the understanding of this thread. The OP is being threatened with a lawsuit. The question is twofold: can he sue and can he win. The fact is that the employer can sue even if he has little or no basis for the suit and the OP will have to pay money to defend himself. If you don't show up to defend yourself in court, even a generally baseless lawsuit can win in court. (Yes judges aren't supposed to let a totally baseless suit go forward, but we don't live in a perfect world.)

Many frivolous lawsuits are filed each year and the consequences for doing so are few and far between. Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make you safe from them or make them uncommon.

Re:Methinks you misunderstand...

[anthony_dipierro]

The fact is that the employer can sue even if he has little or no basis for the suit and the OP will have to pay money to defend himself. If you don't show up to defend yourself in court, even a generally baseless lawsuit can win in court.

Actually a lawsuit which is completely baseless won't even make it to court. But let's say they come up with some ridiculous argument which gets into court. Wow, so he has to pay the bus fare to the courthouse. He'd probably be able to get three times that much back in a countersuit.

Many frivolous lawsuits are filed each year and the consequences for doing so are few and far between.

All the frivolous lawsuits I've ever heard about have had pretty severe penalties attached to them. Then again, they were frivolous lawsuits against the government...

Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make you safe from them or make them uncommon.

Exactly. In Germany you can shoot anyone for any reason.

Handbooks are not Contracts

[WebHostingGuy]

>>However you could possibly sue them if they broke the employee handbook, that is generally considered a contract

If an attorney working for the company has ever looked at the handbook they have inserted a clause which states that the handbook does not constitute a contract between the employee and the company. While this used to be the case (handbooks are contracts) I doubt you can find any handbook which does automatically disclaim any possible contract nowdays. Handbooks now are nothing more than "this is how we would like to run our company, but we don't have to abide by it."

Re:Right to Work

[srobert]

That is not what "right to work" means. "Right-to-Work" states are those which have laws preventing labor unions from implementing contracts that require exclusivity for their members to hold the jobs that the union represents. You can quit your job in any state unless you've signed some contract to the contrary.

The Parable of the $22 commission

[fwarren]

There is a lot of incest in the local job market -- anyone who leaves would almost be expected to take some underlings and accounts with them. That is why -- again, generally -- I must get people out of the office as soon as I know they have another job.

Now I can tell you the parable of the $22 commission.

There was a company. The sold big dollar equipment. $30,000 or more per sale. They had 5 or 6 people in the filed. And back at the company. They had one guy who handled all the after market stuff. They sold about $350,000 a year in after market stuff.

This guy, had a sick relative in the area, had just moved to town, and was willing to work for anything. So they started him out at $22,000.00 a year. He told them he would work hard, and talk about salary after a year. He went to work, went through 20 file cabinets of old records and cold called everyone who had ever bought a piece of equipment from the company. Asked them if they still had it around or used it. Got some of them to start using it. Would call some people and say "hey, it has been 3 months since you ordered, I am having a slow week, help me out."

Bottom line, after 3 months, he outsold, everyone out in the filed, by selling $300.00 of stuff at a time. He also sold 10 or 11 systems in that time...but he did not get credit for those, only the "in the field" reps got credit. Turned after market from $350,000 into better than $1,100,000. Not bad work for the year.

So the year is up, they offered him a raise, of 50 cents. Yes, from $22,000.00 a year to $23,000.00 though he could demonstrate that he made the company an extra million a year in after market and equipment sales.

So a competitor heard about him, and offered him $36,000.00 per year starting pay, promised to have him at $48,000.00 inside of two years, PLUS profit sharing and his commissions. He took it. Gave two weeks notice and offered to train his replacement. Well, they fired him on the spot.

You know what, he was cool with that. So he got his pay, But for what he sold that month, he should of had a commission check of about $270.00. We had talked, and he was going to leave his old customers alone, and just build his business by cold calling from their old files at the new company.

Well, they sent him a commission check of $22.00. When he complained that he sold "x" that month and it should be about $270.00 they told him he did not work there any more and that was just to bad....

At that point, he decided, Over that $250.00 he would take every customer he could. Now I will note, he had almost a photographic memory. he Knew all the prices on the products, what the markups were, and most of his own customers. He had no problem at all moving them over.

So the company he had worked for, in addition to losing him, by being cheap. Also lost, what has amount to several million dollars in sales over the course of a few years, because they thought screwing him out of $250.00 was a funny thing to do. And make no mistake, if they would have given him that $250.00, he would have left them alone. It went from "ethical" to "personal" with the way they had treated him at that point.

Re:The Parable of the $22 commission

[stinerman]

That sounds almost exactly like the situation my stepfather is in. In his case, the former company sued him for using their "trade secrets" in his new job. The trade secrets were the addresses and contact numbers of customers he sold to on his trips. They decided the fact that he had relationships with their customers was an unfair advantage after he decided to find a new employer.

Last I checked it's been in court for years. They're trying to use the SCO tactic of running out the clock on him, but luckily his new employer is footing the legal bill.

Re:The Parable of the $22 commission

[Sylvak]

Disrespecting others is like sending them an invitation to disrespect you. When there's money involved, it can get nasty.

I'm glad the company got what it deserved, and I'm sure the employee will enjoy his new employment.

I love karma :). And to all you fu@#$%s out there, beware... your turn is coming up :)

Re:The Parable of the $22 commission

[NeutronCowboy]

I've seen that sort of reaction elsewhere as well. People are ok getting a sucky job with a sucky pay, because they signed up for it. But don't fuck with that money, even if it's not a lot of money. At my company, an entire department is pretty much in mutiny mode because in an email, the director essentially stated "Good news! Your bonus has been cut." The cut was a total of about $500 net. But that little cut (which actually was explained in a later email) caused pretty much everyone to send out their resumes. And that department is pretty much responsible for installing what sales sold.

It always boggles me how management fails to understand that people care about the little stupid things, that they can be very petty, and that ultimately, it is the little people who bring in the cash. Yes, they are replaceable, but that doesn't mean you can treat them as such.

Re:The Parable of the $22 commission

[Paracelcus]

The arrogant fucks in their pinstripe suits routinely rob their employers, why shouldn't the little guy get a chance as well?

What pension? you've got a pension? Oh yeah, I'm sorry but we took that so that the (former) CEO could have a bigger golden parachute!

Re:The Parable of the $22 commission

[fwarren]

The CEO believed that there was not a salesman on the planet worth more than $40,000.00 per year in pay, perks, and commissions. No matter how much they sold.

In the rest of the company he believed in the "Wally Factor". Don't hire a high priced, highly skilled "Dilbert" to do a job. They keep getting raises, and you always have to replace them with more high priced, skilled labor.

Hire a "Wally", just pay them a little bit over minimum wage. Teach them how to do whatever is just in front of them. It only takes a day to train them, and the can replaced in a matter of minutes. Due to the lack of skill, you can pay them nothing.

The drawback, is all the understand is "plug these two parts together". They can't tell if the parts are broke or not, they don't even know if they did a good job at putting the parts together. But they don't care, they are paid $7.50 an hour to do it, so they do it.

The company has saved TONS of money. Now they pay $7.50 per hour instead of $22.00 per hour for someone to put the instrument together. Also, instead of a Chemist spending 2 days on site to set up and train on a new system. They now have the Chemist there for an average of 7 days. Waiting for parts to arrive from the factory and for the chemist to install them. Because all the Wallies at the factory could not tell they were shipping a defective unit.

Re:The Parable of the $22 commission

[MacroMegaMan]

I'd *love* to see the ass of the more unethical employers and companies kicked like this as much as possible. These companies make life more difficult (sometimes impossible!) for companies that follow the rules. I've seen numerous local small buisnesses run out of buisness by dirty tactics. It always suprieses me when the largest offenders complain when the same sort of ruthless tactics are pulled on them.

Who is this employer?

[Zex_Suik]

I would like to know who this hosting company is just in case I am using them.

Based on the available facts: This is bad leadership and decision making at its finest. I feel sorry for the other employees still there that catch wind of this. Sounds like a dictatorship and this type of practice is unacceptable in this day and age, for many reasons.

This is very identical to indentured servitude. Now the employee fears quitting for a better job elsewhere in case he might be sued for seeking a better life, liberty or happiness elsewhere? WTF! I am livid... This is a domestic enemy, the former employer should be sued themselves for undue stress, trauma and whatever else you can think of. I do not serve in the military to protect tyrannical businessmen truly putting employees under their thumb.

Who is this employer? I smell a boycott in the works.

Not since...

[PPH]

...Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

Most likely they CAN'T sue

[kuriharu]

I don't know about Texas, but in California, most employees are hired "at will". That means that either party can terminate the relationship at any time, without any notice given. I know because I've been fired this way! Unless you sign a contract, then either you as the employee or they as the employer can terminate the relationship without consequence. The two weeks notice thing is done as a courtesy.

Texas may vary, but I doubt it. I think this "We'll sue you" line was an emotional rant.

Notice isn't what is used to be

[beerdini]

I'm no expert, but if you didn't sign a non-compete agreement or anything similar they shouldn't have a case to worry about.

In response to other postings about the whole notice issue in general, a couple of months ago I changed jobs to a non-competing field and gave 3 weeks notice, even though my supervisors had essentially 2 months notice during the interviewing process. Wasn't until the day after I accepted the new position that I was approached with anything resembling a counter offer to stay which shows how out of the loop management was considering it was a 2 person IT dept. and 1 was leaving.

I gave my 3 weeks and kept working up to my last day as if it were any other day. Just that the first week I documented things that I did exclusively for the other person and whoever would eventually replace me, finished any of my projects by the 2nd week, and just dealt with direct support requests by the 3rd. It depends on how you're looking at a job for a reference when you leave, I was counting on a positive reference, and my supervisor was impressed how I just kept on like any other day until my last. I've had countless other co-workers saying how I should just sit around and do nothing, which I admit I was increasingly doing that, but still wanted to leave on positive terms.

In any case giving notice is not a practice used how it is intended. When an employee gives notice it is to give the employer time to hire a replacement and time for the exiting employee to train whoever is taking over their position what they have to do. Since it usually takes months for a company to decide to replace even the most crucial position, it just doesn't work giving 2 weeks or even 2 months.

You can't be sued for quitting in Texas

[Rizzen]

Texas is a right to work state. You (or your employer) can quit at any time you see fit, and you do not have to give two weeks of notice. Giving two weeks notice is usually done so an employer will have sufficient time to find a replacement for you and so you can give that new person the needed training to fill in your role after you're gone. I can't see how them suing you is going to make you want to stay there, if anything, it just confirms reasons for leaving such a place. If they say you signed an N.D.A. or a non-compete agreement, and you say that you haven't then it is likely not going to go anywhere. You should definitely seek the advice of a lawyer though.

Wait...

[__aailob1448]

So you penalize the people who give you more than one week's notice? If I give you two my two week notice, fully expecting to work AND GET PAID for 2 weeks, you let me go the same day and only pay me one week?

That doesn't seem very smart to me.

Re:too short?

[jack_csk]

> I guess he's in the USA Well, you don't have to guess. According to the first sentence of the OP:

"I work at a large hosting company in Texas" So far, the place "Texas" is commonly referring to a state in United States.

Been there, done that..

[Panaflex]

I was sued for... one MILLION dollars (pinkey in mouth).

Seriously - and we settled with an "I'm sorry" letter because there was nothing, in actuality, they could do.

We quite after the CEO blew a consortium design win which we'd been working on for 6 months. The project died, and 4 of us quit to start our own company.

BUT - we were not going to compete - we had investors, a business plan, and our own market plan. We just wanted to get the hell out of there. Beyond that - many states won't even prevent you from competing because they can't prevent you from earning a living in your field.

Of course, this isn't legal advice - just my own experience.

(Correction) Re:What's the basis of the lawsuit?

[Tablizer]

The last portion was not clear. They didn't actually sue, just threatened to.

Right ON!!!!

[tmh - The Mad Hacker]

the best case is that they immediately escort you to the door, and have to pay you for as long as your notice was for.

Cool, I'm giving my 10-year notice right now!

Unlawful termination? Good luck. Unless they *really* trust you, it's generally considered stupid to let you hang around for another 2 weeks or more while you make preparations to suck them dry. Of course, I've never completely understood that, since knowing that, a half-intelligent person would've already completed said preparations *before* giving notice...

Re:too short?

[pedroloco]

The US unemployment rate is based on the percentage of the work-eligible population that is receiving unemployment benefits. There are plenty of unemployed Americans who are not receiving such benefits and as such are not counted as being unemployed. I don't know how the German government defines its unemployment rate, but, unless it does it in the the same way as the US, it is pointless to draw conclusions from a simple comparison of the two figures by themselves.

Re:Would /. be liable for posting a story like thi

[jmichaelg]

Negligence.

If /. posted a story that injured someone without checking to ensure that the story is true, I'd think the injured party would be able to claim that they were injured due to /.'s negligence.

I am not an attorney so this is pure conjecture.

Counter sue

[dilvish_the_damned]

Of course you can be sued for any reason at any time. But I am curious as to the curcumstances under which he was escorted out of the building. Was he fired? If so it would seem plausable that he could sue for wrongfull termination. And at least in his case, he would stand a chance of winning, or so I would think.

Suing is Easy

[Nom du Keyboard]

Suing is easy. You can file suits for almost anything. Winning, or even surviving a Motion to Dismiss, is much harder. This may be more threat and harassment than reality.

You should certainly publish this company's name as a warning to other programmers to avoid.

Re:Suing is Easy

[puppetman]

He did by providing a URL - it's a hosting site called @ http://www.theplanet.com/

Think again

[maop]

Assuming that the employee will give substandard work is an insult. Both sides should expect that other will maintain professional behavior at all times. Doing the opposite would be worse for morale.

Re:Think again

[Xaoswolf]

You are quitting, I don't care about your morale...

Re:Think again

[jedidiah]

You're forgetting about EVERYONE ELSE.

If you treat one guy shabbily everyone else in the
office WILL know about it. They will notice a sudden
absence. They will talk to the dissed ex-employee.
They will talk amongst themselves.

The office gossip will inform all of those who don't
have direct knowledge of the situation. The verbal
record of the incident may linger.

Re:Think again

[An Onerous Coward]

Translation: I use people solely as a means to my own ends.

Kant damn you!

But since you're not big on the idea of caring about the happiness of someone you've worked alongside for years, because he is no longer making you teh moneeyz, might I suggest that you treat the person well anyways? That way, in his future dealings with industry colleagues, he'll give much more positive reviews. When it comes to jobs, relationships, or whatever other experience you care to mention, people are likely to remember how it ended, and let those memories color the overall experience. This will, in turn, color the perceptions of a lot of other people, many of whom may turn out to be future employees or customers.

Re:Think again

[maop]

You relied before I could. I *was* talking about the morale of the entire company. Basically it sends the message that employees are not trusted unless there is some ominous force hanging over there heads.

Re:Work At Will

[jjohnson]

This is half true.

Yes, on paper, you can leave or be fired for no reason. But any labor lawyer will tell you that if you're firing someone with any superficial claim to discrimination (e.g., black, female), the fired employee can launch a long, expensive suit starting with an NLRB claim, and to avoid it you should go through the same sort of internal judicial/paperwork process so that you can prove you're not firing them for the wrong reason.

Lawyer's Credo

[Matey-O]

If it moves, sue it. If it doesn't move....move it, THEN sue it.

You must hate freedom!

[CK2004PA]

Leave Texas. It is the ultimate pro-business state, in a country controlled by politicians who are bribed by corporations , that is saying a lot. Good luck, but the judge will automatically side with the corporation suing you. You are unpatriotic!

Everything sucks...

[Caduceus1]

This is why its scary to work for any big company these days...maybe what you do next doesn't compete now, but it could potentially compete later, etc.

I had the good fortune(!) to be laid of from my Extremely Large Employer that bought my group from my former Small Employer, so they really didn't have much to say in the matter. Even the Small Employer was known for being nasty at times over things like this.

It seems often that the ELEs don't care if they have a basis to sue you. You don't even need a basis to find suit - its up to the Finder Of Fact (judge or jury) to decide if they had the basis - but most ELEs don't expect it to get that far...they'll hope you'll settle because you can't afford to go against the ELE and their Extremely Large Army of Lawyers.

Is there anything on the books (or perhaps a bill) that make an ELE not only pay legal fees, but perhaps treble damages or some such for bringing suit without basis?
 

Tilting at Windmills

[bill_mcgonigle]

Here's what I do with dumb discussions on Slashdot: close the tab.

Happened to me too!!!

[CaptainAstro]

Two years ago I did the same thing for much the same reason. I was walked out of the office about 4 hours after I gave notice and received the notice of their intent to sue the next morning. It turns out that they had no basis for a lawsuit and would have probably lost (they were claiming "inevitable disclosure of proprietary information" as the reason, which apparently has never been won in Mass.) but it would have cost me a bundle. To make matters worse I was entitled to some fairly valuable stock options (I know, I should have exercised before submitting my resignation) which they threatened to withhold based on a secret (not communicated to anyone) that allowed them to withhold options basically for any reason they want. In any event, it took three months to work out a settlement. Luckily my new company picked up the legal bills but I was unemployed without the ability to file for unemployment during that time. What a pain.

did anyone answer the question?

[morryveer]

IANAL, however:

1) Lots of people THREATEN lawsuits. Until one is filed and you are served, I wouldn't sweat it. But you obviously already are.

2) Lawsuits can be filed, but can still be without merit. But you obviously knew that.

3) Sounds like it is without merit, but if one is filed get a lawyer anyway. And countersue them for malicious and frivilous suits. Because it sounds like they don't have a leg to stand on.

Can't affect references?

[The Monster]

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references

You sure about that? If someone calls one of my prior employers that I quit voluntarily, asked if I gave notice, and they truthfully answered how much notice I gave, you're saying that I have a legal claim against them?

On what grounds?

Would Your Boss Take a Bullet For You?

[bill_mcgonigle]

There are things called friendship and trust.

If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.)

Here's a though experiment: Would Your Boss Take a Bullet For You?

If the answer is 'no', it's a matter of working backwards from there to realize where the love/trust level is with him, and at what point he's going to give you up.

Even Batman keeps a little container of Kryptonite at the mansion.

(aside: I can't believe the Firefox dictionary doesn't have 'Kryptonite' in it!)

Best thing to do is not tell em where you're going

[Electric Eye]

If it's in the same industry, area, etc and you suspect there could be even a hint of competition, then just tell them nothing of your future plans. I think this case should serve as a reminder for EVERYONE to look out for #1 - and that's you. Companies DO NOT give a shit about you one way or another. If any of you saw that study that came out yesterday, you'd see that we have the WORST benefits in the industrialized world. Why? Greed and no care for the well-being of employees.

I often wonder how anyone can be a loyal dog ("company man") these days. I see so many and laugh at them. Some even tell me there's something wrong with me for not thinking of the company first. Then they get burned (like I have twice) and then they understand....

"See You In Court"

[mpapet]

I've been in a number of companies where the larger competitor uses an event (like an hiring an ex. employee) as a method for discovery about their competitor.

This is also a very typical abuse of the courts for trademark cases. They go to court under the guise of protecting their trademark and require in their discovery the financial records of their competitor.

Every single company I've worked for has been sued by a competitor. In each instance, they drop the case right after my employer submitted their discovery.

On an individual level:

The best weapon I've ever seen is vacation time. This takes a little planning, but it's absolutely the best way to control crazy situations like this.

The idea is to have a few days of vacation/personal time available to take right after you submit your resignation. If the employer is being an ass, take them. If the employer is being nice, make sure your stuff is being transferred to others and come in and out as you please during your "vacation".

I knew one guy who gave his two weeks notice the day before his two week vacation. Employer totally deserved it and there was nothing they could say or do.

Contact HR

[pat_trick]

Lots have suggested contacting a lawyer; you should also remember to contact HR at the company. They're the most likely to realize that someone higher up made a big mistake, and scatter to right the wrong before it becomes a problem of litigation for them.

Yea, you want to keep it professional...

[StressGuy]

I mean, I wouldn't recommend giving someone "the finger"....and it does take several weeks for that Sharpie smiley-face you drew on your ass to finally wear off.

not that I speak from personal experience or anything.

Re:Yea, you want to keep it professional...

[Stripe7]

Yes, you do want to keep it professional. The professional circles you work in can be small, the people you are working for in that company may move on and if you act unprofessionally when you leave, you leave them with a bad opinion of you. A few years down the line you may end up looking for a job and find that the people you had flipped off when you left are in the company you are trying to get into. Needless to say your job prospects would be dim there.

Nothing to fear

[Jack Sombra]

If he had signed no type of contract that forced him to give a certain amount of notice or controlled who he went to work for he has nothing to fear (and potencially something to gain in a counter suit)

Hell in this day and age even if he had signed something, if he got a good enough lawyer he could probably get out of it. Majority of contracts, especially standard "template contracts" which most employment contracts are, are not worth the paper they printed on

IHMO: How it should be done

[spectro]

With my previous employer I asked for permission to look for new opportunities, I explained I didn't have any offers in the table yet but I would like to explore the market for a position where I could "stretch my legs". They were cool about it mainly because of the way I handled it. Only after that day I posted my resume online, got a couple of interviews and an offer in a place I really liked. I gave the notice and they organized a goodbye lunch on my last day.

IMHO, it doesn't matter how they treat you, what it is important is how you treat them so you can leave with peace of mind.

Re:Fun with no-compete clauses

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot to mention the alternate method, also successful on one occasion:

1) Take a two-week vacation from old job.
2) Go to work for new job on 1st day of vacation.
3) Call old job on 2nd Monday. Tell them "I like it here so much I've decided to stay."
4) Profit.

Also works quite well. If they think you're far far away they won't bother to look for you. Great stories will spread among the left-behinds. You'll become another D.B. Cooper.

Re:too short?

[isj]

In Denmark the rules are similar but more in the favor of the (salaried) employee:
The employer and the employee can agree that up to the first 3 months is probation time, in which there is 14 days notice for both parties.
0-5 months: 1 month notice from the employee; 1 month notice from the employer.
6 months - 3 years: 1 month notice from the employee; 3 months notice from the employer.
3-6 years: 1 month notice from the employee; 4 months notice from the employer.
6-9 years: 1 month notice from the employee; 5 months notice from the employer.
9- years: 1 month notice from the employee; 6 months notice from the employer.

All notices are from the end of a month.

In addition, after 12 years employment there is mandatory compensation (1, 2 or 3 months pay depending on time).

What happens during the notice time depends on the company and environment. The employer can require the employee to work during the notice time. What usually happens is that if the employee resigns then he will spend up to 2 months finishing projects, transferring knowledge, using earned vacation time etc. If the employee is fired for a cause then he is usually asked not to show up again. If fired due to downsizing etc. he is usually asked to transfer knowledge and finish projects that are close to finished, and otherwise use earned vacation time. In either case (fired or resigned) the employee has the right to (reasonable) time off for seeking a new job.

My company had a major downsizing in september. Most of the fired colleages were asked to come in a day or two to transfer knowledge and clean up their workstations. I keep in touch with them. One of them have essentially spent the 4 months as a vacation, renovating his house, learning new skills, etc.

trade secret

[WingedEarth]

Sounds to me like they'll sue for unfair competition by alleging that you misappropriated trade secrets. That's probably what they'll do. If that's the case, your new employer will probably get you a lawyer to defend you and itself.

Regarding your sig...

[avronius]

The phrase is "more butter", and is acceptable at the movie theatre when ordering popcorn...

In California

[Rohan427]

California is an at-will employment state meaning your employer can (and often will - because that's how employers are) release you at any time without notice. As an employee, you can leave at any time without notice as well (though it's not considered professional and word *will* get around). As long as you did not sign anything - including forms stating you received an Employee Handbook - which may have some sort of employment agreement in it - the employer can do nothing to you. I have worked for employers that use this sort of thing as a scare tactic. One thing I've heard often from lawyers is "They [the person you are having trouble with] can do anything they want [legally] until you catch them."

I've had former employers try to screw me in various ways that they knew were outside the law. As soon as I called their bluff and stated I would sue them for all they were worth (and it's very effective when you can quote the pertinent law backing your claims), it's amazing how fast they backpedal.

I can't say how the law in your particular state might read.

IANAL, but I have been through the legal system more times than I'd like.

PGA

can they sue? Answer:

[Susceptor]

it depends (famous lawyer answer I know) if you signed a contract with a non-competition clause in it, then you are in trouble, but you said that there was no such thing. In that case you have to look at what duties you had to the company. Did the company trust you with company secrets with the implied understanding that you would not betray that trust by using your knowledge in competing against the employer in the future? Did you have clients that left with you when you moved from the company? the relationship you had with the employer will determine whether they have any cause of action. If there was no relationship of trust or clients that you poached from the employer, then they really have no claim against you. Labor contracts as a rule are generally non-binding. The employer has the right to fire you anytime for any reason and you have the right to leave at any time for any reason, even the 2 week notice is not a legal requirement in any state as far as Im aware. The only time you have to watch your step is if there is a WRITTEN labor contract that spells out the duties of the employer and employee relationship and establishes that post employment obligations of the employee. thats my 2 cents. Disclaimer: Im a 2nd year law student, not a lawyer, but as far as I know this is the general rule in the US.

Legal Minimums, Helpful Maximums

[nick_davison]

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references.

And yet there's a world of difference between, "He attended. I'm sorry, I legally can't comment on any issues we had beyond that." and "Wow, Dave? He's really missed around here. Yeah, he definitely worked here - amazing work. I know I'm not supposed to say more than that but... how can I help?"

ThePlanet, EV1, SCO.....its a conspiracy... LOL

[karim7783]

Hmm... the "Hosting Company" links to "The Planet", which in turn I beleive is part of ev1 if I am correct. Ev1 happpens to be the ONLY company that bought Linux "Licenses" from SCO..lol Anyways, I am NOT A LAWYER (pay careful attention to that... you may want one)... BUT, I dont THINK they can, unless your contract had some "Fine Print" :P

Right to Work

[charleste]

In a Right to Work state (such as Colorado), there is no requirement on either party to give notice for anything, and any agreements to the contrary are null and void due to being in violation of state law. However, if the company is based out of state (e.g. legal dept and/or HR), it may get a bit more cloudy. I imagine it entirely depends on which state the company is taking out taxes for. The basis for a suit from the company may be if the employee made a verbal agreement that they were going to work there for X amount of time: such verbal "contracts" may be binding.

Re:too short?

[neersign]

"employers must pay you for those two full-weeks even if they choose to not let you stay after you give your notice. "

from my experience, this is false. I got a job offer from a competitor to my company, I asked my boss to match the offer, but he couldn't, so I gave him my 2 weeks notice. He said "no, consider this your last day." My boss said the reason he didn't want me to put in the two weeks was because I was going to a competitor. I was only 1 year out of college so my dad was pretty much holding my hand through this process, because he obviously has much more experience at this sort of thing. He was telling me the same thing you are saying, that if I gave my 2 weeks notice and the company refused them, then I was still due 2 weeks pay. However, the HR lady told me that she has never paid out 2 weeks pay when some one left and the 2 weeks notice was refused. Her story was corroborated by a lady in my office who used to work HR in a former job.

In fact, most company handbooks say that either party, the employer or the employee, can terminate the relationship at any time without prior notice (well, at least it was in both of the handbooks for the two companies I have worked for, so I assume it's standard). Unless there is a clause in the company handbook about going to a competitor or in the employees contract, the company in the OP has no legal basis to sue. (IANAL)

Where's the rest of this story??

[ShrapnelFace]

This person isnt telling us everything. Likely what has happend is that they were hired, marched into work and said "I'll give you two weeks but I have another job" and went on his merry way. As word around the office circulates, because our bright commentator here has probably told at least 3 people (so the FBI says in their study of secrets and human behavior), the word gets back around to key managers, executives, and HR. They confirm this with their competitors HR department, and proceed to tell our author "hey buddy- thansk for the heads up, but you didnt tell us it was a competitor". I work in Silicon Valley, and have been at a fair number of competitive companies where the war in digital widgets is waged daily. The truth be know, that most agreements are at will- in that you dont have to give any reason, any time to act, or otherwise. You can march in and say "Im done" and sign your exit papers that day. On the other hand, you are bound by the terms of your initial contract, many of which require disclosure of any and all material knowledge of impending or existing conditions that could damage the corporation you are working for. Being hired by a competitor and not sharing that is the most common form of violation I see in the workplace. I've been hired by a competitor, and I walked into work that very next day and said "thanks for the role I have had here, I would like to submit my intent to terminate our agreement effective two weeks from this day. I have been hired by company X, would like to offer you two weeks of my time and an opportunity to counter offer." Counter offers failed after 6 hours of conversation, conference calls, lunch, and such. At which time, because it was a competitor, they asked me to empty my pockets, fill up a cardboard box with my personal effects under secure supervision, and surrender my cellular phone and laptop. I signed an NDA for information specific to non-public information, promisary to return all digital information + copies in my possession within 48 hours, and was handed a termination check for all time unpaid, sick days, vacation, plus an addition 4 weeks and a pro-rated benefit from my accrued bonus cap. THAT is how you leave a job in good graces of an employer and go to a competitor. What I read in this is that full disclosure did not exist. For all we know, this person also was downloading data, and prepping himself to be competitive against his former company. Whatever- purely innocent people rarely recieve collateral damage.

Only Montana is not "at-will" employment

[legal aaron]

49 of the 50 states are "at-will" employment states, meaning that an employee may be fired for no reason and an employee may quit and immediately leave for no reason. The "at-will" employment does not pertain to contract jobs, where you have signed a contract for a stipulated period of time and also does not interfere or supercede with no-competition clauses, which are governed by different laws.

From the facts you have given (and I am betting you are leaving something out), the company has no case against you at all.

Re: 3 months notice - good idea

[on]

In my part of the world - Norway, employer and employees are required by law to give 3 months notice. And you know what? This works out great both parties! You seldom hear about people slacking after giving notice - you never know, in the future you might be in a position where you're trying to sell something to your previous employer.

Whenever I've left a position, I've usually had a 15 day overlap with my replacement in order to train him/her. I can't imagine that people in this part of the world have higher work ethics than yours - your opinions on employment termination, for me, are completely alien....

wait it out...

[corecaptain]

IANAL,

But as far as I know the legal concept of "At Will Employment" would seem to apply here - which
basically means they can let you go at anytime, and you can leave at anytime.

My feeling is that who ever threatening you with a lawsuit was way out of bounds. If it were
me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it or $$. If it is really bugging you perhaps you can find
a lawyer to give you a 15 minute consultation gratis...call the local bar association referral
and ring up a few lawyers and run it by them. I wouldn't send any money though!!!

I would just wait and see if they sue you. I really doubt it. Have a good weekend.

slavery

[chiefloko]

I wouldn't worry too much.

Slavery was abolished in 1865.

Also there is no judge in the world, that is going to say "There is no way are allowed to provide for your family."

my $.02
-lnr

What a different world

[neurophys]

We have 3 months notice both ways. That works nicely. I need time to get a new person in and the employed need time to get a new job. The time is also used for brain-picking. I would never treat a person that quit in a bad way. I do not need enemies in the free out of my control.

Pål

They're grasping at straws

[hoppo]

No way do they have any legal basis. It would be difficult to collect damages even if you had signed a contract with them. Most states tend to err on the side of the employee, not the employer. Plus, by escorting you from the building before your date of resignation, it is THEY who terminated the employment relationship.

Unfortunately, even the most ridiculous of lawsuits requires a court appearance to settle. I'm no lawyer (not even close), but I would think you need to use a strategy that will provide your former employer with incentive to drop this nonsense. Obviously they can afford more in legal resources than you, so you'll need some kind of counter suit that would be costly to them should they continue this course of action. Look for as many damages you can claim as possible. Also, if you have any dirt on the company, that may provide you leverage in your cause. You need to make the costs of this to them not worth satisfying their spiteful lawsuit.

Re:Not according to Bush's AG.

[abb3w]

Just because "you can sue anyone anytime", that doesn't mean your lawsuit will last more than thirty seconds in the courtroom. If you're a big enough loon, a judge may even (in theory) make a sua sponte summary motion to dismiss with prejudce, grant it, and let you find an appelate judge to irritate. (In practice, they almost always just look favorably on any vaguely plausible motion to dismiss the defense makes... hoping opposing counsel is any more coherent.)

Additionally, you are not only a troll, but one too lazy to even find a vaguely logical YRO post to specifically link.

Can they SUE?

[laststop]

I'd say they can sue for anything they like; they could prolly sue you for being 5'4" tall. Now whether they have any case that is another thing entirely. What *I* might try if I were dragged into court: point out that I am a sentient man (or a living soul) then pause and ask if the anybody objects to me appearing (or I might use the term visiting) as such (if they are silent then they assent). Then I would state that a corporation, though a person (a corporation is a person in the eyes of the law), is a legal fiction and it cannot reach parity with a living man.

Note I said *I* might try this so I'm not giving legal advice.

Listen to what Margy and Jack have to say (way interesting) They have over 300+ wins (98% of their cases) in and before going to court.

http://krch.freeshell.net/audio/MandJ-Stadtmiller1 .mp3
http://krch.freeshell.net/audio/MandJ-Stadtmiller2 .mp3

ha, a minor detail

[KZigurs]

Even if it is *not* legal what is stopping you from, if there is no penalty?

*cough*sco*cough*

Re:too short?

[kfg]

Ever hear of unions?

I don't hold a card, but I got my little red song book directly from the hands on an honest to God Wobblie.

"No you can't scare me, I'm stickin' to the union, till the day I die."

Not everything that has ever been touched by socialism is bad.

Please point out in my post where I made judgement.

KFG

In the midst of quittingq

[JL-b8]

I'm not particularly against the two weeks norm. My first job I quit by giving my two weeks but called off the last 3 days of it, but it was a shit job anyway. I quit working at a gas station by locking the gas station up (it was a 24 hour gas station) while waiting for a new employee to relieve me (he was 2 hours late). I just wrote a note, put my keys under the floor mat and walked off. My current job found out I had started another company and had come to me over it before I had a chance to give them the one month I was planning. I'm in the middle of my "two month" notice and they're already offering my new company jobs. So I think not burning bridges is the best approach if applicable. It all depends on the employer. I don't particularly hate my current employers. I'm just tired of what they do and if I just dissapeared it'd sink them.

But...

[Optic7]

It seems that many (most?) major companies try to stay well away from any chance of getting in trouble (or just being sued for no reason). I noticed in my limited experience with this that it seems to be standard practice now with major companies to not say anything about someone's previous employment with them except for employment dates and title. They'll give employment dates, title and nothing else, at least in the last two or three cases where I checked.

Re:But...

[Tweekster]

That is very true, they are trying to keep as factual as possible because if it is a fact, it cannot be libel or slander.

Re:too short?

[Peter La Casse]

No; unions and the 40 hour work week resemble socialist work structures in the US.

Whether or not a particular union or 40 hour work week is bad depends on the details of the situation. Simply being related to socialism historically doesn't make all unions always bad or all 40 hour work weeks always bad.

Actually, they can't fire you without notice

[Fezmid]

"Your company does not have to give you two weeks notice to fire you, nor would they."

Your company has to give you notice that you're not doing a good job (unless you're in the "probation period," generally 6 months). After that, if you screw up, they write you up. If they just came up to you out of the blue and said, "You're fired!" you'd be able to challenge that.

The key is if you're fired, you can't get unemployment, but if you're laid off, you can. The company can lay you off without warning, but then you get unemloyment. If they don't want to pay for your unemployment, they need documented proof as to why they fired you.

My wife's a manager (in the state of Minnesota - the state is at-will employment) and has had to fire a couple of (non-IT) people, so she's gone through this before.

Revised: What aren't we being told?

[redelm]

Everything the OP knows may be exactly as stated. But what iff ... the Sales Mgr just lost a big account to the hiring company, and one of their selling points was they now had staff experienced with the buyers ops?

Even if hire.co didn't entice the employee away, they might have hired with the competitive prospect.

Re:too short?

[kfg]

Last time I looked, i didn't live in a socialist country.

Show me where I said you did. Unlike most Americans I know something of the history of Krupp and Bismark and your nation's stuggle to find a balance.

It's a federal liberal (not in your political sense) democratic republic. . .

Actually, since the 1970s the American concept of "Liberal" has been merging with your own, to the extent that someone who holds to the traditional American meaning of the word must now be charecterized as a "Classic" Liberal. Do not mistake a particular political platform for the undlying form. Americas leftists are very much in the German model and I still know some Americans who, back in the day, thought that Hitler was going to be the true light of the world. It was only when Hitler disillusioned them that they switched allgience to Stalin. Oops.

In any case, . You're being too touchy at the invocation of the word socialist. If you told me that America's public school and highway systems resembled socialist structures I'd have little more to say than "Yeah. So?"

KFG

More rule-of-thumb, closing the barn door after...

[abb3w]

IAmNotALawyer; the next paragraph is general advice I recall being given by a lawyer specializing in NonDisclosure/NonCompete agreements to a class of engineering students. For specific legal advice, either hire your own lawyer or be a fool and an ass.

For every job, you should keep an employment file. This should include a dead-tree copy of every legal agreement you've signed off on in the course of the job, and all employee policies you have agreed to. That way, in the event that they threaten to sue, you can dump everything relevant onto your new lawyer. You should also look through it yourself at least once a year; much of legalese is semi-readable to the intelligent layman and can prevent some problems, but you will need a lawyer if you need to find out what local law has to say about "right to hire", "unconscionable terms", and so forth. If your salary affords such, getting a lawyer to review policies and contracts to point out the landmines before you sign onto a job can be a very, very, very good investment.

As for my advice for the present situation... do call in to HR so you may independently verify that you have been fired. If you haven't, inquire of human resources how you should handle the matter; if you're a vindictive SOB, you might ask a lawyer what your chances are in a personal case against the VP in question, but I doubt they're good. If you have been fired, be sure to file for unemployment for the period until your new job starts.

If there is an ombudsman at your old company, you might make a call and let him know about you being unhappy; it may help some other schmuck who has a beef with the VP later.

If you have any good feeling for any of your coworkers, you might call them at their homes to let them know what happened, offer to give brief advice if they run into unexpected trouble in the next week, and let them know that if they ever have to sue the company or VP-idiot, you'd be happy to testify about the incident to help establish a pattern of behavior.

As for yourself, I'd also consider this behavior a sign that the you-shaped hole in their personnel chart will be a bigger problem than they initially realized. This in turn means you were probably substantially underpaid (or that the company is already on such financially shaky ground that they can't afford the modest raise an emergency hire oft necessitates). It would be tacky to bring up but useful to remember the next time you are discussing raises or salaries.

No, You can't be sued but your new employer can.

[Bigmilt8]

First, if you didn't sign a non-compete or other contract then YOU are not contractually obligated to anything. Texas, like most states, is an work-at-will state. So you can come and go as you please. Now, if you have knowledge of sensitive company information that your new employer can use against your current employer, then Company A (current) can sue Company B (new). For example, Wal-Mart was able to block some key people leaving them to go to work for a competitor. The issue was that the employees had inside knowledge of price contracts Wal-Mart had with certain vendors. The federal court deemed this sensitive company information and blocked it. Microsoft was able to do the same. However, if they sue you, then you have a strong countersuit. It is illegal to attempt to block a person's employment without being able to prove that the move will be detrimental to the company. You could make out well with pain and suffering. I would contact the EEOC and talk to someone.

A different angle

[dacarr]

IANAL.

It looks like the old company is suing you in anticipation of the possibility of breach of an NCO or something. That's like arresting a five year old child because you think he's even remotely possibly going to murder someone twenty years down the road.

With no evidence that you've actually committed some kind of wrongdoing, your former employer has no leg to stand on, and this may constitute barratry - see if this is illegal in Texas, and look it up on Wikipedia. (Hint: it's the non-maritime flavor of barratry.)

Doesn't make sense

[Zan Lynx]

Your attitude doesn't make sense. After they give two weeks notice, they aren't going to give you 100%? What about the four weeks before that when they were considering quitting and/or taking long "lunch" hours for interviews at other companies?

And face it, unless lives are on the line, you aren't getting 100% from your people anyway. No one gives a true 100% for an accounting package or a web site. It just isn't that important and all the morale speeches in the world won't make it that important. So if your employee's last two weeks are at 60-80% effort, so what? Those two weeks are likely just as good as some previous weeks you did pay them for.

And about the "great new job" conversations with the other employees. Since this is Slashdot, I'll assume tech employees. Since I am one, I can say from personal experience that leaving a job hardly cuts off communication. Any friends they have are still in email and IM and cell phone lists. If they're in the same city, they meet at professional groups in town, a Linux group, a Java group, ACM or IEEE meetings, etc. If the new job is in the same tech park, they meet for lunch.

So the people left behind are still going to hear about the great new job.

Frivolous lawsuit

[sydbarrett74]

In most jurisdiction, the contractual relationship between employers and employees is purely at-will: employers can terminate you for any (or no) reason, and employees can leave for any (or no) reason. The fact that you gave two weeks' notice was purely a courtesy: you didn't have to, but the fact that you did shows that you're a capital fellow and must've passed kindergarten with flying colours (unlike a lot of schmucks out in the world). That said, any judge with at least one neuron will throw this out as purely frivolous. Your former employer's lawsuit is utterly groundless. They're just pissy that you're leaving, and want to give you one last 'fuck you'....

Pay for notice

[gryface]

There is neither a need to give notice nor is there a requirement for employers to pay you for that time if you do. They're only required to pay you for the time you actually work. If your friend got a "3 month paid vacation" by giving 3 months notice, it just means his company's HR department forgot to terminate his employment and the payroll department never caught the mistake. That's pretty unlikely at most companies. I didn't believe this at first (because I've given two weeks notice and been walked out with pay for those weeks), but it's true, at least in California.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Paydays.htm

8. Q. I just gave my employer two weeks advance notice that I was quitting. Instead of letting me work until the date of my resignation, he told me that I was discharged, and instructed me to collect my personal belongings and leave. Upon leaving he gave me a check for all wages earned up through my last hour of work. Am I entitled to be paid for the time that I gave notice? Additionally, when must my final wages be paid?

        A. You are not entitled to any wages for the notice period because you did not perform any work during that period. For the purpose of wage payments, your employer changed a quit into a discharge, and all of your earned wages became due and payable immediately at the time he terminated you.

Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references This I'm skeptical of because every employee handbook I've been subject to says no notice = no references. I lost good references because I didn't give a full two weeks notice, which was the company's policy.

going to a competitor

[xoyoboxoyobo]

That's the issue. If you went to work for some plumbing company they wouldn't care. I wouldn't be surprised if you had to sign a non-competitive agreement (that you can't go to a competitor within X amount of time, 2 years is what I've seen as standard) when you first joined. The two times I've seen a lawsuit come about because of this, it was when the person in question was in high enough position the company thought it mattered...

Re:The Moral of the Parable of the $22 commission

[fwarren]

Well, as for hiring him.

There was company A. It made several products. It is then purchased by company X. At some point, they dropped a product line. One of the original founders of company A, gets the rights to the dropped product line, and starts company B. As time goes on, company A gets back into the market that B is in. Well, Company X decides that does not care to be in the business any more.

Well, the owner of company B, meets the guy who owns company Y, they chat about company A, and that it is quite a find. Well, company Y buys company A from company X. Now company Y tries to sue company B for having derived their product from company A.

So the owner of B, having been dorked by Company Y, now owner of Company A. So when my friend went over to company B, after getting dorked by Company Y, did not mind AT ALL. As a matter of fact, they understood very well wanting to take a shot below the belt at company Y.

He was not shooting for moral high grounds. Just following his own ethics. Hey, give notice, get paid what I am owed. He always gave 100% for what he was paid. Once it was well known that what he was worth was double what he was being paid, or more. He decided he would seek work elsewhere. He would have left his old customer base alone, unless they had specifically went looking for him. But being cussed at, fired, and finally, being cheated out of $250.00 worth of commissions, was just to much for him. At that point, he thought that was the best way to make a statement.

What was even funnier, was that both companies needed a part that was only made by one company in the world. Well, they bought out that company. So now, his old employer, has to call him, every time they need more of that part. No one else sells it, and they can't afford to be shut down as long as it would take to get a suitable alternative.

Sounds like bluster

[PaulTownsend]

the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me.

Talk is cheap. So the VP of Sales says they're going to sue. I'd treat this as just so much bluster until you get served.

In my experience, people who threaten to sue rarely do. People (and especially companies) who actually file litigation don't threaten first, they just do it.

If you want to be vindictive, send a letter to your ex-company's legal dept outlining the conversation. My guess is that the VP will get his hand slapped for throwing around idle threats. But you're probably best off by just moving on and putting these clowns behind you.

The most ridiculous thing I've heard of

[rickburque]

A company will lay you off without a qualm, sometimes only to increase "profitability". If they could figure out a way to do without you they would let you go in a second.

Initech Anybody?

[scire9]

"And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll, I'll, I'll set, the building on fire..."

Even if you weren't a contract employee...

[nikkichicky]

I'm not sure what exactly you're being sued for, but some other posts seem to indicate that it has something to do with giving adequate notice. I don't think this is the case, since your failure to give adequate notice probably would not result in a lawsuit against your prospective employer. It might be that they are suing you and prospective employer for tortious interference with a contract. Some states, including Wisconsin, may read an employment contract into at-will employment if certain conditions apply. Therefore, when you took another job with your prospective employer, you may have breached your "contract" with your former employer, and they may have grounds to sue whomever induced the breach. You need to find out what exactly the claim is, and hire an attorney. Your former employer has probably already consulted with its in-house counsel, so it might not be a good idea to do this on your own.

Counter Sue . . .

[Dausha]

First, threatening to sue can be grounds for a law suit. It's harassment. On top of that, using the courts to harass is abuse of process---which could get their attorney disbarred if he does so with full knowledge of what's going on. Could be and would be are two things. I mean, this isn't like a prosecuting attorney accusing a bunch of lacrosse jocks of gang raping a stripper to get himself re-elected.

Second, they escorted you out of the building when you were still within your two-week gratis. I think that could be construed as assenting to your quiting. At the very least, they may have thought they were firing you. Obviously, they did not need your services so much that they tried to counter-offer. So, it would be hard for them to say you were essential to their operations.

Third, you're not taking any clients with you, nor taking any company documentation. An employee has a duty of loyalty so long as they are employed, and that duty can extend to the new employment when the employee "steals" something from the former company (e.g. client, trade secrets) to benefit the new one. You are obliged to treat the former employer with some loyalty.

Fourth, your new company didn't do anything illegal in hiring you, so there's no grounds for a law suit from your former company. This plays into my first point---if the former sues the new because of you, then they're trying to harass the company to fire you; or just generally harassing you.

Of course, when I make blanket statements about loyalty and legality, I'm assuming that you've done nothing disloyal or illegal in the process.

legally speaking. . .

[isaactilton]

Hi, I am a second year law student, however you learn the answer to this stuff during the first year. If you have not signed a contract, then you are what is called an "employee at will." It is legal for you to quit anytime you want and it is legal for them to fire you with a moments notice. Anyways, they are probably not really going to sue you. If they are, then they are doing it to scare their employees. If the complaint alleges that the only thing you did wrong was quit, you will win, no matter what state you live in, 100% of the time. Of course you would lose in a sense because you have to hire a lawyer and pay him, and you old work buddies would be scared sh*tless. However, ask the ACLU or something to represent you. Your employers sounds evil enough to maybe pique their interest. If they actually do sue you, also see if a local lawschool has a clinic. Seriously, a monkey lawyer could write a reply to get the case dropped. The employer has zero law to back them up. If they charge with anything else, like fraud or something, then you may have a problem. But I would bet a dollar that the employer is all talk.

Texas IS a right to work state

[Sergeant Beavis]

I live and work in DFW. It is well known that Texas is a right to work state. You can QUIT at any time, but you can be FIRED at any time with no cause. It goes both ways. Your former VP of Sales is talking out his 3rd point of contact or just trying to scare you.

Questions:

[Eesu]

You all make very good points, but after reading a majority (not all) of the posts, I've found that none of you have really answered the qeustions posed by the poster. I wouldn't think (or hope) they have any legel precedence or right to sue over quitting, especially if notice is give an there was no written agreement about non-comp and whatelse. It might just be a scare tactic to get you to stay? How big is the company? I'm sure profexxional legal help will handle this for you, might even counter-sue for court and legal fees/costs if it goes that far. They might just drop the suit after you inform them you have hired legal representation. I would really like to know how this turns out.

Re:too short?

[Doctor O]

It's the same here - it can be anything up to six months (so usually it *is* six months), and you can get instantly fired without reason. Many employers use this to temporarily hire people and get rid of them the week (or even day) before the period is up.

Re:too short?

[Doctor O]

Abandoning the job sounds pretty nice (and pretty Polish *g*, I had lots of Polish friends and it fits their sense of humor), but I wonder - why would any company put a shorter notice period in the contract if you're free to ignore it anyway?

Awesome!

[zerosix]

Wait until they actively start the suit then counter sue! $$

Re: Three months notice?

[rnturn]

How would you know about such a policy until you were already working there? I don't know about anyone else but asking a question like "How much notice do you need when I want to quit?" isn't likely to come during any interview unless I really didn't care if they made me an offer or not.

Anyone who's been around the Internet for a long time probably remembers the "Great Piss Test" (or something like that) that would periodically show up on Usenet (on misc.jobs.misc). This was, supposedly, to alert folks as to the drug testing policies at companies. I found it amusing but not terribly useful. On the other hand, something like an "HR Policies From Hell" web site? Well, if there isn't one then there ought to be one. Three months notice? Crimeny! I haven't heard of anyone having to give that sort of notice unless they were upper management.

Re:too short?

[Doctor O]

I have no idea why you're getting modded down, you have some valid points.

So, to answer your question, you cannot accumulate so much vacation here in Germany neither - you have to take any vacation that's left in the first quarter of the following year. It's just that I worked so much, and current projects don't allow for vacation until April or May, that I let them give me in writing that the vacation can be transferred to my 2007 vacation time. So it's not the norm, but you see I'm the CTO and told them that there's no way I let the vacation expire, so they could choose whether they let me transfer the free days or be stuck without a CTO during February and March. We're a small shop, and an open discussion goes a long way. Also, I'm here for ten years, so they know I'm not trying to extort them, but am actually offering a fair deal.

As for the overtime, unions are very strong here in Germany, and so we all got paid overtime here. I'm in advertising, so this isn't just unusual, but shockingly so - at least for the other poor guys in the shops who don't have it.

You see, I know I'm quite lucky with some things where I work. But it doesn't keep me from finding a new job, as working here has become *so* shitty, with me not having had a single day of vacation for more than a year at pretty mediocre pay and the whole company going downhill with the PHB who replaced the Chaos Troopers who were CEO's before, so go figure.

Re:too short?

[ridersjdj]

I am not a labor lawyer but have consulted a couple being on both sides of the table. Basically, being in Texas, you are pretty much home free. As an employer, I can pretty much release an employee without any cause and in fact, was advised to simply inform the employee that his services were no longer required. At the same time, this allows an employee to pack up and leave whenever they want. It's all part of that right-to-work issue. I do agree with one of the other comments that they may hold back pay and vacation pay but ethically, they should have made you sign recognition of this at hire time. Good luck.

I'm not a lawyer either

[zizzo]

As I understand, employment contracts are "at-will," meaning you or your employer may break the contract at any time for any reason. Non-compete clauses, at least in California, are largely unenforceable for anyone but perhaps company officers. Unless you signed something very odd it sounds to me like you are free and clear. I wouldn't counter sue as that marks you as a bad apple for the rest of your career unless the legal fees are outrageous, then I would.

Hopefully your new employer isn't afraid of this nonsense and will help you fight back.

</notalawyer>

Re:I'm not a lawyer either

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Uhh, do you know what the definition of a contract is? You are free to break your contract, but you have to pay the consequences of doing so, including any remedy set out in the contract or being sued for breach.

Re:too short?

[dcam]

In Australia we have the lowest unemployment we have had for some time. However the quality of the work has dropped from the perspective of the employee. There are far more jobs that are casual only, with people working more than one casual job to make up a full time job. As you say unemployment figures aren't everything.

Re:too short?

[Doctor O]

I dunno. Bockmist is pretty uncommon here (Ruhrpott), used mainly by old people or children. A sharply pronounced Blödsinn has a lot of impact in my experience, so it's what I used in the OP.

Quatsch or Humbug are also pretty regional, I think, as your suggestion of Bockmist, so we can well attest the German language the lack of a good equivalent for 'bullshit'. Maybe this is why you hear 'bullshit' more and more often these days...

Re:too short?

[mfrank]

That's odd, when I was unemployed a few years ago, the Census Bureau called me every couple months to ask my status, even after I stopped getting unemployment.

You can get accurate unemployment figures from the US government.

2 weeks is usually the best way to go.

[aoism]

Even though it is true if your employer fired you, they wouldn't give you notice, giving 2 weeks to your employer is usually the best route to go. It is situation dependent, but in addition to not burning bridges with the people who will be forced to take over your work, you also retain your employer as a positive reference (as long as you weren't a horrible employee). There are other benefits of quitting 'the right way' as well. I gave 2 and some odd weeks of notice at my last company, and put in my resignation notice that I would be available at consulting capacity for a fraction of my previous pay rate. My employer agreed to it and in addition to keeping a positive reference, I have an additional source of income consulting for applications that I wrote.

You must work in a prison

[cheekyboy]

Seriously.... people leave for many reasons, they could be 58 and retiring and still put in 100% for the last 2 months.

They could be leaving to another city but still will finish their work and document everything.

People dont work in prison camps, they have the right to leave, same as CEOs they can resign and still
put out their last 3 months at 100%.

Often if the person was important, its good to keep them there to finish documenting everything they did or
finish things off.

Oh and btw, no one puts in 100% every week. Every CEO that plays 3hrs gold on friday, thats 5% off from a 60hr week.
Not every human on earth is 100% healthy 52weeks/year none stop.

Hurray for payback time

[cheekyboy]

I hate managers/owners who are just so analy stingy, I mean they cannot see the benefit of giving
someone a 10-15% commission. They make you a million, and you pay them $1000. Wow thats fair, I can see
that manager/owner would rather have it all for himself, but what they fail to realise is that $1mill * 10 years
LESS is much worse than $100k * 10 years loss by giving a commission.

If someone makes you rich, share in the wealth. Otherwise they could make someone else rich.

Taking 99% of all money and then having a 3% growth in your company is not smart, taking 85% of all money and then
having a 20% growth is a better yield curve, but then again, I guess a lot of old school managers left school at age 14
and have not a clue about compound growth.

Anyone ask what the submitter did at that company?

[subsoniq]

The first thing that came to my mind when reading this story is "why in the hell was the V.P. of Sales telling this guys he's being sued?", because being an IT grunt, like most other people who read slashdot, I assumed the submitter was working in IT. what if it's a sales rep? S/he could have had access to client lists and company confidential sales data that the hosting company is worried S/he will share with the new employer.

Now, add to that, there wasn't much info on the lawsuit itself. Was this lawsuit seeking monetary damages? was it seeking a way to ensure the former sales rep (assuming that's what the position was) didn't share anything with the new employer that shouldn't be shared? you know, like things that would be covered under a non-compete clause that so many of us are used to signing before we start working for a company?

it still sounds like some knee jerk reaction on the part of the original employer, but I've seen companies get insane when it comes to sales data and client lists. Add in to that mix the the submitter was going to work for a competitor, and I'm not as surprised by this as others are.

defamation strict liability / negligence / intent

[glrotate]

You might want to be a little more careful with your characterization of the law. The actual malice standard is for public figures. IIRC the supreme court said no punitive or presumed damages w/o intent, but the door is open for a defamation COA based on negligence.

Welcome to the modern workplace

[alizard]

In the real world, you can be fired or sued at the drop of a hat by your employer. Regardless of who you think your "friends" are, regardless of your job performance. It might be about something that has nothing to do with your job, perhaps your employer saw something political on your blog he didn't agree with. Or maybe you suddenly get a new boss that doesn't like the way you comb your hair.

Companies frequently will try to turn a layoff into "discharge for cause" as a way to save money on future unemployment insurance premiums.

Be prepared to defend yourself against wrongful termination or get screwed.

quiting

[ralph1]

When you are done with them screw um, when they are done with you same.

Re:The Moral of the Parable of the $22 commission

[bogjobber]

The moral of your story is that anybody will sell their soul and be an asshole, it's just a matter of circumstance.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless he has some sort of clause in his contract stating otherwise, those are as much his customers as the old company's. If he can convince them to buy from his new company then more power to him.

It happened to me

[jrjazzman]

I experienced something nearly identical. The former employer sued me and my new employer for civil RICO, fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy, and other things I don't understand. The accusations were utterly ridiculous, and after some expensive medidation, they dropped the suit.

Re:too short? Not in CA, USA

[sgt_doom]

I think the crucial word in the surrounding story is Texas...Texas, y'all.

In Texas - stupidity is the norm - look who they elected for their last governor? I've never met an intelligent Texan - do they actually exist (and yes, I was there several times during military training)? From time-to-time some really stupid question is posed on /. by someone from Texas regarding the social mores of Texas and its ilk. I believe the last was from some dork at Trinity College - college of choice of retarded neocons (and hopefully, the sons of soon-to-be convicts [i.e., Karl Rove and company]). Texas is a really stupid and bizarre universe unto its own - and no, the company can't do that - but then all they have to do is buy any of the numerous for-sale-judges in that sorry state.......Texans - last to serve in the military, first to claim to be patriots (H. Ross Perot, did NOT fulfill his complete military obligation...George Weasel Bush, did NOT fulfill his military obligation, deserter and AWOLee, and described by his fellow members of the Texan ANG as a coward and goof-off.)

Okay Mr. VP of sales, what the issue

[Overzeetop]

Sounds like a member of the senior staff is miffed they got outed. So, did you get paid for this astroturfing, or are you doing it out of love for the company? ;-)

Re:Okay Mr. VP of sales, what the issue

[Shihar]

You saw through my evil plan. I knew that I was going to fire this employee then threaten to sue him. I knew that he would post to Slashdot asking for legal advice,so I started posting on Slashdot years ago for this very day... and I would have gotten away from it if it wasn't for you rascally kids and that damn dog!

Opportunity

[tom's a-cold]

Regardless of your channges in this particular case, Texas has laws that are strongly biased in favor the the employer. The system is rigged. You should take this chance to get the hell out of there and start living somewhere that doesn't have the plantation mentality.

Don't sweat it...

[Yert]

I quit The Planet two years ago, because of the horrendous security practices (enforced security policies for low-end customers, lax policies for high-end violators)and the general lack of integrity. They emailed me on Wednesday and asked me to submit my resume for the same lvl 1 NOC Engineer position I had quit 2 years ago - seems they had a recent opening. I find this posting highly amusing, personally. I'm also not considering the offer, if they make one.

Re:too short? Not in CA, USA

[Falladir]

Just enough time so you can't quit on a Friday after work and never show up again.

Unless it's a three-day weekend?

It Sounds Like You did everything correctly ...

[MACchine]

It sounds like they are panicking at your leaving !?!?!?! Why are they panicking, are you the only that knows how to do something ? You must realize that they are in a very dark and paranoid place right now, they think you will be damaging them with a competitor -- why would they be thinking this way ?? Are they bigger but not more profitable, trying to grow to become more efficient rather then old fashioned good management, that could mean they are seriously stretched out on loans and perhaps are NOT getting more profitable. Maybe they think they can attack their competitor thru you !?!?!?! What did your lawyer say ???

Been there, done that

[vladkrupin]

I've been threatened with a lawsuit by a previous employer. One of my ex-coworkers who quit the same day was sued, I believe. Right after he quit he went to work for Microsoft and announced it to the whole blogging world... With 20/20 hindsight that was not such a good idea. Microsoft, being huge and all, competes with just about everybody else in the industry, so our past employer decided to enforce the non-compete agreement on the guy. Never mind the fact that what he did at Microsoft did not even remotely resemble what he did for the other employer. That would be easy to prove in court, but it's the process of hiring a lawyer and going to court that we wanted to avoid.

Anybody can sue anybody else for any reason (or even without a reason). That's the reality. If you choose to defend yourself, and the lawsuit was completely without merit, you might be awarded your attorney's fees. And if the guy who sued you has the money to pay, you might even be able to collect it. Looking at it from the monetary standpoint, it's cheaper to just roll over and not fight. Of course, the @#$% employers expect exactly that, so not fighting them would be rewarding that behavior and encouraging them to keep on doing what they do. But in our country it's just too prohibitively expensive to have your day in court.

And as far as the 2 weeks notice goes... Well, you are not required to give it. It's a courtesy thing. I do that every time, even if it's inconvenient. It's a small world. Even if you don't care about courtesy, think about it from the "what goes around comes around" perspective. If the employer does not want you to stick around, they'll let you loose right away. If they do, sometimes you may end up finishing up some work for a few weeks to come (contract or otherwise). It does not hurt to give the employer the option - they really may suffer some unneeded damage if you don't. Be a little nice.

As a customer of The Planet

[Thalaric]

I can tell you this company is going downhill. I have been with them for the last three years and had to cancel them this month due to, in my case, steadily declining customer support. Most of the original management left and formed Softlayer. What was left merged with another large hosting provider, EV1, and has become one of the worst service companies I've ever had the privilege of being screwed by.

For those saying the AC's situation could be made up, it was mentioned on webhostingtalk.com weeks ago before it was posted here so I'm pretty sure it happened.

Suit

[buss_error]

"I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor. I had a great relationship with my employer and wanted to leave on good terms, and I hadn't signed any non-compete or employment agreements . I felt my old company had just gotten too large and I didn't like working there anymore, so I gave them two weeks notice in writing.

Good for you. You did the honest and right thing. Did you tell them why you were leaving?

They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building. Has anybody ever heard of this happening?

Oh, yeah. This is most likely to happen when an employee is considered key to the business.

Do they have any legal basis for suing me?"

Most states do not require a legal basis for filing suit, only for WINNING a suit. I can sue you for having (or not having) blue eyes, if I can prove you represented you did not (or did), and I incurred a loss from that. However, if it's too far outside the pale, a court can (but rarely) impose sanctions against the plaintif and their lawyer.

This is not legal advice. I am not an Attorney. If you want a legal opinion from a trained professonal, pony up a few bucks and go purchase one. What follows are my personal opinions based on the little I know of the facts. You should ignore this advice if it seems not to fit your situation.

First, prepare a letter, but do not send it. Write your old employer exactly why you are leaving. Tell them how you felt in your job, from start to finish. Be honest. Tell them what you liked, tell them that you are leaving because you are more comfortable in a smaller environment. Tell them if you are willing to make time available to them during a transision period, and for how long (DO put a limit on it. Six months to a year.), if you are willing to do that.

Next, do not send that letter... scrape up a few bucks and see an attorney. Texas is an "At will employment" state. Your employer can fire you for no reason at all. I expect you have the same kind of freedom absent an employment contract. It's also a "yellow dog contract" state. Employment agreements and non-compete agreements are by and large non-enforcable. For instance, a contact cannot prohibit you from being a systems administrator, but can prohibit you from transfering customer lists and company confidential information. You are completely free to use your skill set, but not free to give your new employer info about the old.

Texas has an interesting statute. If someone says in earnest that they will bring legal action against you, and fails to do so with in 30 days, you have a tort against that person. If you have expended resourses in response to that threat, you can recover your costs, fees, and court costs.

Were I in your place, I'd write the letter, print it out, take it to an employment attorney, and ask his advice on how to proceed. Expect to pay between $250 to $500 for initial consultation, and expect to be asked to provide up to $10,000 retainer to take the case. Read the contract carefully. If you do not see a clause to return the unused retainer, ask that it be included, and if they are not willing to do so, see another attorney. Also make it clear that you want your costs and fees to be part of a counter claim.

I suspect I know who your former employer is. You are doing the right thing in leaving.

Now, do the right thing, and google for an employment attorney in your city or call your local bar association for a list of attornies specilicing in employment law.

If you get a summons before you have an attorney, write a letter - but do not sent it - asking for 30-45 day continuance to seek and obtain council. Take it to the courthouse, ask a clerk to look it over, get feedback, then go look for representation.

Re:Suit

[buss_error]

It is advice, but not legal advice. I state further that (s)he should seek compentent legal advice before proceeding with any course of action. I deal with legal people on a weekly basis. Some are in my employ, some represent the Government, other represent grasping corporations that would love another USD $MANYBUCKS or more from me.

The basic trick is to know that the lawyers you pay will fight for you, the lawyers that work for the government work to get more money from you, and the lawyers that work for bloated corporations have no compunctions in extracting money from you or the government by any logical or illogical means available, telling the truth or lying as needed to do so.

More than once I was able to present total contridictions in the facts by corporations dealing with me and my circumstances. But not ONCE has any law firm been found in contempt of court for telling complete (and knowing) lies. At best, I get my fees paid. But mostly lying corporations escape with nothing more than a mild rebuke.

Right to work...

[mrbrown1602]

Your boss is just blowing shit out of his hole. If you didn't sign a contract of any kind, then you're free to leave at anytime.

On what grounds?

[Chris Snook]

[IANAL]

When you sue someone, you have to state a reason. If you can't at least BS "emotional distress" the judge will generally throw it out before trial for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". Suits like this generally fall into a few categories:

1) Breach of Contract

From the sound of things, there's no contract to be breached.

2) Breach of Loyalty

If you willfully act against the interest of the company while you are employed, they can get damages. About the only way I can imagine that quitting your job would qualify is if you deliberately plan ahead of time (while you're still employed) to quit at a particularly inopportune time. Planning ahead of time to quit the day you get back from an expensive training program might qualify, because you're supposed to be going to that training for the company's benefit. Planning in advance to quit a customer-facing position in the middle of something in a way that would embarrass the company might also qualify.

3) Statutory obligations

If there's a law covering your job that states certain obligations that will be broken by the manner in which you quit your job, they may be able to sue for this if you don't meet those requirements. This generally only applies to licensed professionals.

4) stealing and breaking things

This doesn't really apply to quitting, but such accusations are not uncommon when someone leaves a job on bad terms. Failing to record the root password does *not* qualify as breaking things, unless you deliberately changed it to something secret before you left. It may mean you were lousy at your job, but all they can do about that is fire you.

[/IANAL]

Yeah you did

[pvera]

Look at the offer letter that you signed when you got hired. It probably came with a rider that you signed too, and buried in there are the covenants to not competition and the NDAs.

If you left your current job to work for a company in direct competition within a certain geographical area and to work in the same specific field, you are competing and in violation of your covenant.

If your company is as big as you think, then the odds that you managed to spend all this time working for them without signing these things is pretty much non-existent.

These things are very real, and they vary dramatically. For my first civilian job since I finished my US Army service, my covenant to not compete specified I could not leave the job and do the same job for somebody else within 50 miles of the company and for the first 18 months since I left the company. Was this fair? It was a satellite communications company back when there were maybe 3 of such in all of the DC metro area.

When I switched from satellite communications to software development, I had to sign another covenant to not compete. This one was for a much shorter distance, only for a year and narrowed down to software companies that made web apps in the same market we were dealing with. My manager and our three graphic artists colluded to quit over a period of a month or so, 2 weeks apart between resignations, to all go work for the same startup. We sued them and won.

After that it's been more of the same, but every time it gets harder and harder to trigger. For example, in order for me to break this covenant at my previous job I would have had to leave them to work for another web-based surveys company that dealt specifically with the life sciences market. They laid me off and the tables reversed: My current job is more general, and it is only 5 or so miles away from my old job.

If my previous employer wants me to contract for him, I can't because my current employer deals with general web-based programming, so this contracting will be in direct competition with my own employer. The solution? Turn around and offer my employer the lead for the work in exchange for sales credit for it. Everyone wins: my previous employer gets work done at a very reasonable rate, my current employer gets more revenue and I get a little credit for bringing new business.

Re:too short?

[Peter La Casse]

Not everything that has ever been touched by socialism is bad.

Please point out in my post where I made judgement.

I don't claim you did; I do claim that we have at least two examples of "socialist work structures" in the US. The last sentence was to preempt responses claiming that I was criticizing unions or socialism. I could, but I chose to stick to the point.

what is actually happening is...

[jayches]

...The company is taking a "strategic action" against a new competitor which relates to preserving their current employees and market, and actually has nothing to do with you personally, so don't take it personally and don't do anything rash to escalate things. Note to self: when you leave a current employer, you're "taking some time off" so they don't know where you're going. Looking at this from the leaving-employer's perspective, they don't want their best IT staff looking for jobs at this new company with you as the conduit, so they fired a "warning shot", which is what all the stuff they said (but didn't do) was about. It worked well for them, since your leaving-employer's name was on your post ;-). From the gaining-employer's perspective, they don't want to get an employee and a lawsuit at the same time (not even one with no merit). From your perspective, you don't want to spend a bunch of $k down the lawyer rathole, and if you think your previous employer is a bugger, wait until you see your legal invoices for chatting about your problem for the 3 months it will drag on. So if no suit is filed, and if you decide to hire a lawyer, just get advise from him on reviewing the letter below you write - don't let him send letters to your former employer, as they will then have to spend $ to have their lawyer reply, which will actually make them mad, as opposed to the posturing they are currently doing. So far, there is only a threat to sue you and to sue your employer, (and a posting on slashdot that identifies the threatening employer). Best to say and do little and just ignore and start in at your new job. If the leaving-employer actually files such a suit (which is unlikely), then hire an attorney (wouldn't hurt to interview _but_not_hire_ some attys now). In any event, you should pre-emptively write a letter to your leaving-employer simply stating that you have taken nothing that belongs to the leaving-employer: code, customer lists, or any other property or "proprietary information", and thank them for the years of mutually enjoyable service. You might also point out that as of now, you are undamaged by their unfounded threats, but if those threats cause you to lose your job with your gaining-employer, you would look to recover those damages from them, and it would be in everyone's interest to let the matter drop. If the leaving-employer files and serves an action anyway, or the gaining-employer renegs on their offer because of the threat/action, then sit down with some reporters for local and national media, and describe the situation, and how you were left jobless by your bullying leaving-employer. If you're looking for a silver lining, consider that your mere leaving (and maybe some unsaid other things) has caused your leaving-employer to see you singularly as a threat to their entire business, which is a compliment, indeed! -from someone who has been in your shoes a few times.

Re:too short?

[SharpFang]

because some ignorant employees won't know the law is on their side and will politely leave upon the period stated in the contract (or won't dare to stand up against the employer violating the law). Generally, if you see in your contract that your notice period is shorter than stated by law, you can smell the employer is up to no good.

Texas is an "At-Will" employment state

[scarolan]

Well, pilgrim, since you live in the great state of Texas y'all are allowed to quit anytime you want with zero notice, and without giving any reason. Same goes for the employer - they can fire you at any time, without having to provide a reason for doing so. This is what at-will employment means.

Texas law

[erc]

Texas is a "right to work" state, which means that (1) you can quit a job at any time, notice or no notice, and (2) you can be terminated at any time, with or without reason, as long as no EEOC laws were broken. They can't sue you for jack. I'm quite sure any attorney you consult will tell you the same thing.

Paying people out

[tpv]

it's not costing you any more than it is to pay me to sit at home and surf the web.

It almost certainly is.
Not all companies know how much it's costing them, but it would be costing them something. It costs me around $10 per hour to have a desk for an employee. That includes rent for the floor space, power (including air-con), a phone, a computer (including support), and the physical desk. Then there's insurance, etc.

If you give notice at a point where I'm running low on space, it may be worthwhile for me to let you go and use your desk for someone else.

That's not our policy though. Based on the work we do, and the types of people we hire, our general position is that we're better off having them work through the notice period. But that's our policy based on our risk assessment.

I know it's pretty standard for people working in any financial processing area (such as a bank branch) to be stood down within 24 hours of resigning. Mostly they'll be escorted off the premises immediately, but sometimes they'll be asked to come in for 1 more day to hand over their work, under supervision. It goes with the territory - there's a lot of money to be lost. One of the things companies rely on to reduce the risk of internal fraud is your ties to the job, your pay and benefits, your loyalty to the company and/or your colleagues, etc. Once you resign that mitigant is at the very least greatly diminished, if not reversed, and the risk assessment changes so that it's a better risk management strategy to pay out your time than to have you work there.

Large Hosting Company?

[Custom500]

The original post said that you worked for "A Large Hosting Company" with a link to The Planet. Was The Planet actually the employer in question, or is that just an advertisement that was put in by slashdot?

This Is What's Wrong With US Industrial Relations

[bandmassa]

...and rapidly the way Australia is heading, too unfortunately :-/

There is only one way to stop this sort of managerial bullying horse poo: UNIONISE

The trade union saying, "United we bargain, divided we beg," is the only certainty in this world. There seems to be an aweful lot of begging going on in the IT industry because it came along when trade unionism was "going out of fashion."

Unionise, strike if necessary, stand together always, and being sued by your employer for taking a better opportunity with another firm (and other crapola) will be significantly reduced if not stamped out completely.

Take no shit and you'll get no shit.

Re:too short?

[Alphager]

Yeah, i am pretty touchy on the subject. Sorry about that; it's the whole DDR-story backfiring.

At-will has it's advantages....

[peterbiltman]

For many years I was very much against at-will employment as it seemed to give all the advantages to the employer and none to the employee. However, over the years my attitude has changed in now that I see what is "good for the goose is good for the gander."

What employers fail to realize is they will get exactly what they foster in the work environment. If you are an employer who treats employees well (read, as human and not resources) then you will find that first of all you don't have a lot of turnover, and those who do leave to pursue other opportunities will give notice well in advance and help you find a suitable replacement.

On the other hand, those who treat employees like they are a number and see them as nothing more than "expendable" everytime the CEO wants a new jet will get that in return -- one day the person who knows how all the stuff works will be gone and nobody is going to know what to do.

The magic of at-will! Though I am not a lawyer, I can't possibly see how this lawsuit will go anywhere. It's nothing more than a scare tactic by some employer who realized that "Hey, the guy who actually did the work left and now what are we going to do?" At-will employment means just that -- just as the company can tell you at any second to "beat it" you can do the same. There are no contracts, no lengths of time, no anything.

Countersue

[donheff]

If you did not sign a non-compete agreement you should ask your attorney about whether a counter suit might be in order. It sounds like you firm is using a frivolous law suit to intimidate your new employer, you, and your co-workers. As to notice, you owe no obligation to give any notice, let alone more than two weeks. Think about it - did they give you two weeks notice before escorting you out the door? If I was a co-worker and witnessed that behavior I would not give any notice when I was ready to leave.

Legal basis? Who needs that?

[NateTech]

Remember:

They don't need a legal basis to sue. Anyone can generally sue for anything.

It doesn't mean they can win the suit.

Sadly, it's a viable (but sad) legal tactic to just annoy the hell out of other businesses with lawsuits, and with the cost of a legal defense being what it is today -- you can sometimes run the other guy out of money so fast, he'll settle or not do what he's doing.

I don't condone the above, but that's reality.

You may not make it to court, but you'll pay through the nose for an attorney to defend yourself.

Hopefully you can afford to float the money until the attorney wins back court costs from the idiots, or you can afford to pay it outright.

Today's reality is, if you can't afford to pay for your legal defense, companies and individuals who can... get what they want.

Or as they say: "The best justice money can buy."

Don't mention this to your new employer,

[Phukko]

But do be completely forthright If/when the papers are served. If they are ever served. so, keep it to yourself. Otherwise, you will be seen as a liability walking in the door. Not the best first impression. Unless you haven't told us the whole story .. like you are under non compete or you threatened them first (you didn't do that, did you?). I'm going to side with the cynics here in saying assume you will be escorted to the door when you give notice. THis is not personal, it's simply standard procedure. SO next new job, negotiate a two week start date, with a provision to start earlier if possible. You could get an extra check that month if you are lucky, or at least not miss mmore than one payday. P.S. anyone planning on leaving a job should start a rainy day fund long before they get an offer. Like the day they make the decision to leave.

It all depends

[douglaid]

At common law, you could not be sued for leaving unless you had a contract (a) for a fixed term; or (b) to give a fixed amount of notice.

You can be sued for going to a competitor, but only for any damage to goodwill; not for competing.

You would need to find out what your own law provides regarding these things and length of notice. If you gave notice of the right length, you should not be able to be sued, and you are entitled to your full pay up until the date your notice ran out, plus entitlements. Here, I would go to the Department of Labor, who are there to protect you.

But I am not in America. Here, we don't (yet) sue somebody as a matter of course, every time the smallest thing happens. We still need a reason.