Slashdot Mirror
Getting Rid of Staff With High Access?
HikingStick writes "I've been in the tech field for over 15 years. After more than nine years with the same company, I've been asked to step in and establish an IT department for a regional manufacturing firm. I approached my company early, providing four weeks notice (including a week of pre-scheduled [and pre-approved] vacation time). I have a number of projects to complete, and had planned to document some of the obscure bits of knowledge I've gleaned over the past nine years for the benefit of my peers, so I figured that would give me plenty of time. That was on a Friday. The following Monday, word came down from above that all of my privileged access was to be removed — immediately. So, here I sit, stripped of power with weeks ahead of me. From discussions with my peers in other companies, I know that cutting off high-privilege users is common, but usually in conjunction with a severance offer (to keep their hands off the network during those final weeks, especially if there is any ill-will). Should I argue for restored access, highlight the fact that I am currently a human paperweight, request a severance package, or simply become the most prolific Slashdot poster over the next few weeks? Does your company have a policy/process for dealing with high-privilege users who give notice? What is it, and do you make exceptions?"
In the early nineties, my dad was a high-privilege employee at a bank. Anyway, due to office politics, he pretty much got the boot because one of the higher ups didn't like him. (You know, how easy it is to fire someone if you really want). He had been working there for nearly 20 years, and according to local law he had 6 months notice. He was disallowed to go to the bank during those 6 months: from one day to another he sat at home.
I heard this is pretty much the rule with high-privilege employees. So, I'd suggest, sit back, enjoy yourself and troll on slashdot as if there were no tomorrow.
very true.. where i work it is policy that when you give your notice your login is turned of completely - your are then paired with someone else in the office - your e-mail box is forwardedto them with an auto reply to mailers of the contact change.
that pairing allows you to cover and discuss what you where doing and what needs to be picked up.
instead of spending your last weeks finishing your job you spend the last weeks as a source of information as someone else is trained to cover your job.
so far it has worked really well for us
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Exactly. Screw em. If the higher up's think you are worthless and cut your access then give them what they want. A human paperweight. surf slashdot, do as little as possible, when challenged say, "I would love to, but you will not let me."
Your example is exactly why giving notice is not something you really do anymore. I got further screwed. I was nice like you and did all that, then HR came back with a letter, "All vacation is canceled" you cant take vacation after you give notice, you also forfeit all vacation and sick time accrued.
So I sat there and watched TV the last 2 weeks in my office. I was going to document all I knew, I decided that I was not going to as they wanted to be jerks about me being a good guy.
I still get calls from people there about systems that I was the only expert on. I reply with, "what is your PO number for this consulting call? I would love to help you but management and HR told me point blank that everything has to be done by the book."
So they hired another firm to help them, that firm contracts me out as the consultant. It pisses off the upper managers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I was laid off from one large company once and they provided two months of paid time off. Once they notified me they cut off access. Their take was that my new job was to find another job. The kicker was that if you found another job during that time period then you did not get the payoff package at the end of the two months. Kind of funny, I found a new job just after the check cleared. They setup the rules, we just play by them.
I also had a situation a long time ago where a contractor that worked for me decided he was going to relocate for a new job. He gave two weeks notice. I checked his projects he had which were done and told him that he was no longer needed. I did not have any make work that justified me paying him for another two weeks. Such is the life of a contractor.
And don't forget the main rule here, no one is irreplaceable. No one! Not even you. (Yes, I even mean you there in the back with four digit
Notice is for sallies, real men just quit. After all -- do they give you notice when your going to be let go? No.
The one time I was laid off I was told it was effective in six weeks. I spent much of that time documenting and training coworkers on projects that I had worked solo on. My network access and other privileges were not affected. I asked the VP of engineering if I could take some of the source code home for reference so that I could answer questions over the phone or by email after I left. He drafted a letter stating that I was allowed to keep the source for this purpose only and that it remained company IP and could not be disclosed to anyone else. We both signed it.
This was about a 150 person company owned by a large international conglomerate. The VP was originally from the conglomerate's corporate headquarters and joined us two years earlier when we were acquired. The rest of management was local. I had been there about four years. A year after my layoff the situation at the company had improved and I was asked to return.
The moral of the story:
I don't deny that it is common to be immediately cutoff when you resign, but it is not a given.
Don't burn bridges.
It's a waste of money to pay someone who doesn't even want to be working for you. Obviously their output is going to be nill so their pay should be nill.
Myself and at least one other poster have demonstrated diligence training those who will be taking over. I think it is far more of an individual judgement call based on past projects and the individual level of trust.
If you are going to be involved in managing those family businesses I would suggest a less black and white perspective. Sorry, but management is not easy and such a black and white perspective often indicate the less capable managers or someone in an unforgiving bureaucratic/politicized environment who needs to cover their ass with policy compliance. That said, I agree that it many cases the proper decision is immediate cutoff, immediately issuing a final check, and wishing them well as you walk them out in a friendly manner. My point is merely that in some cases keeping them around for a little while can be beneficial to the company.
While I can agree with that assessment, there needs to be a clear cut policy. I've had two companies where they would pick and choose who got let go immediately and who finished out their two weeks. When it came time for me to leave, I didn't give them the choice. When it's a choice between being loyal to my current company by shortchanging the company I'm moving to or being loyal to the company I'm moving to and removing the choice from my current company, I'll take the latter.
Also, the first time anyone had heard that the company might let people go instead of letting them serve out their two weeks was when our supervisor (who was extremely well liked) gave his two weeks, was given a box and escorted to the door in a very humiliating manner. The company then claimed that it was standing policy in spite of the fact that multiple people of all levels had served out their two weeks. Morale tanked and it was awful for productivity.