Ask Slashdot: When Is It OK To Not Give Notice?

An anonymous reader writes "Here in the U.S., 'being professional' means giving at least two week's notice when leaving a job. Is this an outmoded notion? We've all heard stories about (or perhaps experienced) a quick escort to the parking lot upon giving the normal notice, and I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired. A generation ago, providing a lengthy notice was required to get a glowing reference, but these days does a reference hold water any more? Once you're reached the point where you know it's time to leave, under what circumstances would you just up and walk out or give only a short notice?"

Comments

When you don't want a reference

[Anonymous Coward]

No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[noh8rz10]

I think if you don't give notice then it raises red flags for your new employer. You could tell your new employer you'll start in two weeks, then tell your current employer to eff off, and then take two weeks for yourself (unpaid). But industries are so small that why would you want to burn bridges?

Re:When you don't want a reference

[The Grim Reefer]

many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to

And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[ackthpt]

many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to

Meanwhile, there are some employers who have fired employees for giving notice and their act of disloyalty.

Really depends upon the employer, but trying to avoid burning bridges is generally considered good practice and a respectful thing to do.

The company who picked up my former co-workers forbade them to talk to me under threat of immediate termination - I never worked for them, I just decided not to sign on with an outsourcing company and left for greener pastures.

Probably best to keep track of how your employer handles things and what potential non-competitive clauses you may have to step around if you are thinking of leaving at some point.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[unrtst]

many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to

And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.

Unless you want to collect on your unpaid benefit time. Some contracts will "require" two weeks notice, and will pay out any unpaid vacation (and maybe sick as well) if you provide said two weeks notice. They don't phrase it as a tit-for-tat, but that's really what it is in most states (at-will employment, where they can legally fire you without cause at any moment, and you can walk out without notice at any moment).

AFAIK, parent post is absolutely correct in the strict legal sense - you can just walk out, and they can just fire you. Contracts do not trump those laws.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Jaime2]

Meanwhile, there are some employers who have fired employees for giving notice and their act of disloyalty.

That's generally a bad idea. If an employer lets an employee quit, there's no loose ends. If they fire the employee who gave notice, that employee is probably eligible for unemployment benefits. The knee-jerk "you're fired" could turn into both an insurance claim and possibly the employee becoming eligible for other company-specific benefits like severance, job placement services, paid medical, etc.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[greghodg]

Depends on the situation. My current employer is in the process of outsourcing engineering to India, and keeping the US engineers on for varying periods of time (3-9 months) to facilitate the transition. There are incentives to stay through the end, but many have decided it's better to get out now. There is no bridge to burn, and people that are leaving already have new positions elsewhere when they resign. What is the possible incentive to give more than one or two day's notice?

Re:When you don't want a reference

[slick7]

AFAIK, parent post is absolutely correct in the strict legal sense - you can just walk out, and they can just fire you. Contracts do not trump those laws.

Most employment contracts are "at will", you can quit without cause AND you can be fired without cause. The issue with this surrounds unemployment benefits. Most employers won't fire you unless attendence policies are violated. They would rather work the shit out of you for the money you contracted for which is cheaper than hiring someone else. The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago, although there are those special enclaves where loyalty is everything, good luck in finding one and greater luck in getting hired.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[peragrin]

Last Year I told my old company that I was leaving. I told the new company that I could start in three weeks(I figured two for notice and one to move).

Instead I was told wait in the conference for 2 hours for one of them to drive to the location(we were a satellite branch.) After signing a couple of documents they told me to leave and they would pay the next two weeks as the last of my vacation time.

Well I got three weeks of vacation(I played golf, had fun, partied a few times).

I think you should show your soon to be old employer respect and offer two weeks, just be aware you may not get it.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[tekiegreg]

In your case I'd say a no-notice departure is a bit more acceptable (hey if you're leaving anyways). Still if you know you're staying say, longer than 3 months, or your function isn't fully replaceable yet, even a reduced notice may preserve remaining good feeling and get you a decent reference going forward.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[HornWumpus]

I hope your also teaching them _wrong_.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[HornWumpus]

You got fucked. They owed you the vacation time anyhow. Basically they told you GTF out and didn't pay you for your notice time.

Basically what you should expect.

You should give that employer a thumbs down if anybody you know ever considers working there. References do work both ways.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Dishevel]

Being a good person is something that will always be good for you. Being an asshole because you can not see any immediate ramifications of your poor decision does not make it a good one.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[HornWumpus]

In the USA vacation time is an earned benefit for a regular employee, short of bankruptcy they can't stiff you.

You won't generally get sick time paid.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[HornWumpus]

Layoffs vs firings. If they fire you don't expect anything beyond what they're legally required to pay. Your hours and usually any accrued vacation.

What good is unemployment if you've already got a job on the line. Your going to stand in line for a weeks worth of pittance?

Re:When you don't want a reference

[0100010001010011]

Especially if you work anywhere that has a NDA or any sort of security clearance.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[bobstreo]

I hope your also teaching them _wrong_.

That's called "Doing the Needful"

Re:When you don't want a reference

[UnknownSoldier]

Respect: It goes both ways.

Considering most companies:

a) have "Human Resources" (as if people are some resource to be exploited) instead of "Human Assets" where employees are viewed as an _investment_,
b) can fire your ass at a moment's notice (i.e. At-Will-Employment)
c) yet still expect the "common courtesy" of two weeks

Maybe companies should get over themselves and learn to treat their employees with equal respect instead of treating them like slaves and be dicks about not giving a reference.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a small company, reported to the CEO. I gave my two-weeks notice (per written company guidelines), and the CEO terminated me on the spot (basically to save paying medical benefits, I guess). Before I walked out that afternoon, I emailed a carefully worded letter to the CEO and HR, something with all the "in good faith" and "per written company guidelines" legal mumbo jumbo. No threats, just "I await your response." It read like I'd consulted an attorney.

Later, the HR director told me that the letter I'd sent had the CEO asking the HR director, "What do we do now?" Her response, "We? *You* pay him!" Which the company did, and I got two weeks paid vacation. A little later the CEO got canned. Karma, gotta love it.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[pla]

There is no bridge to burn, and people that are leaving already have new positions elsewhere when they resign. What is the possible incentive to give more than one or two day's notice?

I take it you haven't worked in IT long - Or have only worked for one, fairly stable company? Because you seriously ask what possible incentive exists in that situation???

Your current employer has outsourced their entire engineering staff to somewhere 10k miles away that speaks a different language and has an entirely different work culture. Put bluntly, can you say "ca-CHING" when the contracting hours start rolling in? Not a "maybe", they will realize they need some of you back on an all-but-permanent basis.

Believe me when I tell you this counts as quite possibly one of the greatest career-advancing opportunities you might have in your entire working life. Don't fuck it up because it feels good to tell your boss off.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[mypalmike]

In the USA vacation time is an earned benefit for a regular employee, short of bankruptcy they can't stiff you.

This is the stuff of state laws. Many states allow "use it or lose it" vacation time accrual policies in employment contracts.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

And many of them, the "penalty" for breaking them is they won't pay you. I agreed to give notice, or they won't pay me. I'm abiding by the contract. I'm not requiring payment for the time I wasn't there. That's following the contract, just not the clause they might want.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

The clause isn't "illegal" it's "unenforceable", which is a completely different thing. They can put it in and tell everyone who asks you "violated your employment agreement, and are not eligible for rehire." So id does actually get used against you, but is unenforceable. You should learn the difference before you start lecturing others.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[The Rizz]

The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago

30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.

although there are those special enclaves where loyalty is everything, good luck in finding one and greater luck in getting hired.

You'll have a hard time getting hired mostly because everybody who has a job there is unlikely to leave anytime soon.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[router]

AFAIK, in California firing you immediately after you give two weeks notice means you are entitled to two weeks pay plus qualifies you for unemployment until you get another job or it runs out (just like being laid off would). This is important for those times where you dont have another job lined up or are starting your own business.

I wish my previous employer had done this, would have been worth almost six figures to me, at the time....

andy

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Alvara]

Here's the law in Texas: Publicly held companies have to reimburse both sick leave and vacation time. Privately held companies have to reimburse sick leave. Vacation time reimbursement is at their discretion.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[The Rizz]

What good is unemployment if you've already got a job on the line. Your going to stand in line for a weeks worth of pittance?

"Stand in line"? What is this, the 1900's? Most states let you file it all online. As for what you get - it will only be "a pittance" if your payrate was "a pittance". Typically, your benefits will be based on your previous payrate, so if you were being payed well, your UI checks will be good money (especially for doing nothing but filing a few forms). (Locally, the rate is 62-65% of your normal weekly pay, so if you'd been getting $1000/week, your UI would be ~ $620/week. Hardly a "pittance".)

Re:When you don't want a reference

[The Rizz]

a) have "Human Resources" (as if people are some resource to be exploited) instead of "Human Assets" where employees are viewed as an _investment_,
b) can fire your ass at a moment's notice (i.e. At-Will-Employment)
c) yet still expect the "common courtesy" of two weeks.

True, but your three points are hardly what show if a company shows you respect or not - every business I've worked at had those three policies in place, and my experiences with them were widely different. (a) is just the standard term for the department; (b) is usually only used in the case of gross negligence or criminal activity; and (c) is only vaguely expected by any employer (really, it's more of a don't-screw-your-coworkers guideline).

A company doesn't show it respects you or not by whether or not they adhere to that type of stuff, but by how they choose to wield their power over you, and how they deal with you on a day-to-day basis. If they are truthful, listen to your concerns, and are reasonably flexible with schedules when problems come up, I find that far more of an indicator of if they respect and value you as an employee than what they call the HR department.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[shentino]

You hit the nail on the head.

You give more notice than you get because you are the employee and they are the employer.

It really is as simple as that, an imbalance of power that you must respect.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[mjwx]

There is no bridge to burn, and people that are leaving already have new positions elsewhere when they resign. What is the possible incentive to give more than one or two day's notice?

In countries with proper employee protection, it's required by law that you give a notice period (as defined by your contract, so anywhere from 1 week to 3 months depending on your position).

Above this, it's simply professional. Even if you intend to burn bridges at that company, if you do it like an arse word will get around about you.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[mjwx]

Instead I was told wait in the conference for 2 hours for one of them to drive to the location(we were a satellite branch.) After signing a couple of documents they told me to leave and they would pay the next two weeks as the last of my vacation time.

That would suck.

In Australia I am required by law to give a notice period to my employer and my employer is required by law to pay me for my notice period. However if my employer wants to terminate my employment immediately, they are well within their rights to frog march me out of the building but they still have to pay me my notice period even though I didn't work it and then pay me my annual leave balance after that. So if I have a notice period of 2 weeks and 2 weeks leave, they have to pay me for 4 weeks.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[swalve]

Being forced to work for a certain amount of time after deciding you don't want to work anymore seems like something less than employee protection. At will employment is brutal, but it is fair.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[unrtst]

The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago

30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.

So 1883, just 18 years after the civil war put an "end" to slavery, and 37 years before women could even vote in the US?
Or are you referring to at will employment becoming the default rule under common law in the late 19th century? I don't think the law affected loyalty at all, though at will employment does allow the employer to get away with more shit.

I think the rule of thumb is, "Loyalty in the workplace doesn't exist. Period."
There are exceptions to the rule, but I'm not sure there was a time where it could be counted on as a norm.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[swalve]

It never existed, except in the imaginations of people whose fathers didn't get fired for 30 years. I've worked for the same place for 15 years, and I suppose I could delude myself into thinking that they have some kind of loyalty to me. Or I could take it for what it is: my labor is valuable to them. The instant it ceases to be, I get to hit the bricks.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[jeff4747]

If you have such a contract, then you do not have "at-will" employment.

If there are any conditions on your departure in your employment contract, then it's not "at-will". And companies don't do that because losing "at-will" status has way more negatives for them.

Now, an employer can claim they will do this, or stick it in a contract and hope nobody calls a lawyer. Doesn't mean they can actually make it stick.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[swalve]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If it is earned (compensation), then the employer is generally required to pay out. (IE, it is a part of the compensation: for every 8 hours of work, you earn one paid vacation hour.) If it is an allowance (a perk), they usually aren't. (IE, sick days- if you can't work, they will let you slide. But you have to be sick.)

Re:When you don't want a reference

[swalve]

It doesn't really matter whether it is a layoff or a firing. What matters is whether if it is for-cause or not. If you did something that was against the rules, and they followed their standard policy in firing you, then you are considered to have been fired for-cause, and not eligible for unemployment insurance. If, however, you played by the rules you agreed to and they tell you your services are no longer needed, you get unemployment insurance.

If they actually fire you for simply giving notice, then you probably are entitled to unemployment insurance. But that would mean that they stopped paying you on the day you gave notice. If you give 2 weeks notice and they keep paying you for those two weeks, it doesn't matter whether you have to show up or not: you quit and don't get UI.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[The Grim Reefer]

many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to

And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.

Unless you want to collect on your unpaid benefit time. Some contracts will "require" two weeks notice, and will pay out any unpaid vacation (and maybe sick as well) if you provide said two weeks notice. They don't phrase it as a tit-for-tat, but that's really what it is in most states (at-will employment, where they can legally fire you without cause at any moment, and you can walk out without notice at any moment).

It depends on the state. I'm in a state that is "At-Will" and "Right to work" Still, it is illegal to not pay earned vacation time when you leave. Be it terminated, or quite with notice or otherwise. State law trumps employment contracts on this. At least where I'm at. Earned sick time doesn't need to be paid here, but I've lived in states that have required that in the past too.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Grishnakh]

That's a giant gamble. Taking advantage of that opportunity, IF it actually materializes, depends on you being unemployed!! Why would you sit around doing nothing waiting for this possible contracting opportunity? Moreover, if the employer is such a cheap-ass they're dumping experienced people and outsourcing just to save a few bucks, what makes you think they're going to pay big bucks when they want some consulting help from prior employees? People like that don't think that way; at best, they might pay you slightly more than your old salary, for a short time, to help smooth things over. You're much better off forgetting about that place, and finding a new job ASAP. A full-time job with a high salary is worth much more than a short-term gig with a crappy ex-employer at a slightly inflated rate.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[swalve]

Some states don't just allow filing online, they require it. Also, I'm pretty sure UI maxes out at some amount, usually somewhere between minimum wage and 2x minimum wage. More if you have dependents.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[CharlieG]

NY caps it at $405/week, no matter what you earned

Re:When you don't want a reference

[dywolf]

bullshit, you're a cynic who has no idea what you're talking about.

AT&T. as in the original ma bell before the breakup. Old Ma Bell used to take extremely good care of employees, before competitors bitched and caused the breakup, and then after that the modern MBA suits (short term profit at any cost, grow grow grow, etc) started becoming the norm around the same time and everything changed.

grandfather worked for em for 30 years as a lineman. he's been retired now for ~35 years. pension and they (him and grandmother both) dont pay a dime in medical costs (negotiated by the union years before, and worth more than the pension itself really).

And they weren't the only one that took care of employees. and they still exist, though they are rarer now (thanks to the MBAs).
just cause your company today is shit doesnt mean they all always have been.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[triffid_98]

Please be sure to tell the board of directors at Goldman Sachs, I don't think they got the memo.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[mjwx]

Being forced to work for a certain amount of time after deciding you don't want to work anymore seems like something less than employee protection. At will employment is brutal, but it is fair.

I dont see your reasoning here. Especially since you didn't elaborate on your point.

The point is that an employer is bound by law to pay you for your notice period. You are obligated to work for that period unless your employer releases you from that obligation (but they still have to pay your notice period). This is the protection part.

"At will" employment puts all the power into the employees hands, they can get rid of you for anything without notice or warning.

"At will" is not fair by any meaning of the word. It's as lopsided as you can get.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[drinkypoo]

In that situation, the proper answer is to say "OK, then I quit now, and you will pay me for my unused vacation time as per the law"

Re:When you don't want a reference

[thegarbz]

In my country this is illegal. They can't force you to take vacation once you gave notice, and all outstanding vacation must be paid out in a termination payment.

The way it works when you're a valued employee without a draconian HR manager is that you sign a piece of paper which they won't formally file until you leave, that way you get to change your mind, and your HR manager can spend 2 weeks trying to convince you to stay (that is actually quite painful in my experience).

Re:When you don't want a reference

[lordlod]

In Australia I am required by law to give a notice period to my employer and my employer is required by law to pay me for my notice period.

If you read the fine print the punishment for not giving two weeks notice is that they don't pay you the two weeks that you don't work... which seems fair.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[TheGratefulNet]

managers will hate you, but so what? the fellow employees are probably on your side and fully understand why you are leaving.

who the hell cares what some PHB thinks? there are 10 or more of the regular working joes for every one PHB. the numbers are on your side.

loyalty is 100% dead. employers don't give much notice anymore and so its now tit for tat. you have to give respect to get it and they stopped giving it a long long time ago.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[TheGratefulNet]

*must* respect?

you owe me a new keyboard, dude. I'm laughing too hard right now.

its not as simple as that. what's simple is that you are an HR shill or an idiot. or both.

you have as much power to leave on your terms as they have to fire you on their terms.

but keep thinking that they own your ass. yup, you're a good little slave, aren't you.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[rtb61]

Actually giving notice, really slacking off and also making sure you got paid every last cent owed to you by the company is the biggest and longest way of showing the middle finger. Once you have given notice, you no longer have any fear of dismissal, so relax and have fun without being offensive, you'll enjoy getting paid off earlier, for the full period of notice and everything owed you without having to be there. Just walking out the door seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face, if the company owes you money.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[TheGratefulNet]

my grandfather came to this country in the early 1900's and worked at a company for nearly 40 years continuously. back then, there was loyalty and companies were not so quick to just fire you when times got tight.

now, the game is different and loyalty is a myth that HR tries to convince you of, but the wiser and more experienced of us know better.

I wish it was the way things used to be, but I don't see those days coming back at all. in fact, all we won in the union fight days we pretty much lost. I don't get overtime, I don't have the right to say 'no' to weekend work or late nite work and yet my grandfather had it better way back then and DID get overtime and could tell the employer to fuck themselves if they demanded more hours. they could ASK but not demand. now, they don't even ask; they TELL you to work this weekend.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[TheGratefulNet]

you don't understand the concept. 'use it or lose it' means there's a cap on how much you can accrue.

it does NOT mean they get to steal it from you when you leave.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[quetwo]

The point is that an employer is bound by law to pay you for your notice period. You are obligated to work for that period unless your employer releases you from that obligation (but they still have to pay your notice period). This is the protection part.

Not quite. They are obligated to pay you for the time that you work. That is all. If you give two weeks notice, and they walk you out the door and ask you not to come back, they are not obligated to pay for the rest of that time. Otherwise people would give 5 years notice when they think they are about to be fired.

At will is exactly that. You have no contract. You can leave when you wish, and they can ask you to leave when they wish. It's a capitalist's dream situation.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[iamstretchypanda]

Why is everyone so convinced it is the law? It is only the law in about half of the states. In the other states they are free to to cash you out or send you home empty handed. In his case they may not have even been required to give him PTO for the two week period.

Check the section unused vacation: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/paid-vacation-what-are-rights-33485.html

Re:When you don't want a reference

[LordLimecat]

b) can fire your ass at a moment's notice (i.e. At-Will-Employment)

And you can leave at any time.

I have never heard a convincing argument for anything other than "at will employment", honestly; it seems onerous and counter to the principles of free enterprise and liberty in general to tell someone that they have to employ this or that person against their will even if they suck at their job.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[LordLimecat]

Meanwhile, there are some employers who have fired employees for giving notice and their act of disloyalty.

Im sure there are people who have been stabbed for saying "good afternoon". Thats not terribly relevant to "what should I do"; the expectation in the business world is two weeks, and Id recommend that you work for a non-crappy employer who wont treat you like crap when you do decide to move on.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[tlhIngan]

Not quite. They are obligated to pay you for the time that you work. That is all. If you give two weeks notice, and they walk you out the door and ask you not to come back, they are not obligated to pay for the rest of that time. Otherwise people would give 5 years notice when they think they are about to be fired.

At will is exactly that. You have no contract. You can leave when you wish, and they can ask you to leave when they wish. It's a capitalist's dream situation.

That's only in countries where employee protection is nil, usually because the employees are "too smart" to be in a union or lobby for other job protection legislation.

In most other countries, if you give notice, you are paid for the notice period even if the company decides to walk you out the same day. If they refuse to pay for your notice period, you can bring an unjustified dismissal lawsuit against them as you can treat that as being "fired without cause" and actually get more than what you would've gotten had they just paid you out. (Courts don't generally look fondly on dismissing people who give notice, and often such dismissal comes with severance pay).

Of course, the interesting thing I suppose is how people in the US routinely allow themselves to get screwed over - especially in the IT field. Think about it - in every other profession other than IT, there's typically on-call pay if you have to carry the pager, potential compensation for overtime (yes, even if you're salaried, a lot of places do compensate for overtime) and many other rights and compensation that IT seems to have given up. And we call ourselves "smart" workers. Hell, I'm sure some of the unionized employees at McDonalds get far more rights than we get, only because "we're too smart" and "unions are for idiots" and we let our own labor rights get eroded "because we're better".

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Oligonicella]

Neither of which would hold water as legal employment in court. You're full of crap.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Not a "maybe", they will realize they need some of you back on an all-but-permanent basis.

They may realize it, but that doesn't mean they'll admit it, because that would mean admitting management was wrong, and one of the cardinal rules of management is that Management Is Never Wrong. Employees may be wrong, customers may be wrong, suppliers may be wrong, but Management Is Never Wrong. How could they be wrong? They've studied Management! They know how to Manage Things!

And they will hold to this even as the company collapses, because in the age of the golden parachute, there's no incentive to do otherwise. The company may go bankrupt, but you can be damn sure they'll loot every remaining penny from it before the end. And then go on to an equivalent position at another company where they can do the same thing, because the managerial class looks after its own.

Not that I've ever actually seen this happen, of course. The above is completely speculative. Yep.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[moderators_are_w*nke]

That's why I went contracting:

* Less human resources to deal with
* No need to fire me - I'm a supplier
* No need to give them notice (but I do because as they're a client, it's obviously in my interests to do so).

Re:When you don't want a reference

[ndrw]

"Ummmm, yeah, I'm going to ask you to come in on Saturday."

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Joce640k]

I hope your also teaching them _wrong_.

Like the person who taught you to spell?

Re:When you don't want a reference

[shentino]

It's an imbalance of power and the employer knows it.

So does the next employer.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[flarb936]

Burn the bridges. Sink the boats. Raze the village.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[i.r.id10t]

Spelled properly, just wrong grammar

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AmiMoJo]

Japanese companies often complain that US investors undervalue them because they see their large and well paid workforces as costs rather than assets. Japan has the largest number of 100+ year old companies (over 21,000 at last count) so I tend to think they have the right idea.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AmiMoJo]

Not sure how it works in the US but in the UK if you are made redundant (i.e. not fired for any kind of disciplinary reason, the company just doesn't want to employ you any more) you are entitled to redundancy pay. It's usually something like a month's salary plus a number of days or weeks depending on how long you have been there.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AmiMoJo]

That's interesting. In the UK it is based on what you need, so there is a baseline of something ridiculous like £70/week which is only enough to feed yourself. If you have rent they pay some of that on top, same with the interest on your mortgage. Basically everything is given out based on what you need, not what you used to be earning.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[flyneye]

When my new employer wants me ASAP, I comply with his wishes. Remember, there was a reason I was looking for a job anyway. If the old employer gives out bad references after that, I just let them know I can have my lawyers explain the next step to them, that stops any childish behavior.
This is the real world in the 21st century, Two weeks notice is so rare, I could only see high school kids giving it before returning to school.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[xaxa]

Being forced to work for a certain amount of time after deciding you don't want to work anymore seems like something less than employee protection. At will employment is brutal, but it is fair.

More importantly, it works both ways. Depending on position, my colleagues and I have to give either 4 or 12 weeks notice. However, the company has to give either 5 or 13 weeks notice.

The employee not giving the notice pretty much means they won't get a reference. The company wouldn't not give notice; even if they don't want the employee to come in they still must pay them. (Except for serious misconduct, etc.)

Re:When you don't want a reference

[guyniraxn]

The point is that an employer is bound by law to pay you for your notice period. You are obligated to work for that period unless your employer releases you from that obligation (but they still have to pay your notice period). This is the protection part.

This is not true. Where are you getting this from? My last employer used to walk anyone out who left for a competitor and pay the notice period, then they almost went out of business and only started paying through the end of the day. I can't find anything that states they are required to pay you when you're not working anymore.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[corran__horn]

Have you never noticed that the top CEOs are not "good" people? Those who take the most do the best.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[gl4ss]

maybe if you guys would have the smarts to put in notice periods for both ways on your work contracts this wouldn't be that much of a problem... I mean, fuck, isn't that the most obvious things to put in there beyond how many hours per week you're working and for what pay..

it's standard practice over here(or there is one that is union negotiated). when its done from the company side it's quite common in IT also that you are not required to work for the notice period(but they'll pay)...

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Or there's a third option:

You're misinterpreting what he says because you have a limited understanding of the word "respect".

Re:When you don't want a reference

[dj245]

No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.

There are probably other ways, but my personal favorite is to resign in January (with notice) after spending all the FSA money for the year. Perfectly legal and the people who you worked for, and with, directly probably won't even find out.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Dishevel]

Lack of regret is an awesome proof of right.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Dishevel]

CEOs are people. Many of them are bad.

Those that are bad most likely have horrible lives. They trust no one. Their family life blows. They are never content. Just because you are wealthy does not mean you are doing well

Re:When you don't want a reference

[hesaigo999ca]

Unless you just give them no notice AND the middle finger at the same time.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[znrt]

many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to

15 days is standard for any fixed position contract in spain. if you don't respect it they might sue you but there's little benefit in them for doing so.

but then, aren't we in the happy times of globalization already? i mean, corps can lay off anyone at will whith no warning and that is ok and it's nothing personal, just business. well, i'd be damned if i can see why this same criteria shouldn't apply in both directions. if you're done with your job and want to quit, do it with the timing and schedule that best suits you, the rest is your employers fucking problem. just business, boss, nothing personal. unless you have real human relationship with them and care about any mess you might be leaving behind. but then the OP wouldn't have to ask this question, right?

don't worry too much about references. HR departments are ever so global too, meaning that much detached from reality, they nowadays don't get into any such fine detail. they stick happily with any retarded scoring they can make up in minutes. you are definitely not burning any bridges by that. no HR will hire anybody twice anyway, that's not in their books. and in worst case you could always bluntly lie to your next HR moron about your "exit proc", but even that will seldom be necessary.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[assertation]

Not filling out your exit questionnaire or making it useless by giving the company high marks on evertying is probably the best middle finger you could give to HR.

Aside from managing the outsourced payroll, the benefits and sexual harassment cases gathering information like that is part of their justification for being there.

If they care enough to scratch their head and ask you "well, why are you leaving then" you can give them another middle finger by simply saying "I got a better offer"

 

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Agent0013]

Yeah, I would say he got screwed over. Where I currently work we have had just a couple people get laid off. They let them go the same day, but pay them for two extra weeks anyway. So not too bad for being cut loose.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[MrKaos]

I think if you don't give notice then it raises red flags for your new employer. You could tell your new employer you'll start in two weeks, then tell your current employer to eff off, and then take two weeks for yourself (unpaid). But industries are so small that why would you want to burn bridges?

Because some employers are, well, shit employers and it's not about burning bridges but your personal mental health. Simply not saying anything is a good way of not giving them any more of your energy.

It's unlikely that you'll get asked why you didn't give any notice at your last employer but if you are, simply saying that you weren't treated well there and you wanted to avoid a confrontation to spend you energy on something more positive, was a better way for you to leave. You will have the added benefit of not ruminating about the past and be able to focus on your new role much better than if you had to deal with such a confrontation.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[booch]

Respect is earned, and is a 2-way street.

If the company doesn't have the respect to give you 2 weeks' notice, then you should provide them the same amount of respect.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[coinreturn]

In most other countries, if you give notice, you are paid for the notice period even if the company decides to walk you out the same day. If they refuse to pay for your notice period, you can bring an unjustified dismissal lawsuit against them as you can treat that as being "fired without cause" and actually get more than what you would've gotten had they just paid you out. (Courts don't generally look fondly on dismissing people who give notice, and often such dismissal comes with severance pay).

So do you give 50 years notice the day you're hired?

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Katmando911]

if you'd been getting $1000/week, your UI would be ~ $620/week.

The maximum weekly benefits varies by State. From that point of view, your example would only work in Massachusetts. All other States max out way before that. http://jobsearch.about.com/od/unemployment/a/weekly-unemployment-benefits.htm

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Slashdot Parent]

If your having left with no notice winds up making your former coworkers' lives more difficult, they will remember. That might come back to haunt you in the future, but it might not. If you give the standard 2 weeks of notice, then you might still make their lives difficult, but they won't really be upset about it. After all, 2 weeks is the standard. Nobody expects more. What do you have to lose by following custom?

I've only ever resigned from one job and when I did, I gave 2 weeks. I hated the job, and I was happy to be rid of it. Looking back over a decade later, I can say with total confidence that had I just walked off the job with no notice, it would not have had any negative repercussions on my career. Had I known that at the time, however, I still think I would have given 2 weeks, because that's customary.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[anyGould]

Not quite. They are obligated to pay you for the time that you work. That is all. If you give two weeks notice, and they walk you out the door and ask you not to come back, they are not obligated to pay for the rest of that time. Otherwise people would give 5 years notice when they think they are about to be fired.

Not in my corner of the world - the notice is limited to the legally-required amount (two weeks) unless specified to be more in the employment contract, but if I give notice and they walk me out the door that day, I still get paid for that time. It's actually not that uncommon, particularly in management and sales (areas where they don't want you making decisions for the last couple weeks).

Re:When you don't want a reference

[SeaFox]

I think if you don't give notice then it raises red flags for your new employer. You could tell your new employer you'll start in two weeks, then tell your current employer to eff off, and then take two weeks for yourself (unpaid). But industries are so small that why would you want to burn bridges?

I find that employers are big hippocrits. They like people who are available immediately and want you to start soon after they hire you, even when they know you're currently employed (and today, it's hard to get a job if you're not currently employed when you're applying), but still expect you to give two weeks notice when you leave them though.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[richardlvance]

Do not EVER burn bridges. You may have decided you would rather live under a bridge than go back. But forever is a long time and all things do change in time.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[noh8rz10]

I think they respec you more if you say no, I need to give two weeks notice because to do otherwise wouldn't be appropriate

Re:When you don't want a reference

[HornWumpus]

Not that simple. It's been decades sense I had to file unemployment so rules might have changed. I doubt they've changed much. CA.

First you have to report any vacation payout and termination. That's a delay equal to the number of weeks of pay your got.

Then there's the built in 1 week no unemployment.

Then there's the pittance of a weekly cap. I was getting the cap at 28 and it wasn't even close.

Certainly not worth it if you put in 2 weeks notice because that's when you scheduled your start day at a better job. With no vacation or term, you get one weeks unemployment. I'm going to Disneyland!

I just assumed they made you stand in line because it cut down on payments.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[HornWumpus]

I was a curse on my grade school teachers. My mom saved on paper from middle school where I had spelled the same common word three different ways on the same page. I think it was 'except'.

Anybody who only knows one way to spell a word has no imagination.

Don't even get me started about the god damn Jebbies. That really sucked.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Myopic]

"At will" is not fair by any meaning of the word. It's as lopsided as you can get.

Well, it's is fair for the meaning of the word that both parties have maximal operational freedom. The problem is the power disparity almost always present between employer and employee.

I myself don't think that "employee protection" should extend to stop a company from firing an employee for good cause, or for no cause (for bad cause, like racism, is different). I'd rather live in an at-will country than the alternative, but I'd mix in a social safety net to protect workers. One thing that is clear to me is that nobody should ever be forced to work when or where they don't want to -- I see that as slavery. I mean, let's say my contract says I "have to work" a two-week severance period. Uh... what if I don't? What are you going to do, arrest me for not working a job that I hate? That hardly seems like liberty. There are better ways to protect me than that.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Myopic]

"loyalty is 100% dead"

Yep. I came of age in the 1990s and I remember "downsizing". Nobody ever talked about "loyalty" except as a comically quaint myth. I've been in the workforce since 2002 and I have never, even for one moment, felt loyalty for an employer. Nor have I ever felt loyalty from an employer.

I've heard people talk about loyalty for straight-up center-square SHITTY jobs. Just today I heard a woman complaining about her job in a retain shop, about how crappy the job was, and then she immediately turned around and said how she has to keep working hard at it because "hey, it's my job". Ug, what a slave mentality. I know some people are dumb or whatever and have to keep working crap jobs because that's all they can get, but that doesn't describe this woman, nor most workers.

Know your worth. Be honest with yourself. Advocate in your own self interest. Never, ever fool yourself into thinking your boss is your friend.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Myopic]

I agree with most of what you said except that he got fucked. He got the minimum he was owed, sure, and most people get a little more than that, but it's not like they screwed him out of his vaca time.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[SeaFox]

I did say I needed to give notice, and the response was they didn't know if the job would still be available that far out.

It's very telling that job applications all want you to give a specific date you're available to work. If I'm currently employed, I don't have a date I can give them, since it's a moving target. The date I'm available is going to be two weeks from whenever I can give notice with my current job, which wont be until after I've been contacted back, interviewed (perhaps multiple times), and finally offered the position by the company.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Tamerlin]

This is proof of idiocy. If everyone around the hapless victim stands around in silence, they're complicit in the crime. If they all walk, the employer's fucked rather than the other way around. Americans are too stupid to realize this.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Tamerlin]

I'm so sick of Indian code and the companies that are peddling that crap and trying to pass it off as code developed in the states.

Some of the worst code and the most idiotic engineering I've ever seen have been from american coders.

The indian coders generally seem to be far more interested in pointless and overly complicated optimizations that partially solve terrible design decisions than the american coders, who seem to like throwing more hardware at it.

At amazon I watched an upgrade that increased the computational throughput of the cluster our crapware was on by a factor of 96 manage to nearly double the software's actual throughput. Those were some of the worst engineers I have ever has the displeasure of working with.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[Tamerlin]

It's you that is lacking understanding of the word respect. Respect must be earned and never given, and there is no reason that one should respect an employer simply because they're an employer.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[TheRealDevTrash]

How would they know? We had a guy who gave two weeks notice. last week he came in on Monday at 8:10, boss yelled at him in front of us. The next day he came in wearing jeans and a T-shirt and left. he's still working a tthe place that hired him.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[mypalmike]

I live in Georgia and I don't get paid for unused vacation when I leave a job. When I lived in California, I did get paid for unused vacation time when I left a job.

http://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/leave-laws/vacation-leave-laws/vacation-leave-law-summaries/

Look for the following wording which applies in several states, including Georgia:

"An employer may lawfully establish a policy or enter into a contract denying employees payment for accrued vacation leave upon separation from employment."

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

You are being very bitter. To the point of mild insanity. Why do you care if an employee loses two weeks of pay they didn't earn? That's the employees choice. They could stay for two weeks at a place they don't want to be surrounded by people who don't want them there, or they could walk out. Usually walking out is better for mental health. The employer has two choices, require they be there for the two weeks and pay them for it, or kick them out and pay for the two weeks. Quite often the employer has a policy of immediate escort when notice is given, no matter what the notice is (most places honor two weeks notice only, so if you tell your boss you are quitting in 3 years when your house is paid off, he can escort you from the building at that point, accepting your resignation, and paying you for two weeks, and likely you'd be out unemployment for it as well, as you voluntarily quit). It's one of the very few things the employee still has it better for over the bosses, so I don't understand why you are so insane about an employee using it. Are you a rabid neo-con?

In a civil tribunal, you'd be fine. The worst that would happen is that you'd be held to the contract you signed.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

perhaps you're having difficulty reading, but i said previously that often employees are owed money. what employer pays their employees for time they haven't yet worked?

If you walk out without notice, the employer must still pay out vacation time owed. It's very hard for an employee to walk out in a manner that loses them any "owed" money.

your apparent lack of understanding of very basic industrial relations suggest that you probably don't even have a job, or work for the government which basically means the same thing.

Given that you don't refute any specific points with specific reasons, I can only assume that you have no clue what you are talking about. What does an employee *ever* lose by walking out, that they wouldn't lose had they given 2-weeks? I looked at the last US job I held, and I wouldn't have "lost" anything by walking out without notice.

Given that the facts are against you, but you seem so persistent in your false opinion, that's why it looks to be "bitter" (about people walking out). Why are you so personally vested in walking out? Deep breaths, and let it go, some people will do without cause, others with. It happens. In fact, it happens so often, there's almost always a clause in the contract over it. So "walking out" doesn't "break" the contract. It abides by it, just a different clause.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

not if you breached the terms of your contract by not giving notice... of course you could always hire a lawyer and fight your former employer for your benefits, but you walking out without giving notice wouldn't help your case

Where are you? Everywhere I've ever lived (multiple US states, all right-to-work) and three foreign countries, and in every one you get all your vacation pay accrued to your last day, no matter how you leave. I also have my last few employment contracts, and walking out without notice would not "breach the terms of the contract" but would breach a clause in the contract, activating a different one. In most right-to-work states, it's illegal to enforce slavery (forcing someone to work against their will, even if paid), so requiring notice by law is illegal. You may walk out at any time, and the only penalty I've ever seen is that you don't get paid for the time you didn't work. If you gave notice and they didn't want you, they'd have to pay you for your last two weeks to kick you out.

Oh, I did think of one last thing from Texas law. If you walk out and don't give notice, they don't have to pay you on your last day for money owed, as they had no warning. But if you give notice, they are required by law to pay you on your last day for work up to that point. So you walk out even. In Alaska, that law didn't apply, so they paid you a your next regular pay date, regardless of notice. They are required by law to pay you for all time actually worked, no matter how you leave, and required to pay you vacation, no matter how you leave.

Since you keep arguing points I know for a fact to be wrong, I can only assume you are in some other jurisdiction. So where?

right... maybe on planet idiot it doesn't. maybe you should try reading an employment contract

I keep a pile of them. I read them. I'm right, you are wrong. Walking out doesn't "break" the contract. It just activates a different clause. You should try getting a job with a contract sometime.

but it's fun to wind people like you up :)

Yes, you lie to wind people up. A lying little shit. The problem is that anyone reading your lies might accidentally believe you. I don't care what you think. You are a proven liar who lies for entertainment. The problem is if someone out there makes a bad decision because they didn't recognize your deliberate lies.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

i'm not arguing anything..

You aren't arguing, you are just repeating a contradiction. Are you three?

. so go get a job and quit without notice and see what happens.

I've done it twice. Perhaps your reading is poor. I stated that I've done it, and you are wrong. Reality trumps some tosser on the Internet.

I'm right, you are wrong. I have written proof. Employment contracts that directly contradict your assertions. And the fact that I've walked out on two jobs (of my 30+ jobs so far). Burning bridges didn't hurt me. The jobs were so bad I wouldn't have used either for a reference, ever. So burning a broken bridge didn't cost me anything. You appear to be so focused on what you think "should" happen that you are paying no attention to reality and what "does" happen.

just as walking out without giving notice is a breach of most employment contracts, not paying an employee who walks out is also a breach but in a court they will merely be seen as similar; the (former) employee has left their employer in the lurch and likely hurt them financially by walking out without notice, so they are likely due compensation in the for of withheld benefits of that former employee

Walking out is not a "breach" in any employment contract I've ever signed. Not paying what was worked (including vested benefits, like vacation and retirement) is a violation of law, and law trumps contract, though all contracts I've signed indicate not paying time worked up to walking out is a breach of contract, and walking out isn't.

I also note that I've given specific locations in my examples, and I've asked yours and you haven't given it. So that means to me that you know you are wrong, and will hide your location so we can't point you to law that contradicts your opinion. It's not like you've used the locations I've given (Alaska and Texas) to prove me wrong by quoting law. Given you used "tosser", perhaps the issue is that you are in the UK and arguing about US law. They are different countries. There was a war over it and all.

I'm not trying to hurt anyone's job prospects. I'm telling the truth. You are not. You can walk out of a job without notice. It's legal, and you'll still be paid to that time. I've looked it up, you are wrong. You aren't arguing, you are just repeating your incorrect opinion stated as fact. I'm pointing out that you are wrong, and you are the one giving bad advice. I never once advocated that anyone *should* walk out, which seems to be your biggest complaint. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[AK Marc]

Ah, so after my repeated requests for your jurisdiction so we could verify local law, you reveal your location. Planet Idiot. Named for you, I take it.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[DexterIsADog]

Except that it tops out at a pay rate much lower than I have seen in the past 20 years.

Believe me, unemployment checks for me would be a pittance.

And no, I'm not looking for sympathy.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[DexterIsADog]

The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago

30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.

Ironically, in 1892 (close enough), Andrew Carnegie used private security forces to physically battle striking steel workers in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike - Carnegie was an asshole who paid workers as little as he could, but built hundreds of libraries and opera halls, so his six-days-per-week workers could better themselves. When asked for better wages, he replied that they would just spend the money on better food, or more drink with their meals, and that he knew what they actually needed.

You can call him a heartless fuck, but the announcers on NPR still say his name ("Andrew Carnegie Foundation") dozens of times a day.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[DexterIsADog]

What are these employment contracts you speak of? I'm a VP (it's a real position, I don't work for a bank), and I'm as "at will" as the most junior of my direct reports.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[wwfarch]

I'm going through this exact thought process right now. I plan to get a job and leave my current employer with no notice. The reasons are many but the company (and the leaders in particular) have systematically disrespected and upset everyone on the technical side of the company. The only bridges I'd care about burning would be with the very people supporting me in my decision to leave without notice. Everyone's looking for a way out.

I think it all really depends on why you're leaving. If the company isn't respecting you as a professional I see no reason to give them professional courtesy in kind. I feel like the whole idea of "acting professional" is something that frequently supports a system that holds up corporations at the expense of people. That's honestly not something I can agree with.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[noh8rz10]

two cents - if you leave without notice, then take 2 weeks off so your new company doesn't realize you're giving your old company the shaft. don't want to start out on the wrong foot.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[wwfarch]

Yup, that's already part of the plan but thanks for the advice.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[wwfarch]

If they are truthful, listen to your concerns, and are reasonably flexible with schedules when problems come up, I find that far more of an indicator of if they respect and value you as an employee than what they call the HR department.

As someone working at a company that does 2 of those 3 things I'd like to modify "listen to your concerns" to "listen to your concerns and actually consider/act on them". Listening is easy, actually doing something is difficult.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[wwfarch]

When I looked up the laws in my state it maxes at about 1/3 of what I currently make. UI works well if you're within a certain salary range but going above that can make it extremely painful. With what UI would pay, I'd be bringing in barely enough to pay my mortgage and utilities forget about anything else. My house is actually pretty average to low end for the area I live in too so it's not like I'm living way better than the typical homeowner in the area. It certainly doesn't help that I'm the only income source for me and my wife.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[noh8rz10]

my advice is always excellent. you are welcome. you can ask me other questions in the future when you do not know what to do.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[zildgulf]

Why would I give two weeks notice if it is clear my manager wants me out immediately but can't fire me for some reason? Quit immediately and give your manager and yourself some peace of mind.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[zildgulf]

Maybe he doesn't want to ever work for that "resume stain" even at ten times the price? Money is not the only thing to consider you know.

But I see your point. Do the "nice thing" for the employer and then offer to come back a year later as a 6 month contractor to fix this mess, at triple the price, when the outsourcing effort to Elbonia blows up in their face, leaving their vital systems in shambles due to the Elbonian programmers not understanding WTF management wants the software to do.

"Today you be the computer" - From Adam's Dilbert comic

Re:When you don't want a reference

[zildgulf]

Of course, the interesting thing I suppose is how people in the US routinely allow themselves to get screwed over - especially in the IT field. Think about it - in every other profession other than IT, there's typically on-call pay if you have to carry the pager, potential compensation for overtime (yes, even if you're salaried, a lot of places do compensate for overtime) and many other rights and compensation that IT seems to have given up.....

In the US being on-call in IT is supposed to be part of the work, just like expecting to work extra hours when needed, and such. This is included in the salary requirements. That is why many IT jobs in America seem to "pay better" but in reality they do not since there is no additional compensation for being on-call or losing weekends or not being able to take vacation when scheduled.

The American Labor Unions did not adapt very well in the past few decades. They became very rigid and they are stuck in the 1950's as far as trying to recruit members. Our government doesn't help in that there are laws against retaliation against employees seeking to collectively bargain but all the employer has to do is lie and falsify reasons for termination and the labor board rarely does anything about it. For example WalMart calls all strikes as "labor stoppages" and deliberately put into place contradictory rules so that any manager can fire an employee for nearly anything. The states "right to work", meaning the right to at-will employment, makes it difficult to challenge most firings that are really retaliations or firing without cause.

Re:When you don't want a reference

[shentino]

Contracts do not trump those laws, but those laws do not trump the contracts either.

Unless a contract is illegal, you are bound to it.

No notice, no reference

[DogDude]

As an employer, we don't give references for people who don't give two weeks' notice. It's just common courtesy.

Re:No notice, no reference

[MetalliQaZ]

And I'm sure you extend that courtesy to the people you let go... right? Yeah didn't think so.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Larry_Dillon]

Do you give employees two week's notice?

Re:No notice, no reference

[MightyMartian]

When I call to get references for a potential employee, I either get "Bob is an ace. Absolute genius. We're gonna miss him totally!" or we get "Bob worked here between August 2010 and July 2013."

While the former may not be completely reliable as to how good Bob is, just getting the latter tends to raise questions.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Anonymous Coward]

...everywhere i've worked has either given two weeks notice or paid two weeks' salary up front for layoffs...

Re:No notice, no reference

[Guido von Guido II]

Like somebody else said elsewhere in the thread, nowadays that's all many companies do for fear of getting their asses sued.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Fluffeh]

Yeah, but when people are laid off, they might get walked out the door, but they are still paid the next two weeks wages. At least that is the case in Australia. Yeah, it's certainly not unheard of that folks walk into the office one morning and get told that they have been let go - but they are always paid their two weeks + entitlements that same morning.

Re:No notice, no reference

[yorgasor]

Many companies won't give more information than this. I know Intel doesn't for legal reasons. That's why I list my employers, but my references are colleagues I've worked with.

Re:No notice, no reference

[rahvin112]

Many companies (I would wager every one of the fortune 500 and probably any company larger than about 500 employees) have policies forbidding any information whether good or bad. Judging the employee by the minimal response is a mistake on your part.

Re:No notice, no reference

[silas_moeckel]

Agreed anything more than the HR yea he worked here has become a legal mine field.

Re:No notice, no reference

[cruff]

or we get "Bob worked here between August 2010 and July 2013."..., just getting the latter tends to raise questions.

Unfortunately many places have a policy in place that the period of employment is all they will reveal without a court order. You get no information about the actual employee performance, regardless of what the reality was.

Re:No notice, no reference

[iCEBaLM]

I had an employer who told me up front that if anyone called asking for a reference all they would do is say when I worked there, they would not give any information good or bad. Judging people on employers giving the second response is not fair.

Re:No notice, no reference

[jcwayne]

It's precisely that interpretation that leads many companies to set a policy of only verifying employment, regardless of how good or bad an employee was.

Re:No notice, no reference

[The Grim Reefer]

As an employer, we don't give references for people who don't give two weeks' notice. It's just common courtesy.

I gave 8 weeks notice to my last company after telling them a year prior that I would be leaving. The moment I gave them my written notice they told me I was terminated and screwed me out of a bunch of money. I'll never give more than two weeks notice again, if I even bother. I tried to be nice and help them to transition, but they were too fucking stupid. That was three years ago. I still have their customers looking me up trying to get help.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Jaime2]

I got four weeks notice and 18 weeks severance last time I was laid off.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bob is an ace. Absolute genius. We're gonna miss him totally!"

= bad employee, glad to get rid of him, desperate to end his unemployment compensation.

"Bob worked here between August 2010 and July 2013."

= we have a policy of not giving specific references because we are afraid of being sued for libel/slander.

references are useless.

If they're still courting bob, asking him to come back, perhaps with a raise, they will not be likely to give a glowing reference.

Relying on references is futile.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Jaime2]

Not all employers are like that. I was eligible for my profit sharing bonus even though it was paid months after I left.

Re:No notice, no reference

[suutar]

I wonder, though... does that indicate that you're only calling HR or that the only reference they can come up with is HR? If the first, I'm not surprised. If the second... well, not being able to find anyone who's willing to say you were good would indeed be indicative, imho...

Re:No notice, no reference

[wisnoskij]

Shit, being laid off can be profitable.

Re:No notice, no reference

[erroneus]

My company's policy is demonstrably variable on the issue of giving notice to employees on layoff situations. None has been given quite often for both hourly and salary employees in many cases, while in others, it appeared that the company let them stay until they could find other work. (It all depends on who you know I suppose)

But the policy on paper is that notice should be given but it is at the company's discretion. But in the event you are notified, you are required to stay the full time and perform normally until that time. If that agreement is violated, all the benefits would be forfeit which includes continue medical insurance, two weeks of pay for each year with the company and payment for unused vacation and stuff like that. Of course termination "with cause" precludes all of that and violation of the agreement, in whatever sketchy causes that may be, of course screws the employee pretty badly.

I'm just going to say that it's pretty hard to trust the employer no matter where you are. If I were given notice, I would seek work immediately elsewhere (as would anyone else I suppose) and attempt to start my new job ASAP even if it meant forfeit of the benefits. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush as they say. (If you don't know what that means, it mean something you have now is worth more than something you might have down in the [near] future.)

I dislike this topic, but it's a reality that employers have long since given up on their notion of loyalty to the employee while it somehow, unrealistically, expects loyalty from the employee. It's ridiculous if you ask me.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Jstlook]

Also, it's going to depend on whether you get the HR office, or the guy who actually worked with your potential employee. What the heck does HR know, other than how to (hopefully) not get sued?

Re:No notice, no reference

[thesupraman]

I assume by fired/terminated you mean because you have broken the terms of your contract (and normally been given suitable warnings, etc).
Of COURSE there is then no payment period, you have broken your employment terms!

Exactly the same thing would apply in reverse, if your employer broke the terms of employment (for example didnt pay you, etc, etc) then you
would have the right to leave immediately.

The 'question' is of course termed wrong, resigning your job is VERY different from being fired, it is equivalent to being laid off.

Get it? Simple enough?

Re:No notice, no reference

[larwe]

You will get no *official* reference from a supervisor at such a company. However it is usually permissible for a current or past employee of the company in question to give a *PEER* reference. You see this on LinkedIn all the time even at companies with no-formal-reference policy. Not long ago, I quit a large company with a policy like this. It led to some interesting situations, e.g. person A is fired, resume-verifiers start calling supervisor-of-person-A, he can't do anything but refer them to HR, all HR will do is confirm dates of employment. Person A contacts some former coworkers at the same company, they agree to give him a peer reference, he is hired by his new company. The reason for the no-formal-reference policy is very sensible, by the way. If Fred lists me, a former supervisor, as a reference, and HR from his potential new employer calls me in my capacity as Fred's former supervisor: if I give him a bad reference and he doesn't get hired, he can sue my employer for poisoning his career. Has happened, many times. On the other hand if I give him a good reference and he does get hired, but turns out to be a total chump/drunkard/embezzler, his new employer can sue my company for having falsely represented him. Has happened, not quite so often, but cases exist. The bottom line is that there is nothing to be gained, and real downside potential in giving someone an official reference, for any company with deep pockets. On the other hand, a peer reference ("I worked with Fred and he didn't actually steal anything or set fire to a building while I was watching") carries no liability to my employer so it's safer.

Re:No notice, no reference

[bickerdyke]

Over here, if you worked for an employer for 6 months or longer, you're entitled to a written reference. If you can't present one at your job interview, you've got a lot os 'splaining to do. (It has to be worded positive, but it doesn't mean it has to be an actual recommendation)

Re:No notice, no reference

[alexander_686]

Almost always.

If you are being fired for cause – that is you are no good at your job – the boss tends to sit down with you to remediate the problem – expectations and deadlines are set. So the sacking is usually not a surprise. Only gross / dangerous actions get you kicked out the door ASAP.

If you are being fired without cause – such as a company reorg – then yes, I have seen people escorted to the door – but almost always with a severance package of greater than 2 weeks.

Re:No notice, no reference

[alexander_686]

I had a co-worker who got a year’s worth of severance after only working for 2 weeks.

As soon as he was hired the company sold his division to another company and the company offered a blanket severance package to everybody who would stay for the 9 months to close. His supervisor looked at him, looked at the 6 month training schedule, and everybody decided there were more profitable things to do.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been advised that when called the only thing I can say is that they worked here for the dates in question.

Re:No notice, no reference

[mschuyler]

Laid off means immediate access to unemployment benefits, no questions asked.

Fired/Terminated means the employer must provide cause for doing so. The onus is on them. If they just fire you "for cause" without giving a reason, then protest your unemployment, you'll probably win.

Quitting means you must provide cause for doing so. The onus is upon you. There are legitimate reasons to quit, including following a spouse out of the area, for example. But if you "just quit" and the employer challenges, you'll probably lose.

Depending on the state, employers can be "dollar for dollar" reimbursable for unemployment, i.e.: They pay the full cost. or they can pay a tax as a percentage of wages, with an "experience rating" that raises the tax if they do a lot of layoffs.

If they are in the latter category and you quit or are fired, they probably won't protest because it doesn't cost them one way or another. If they are in the former category, they have incentive to protest because they pay the full cost of your unemployment checks.

So, yeah, these little technicalities can make a big difference.

I worked for the Department of Employment security, Unemployment Compensation Division and learned the ropes, and also worked as a human resource person and learned the other side.

Re:No notice, no reference

[nurb432]

It depends. The last job i was let go from i was given 2 weeks notice + a 2 month severance. I wasn't mis-behaving, they just had to cut their budget and outsourced. No hard feelings in either direction.

Re:No notice, no reference

[DaveAtFraud]

...That's why I list my employers, but my references are colleagues I've worked with.

If I like the people I work with and want them to give me a good reference then I let them know what's happening before I go to amanagement. Usually it's your soon to be ex-cowrkers who will be the ones impacted by you leaving. Treat them with respect even if you don't respect the company. If management decides to walk you out the moment you give notice, there's nothing you can do about it but at least the people you worked with have had a chance to prepare for your departure.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:No notice, no reference

[alexander_686]

Where is "Over here"? - I want to know.

Re:No notice, no reference

[n7ytd]

I assume by fired/terminated you mean because you have broken the terms of your contract (and normally been given suitable warnings, etc).
Of COURSE there is then no payment period, you have broken your employment terms!

Exactly the same thing would apply in reverse, if your employer broke the terms of employment (for example didnt pay you, etc, etc) then you
would have the right to leave immediately.

The 'question' is of course termed wrong, resigning your job is VERY different from being fired, it is equivalent to being laid off.

Get it? Simple enough?

In every job I've ever had, there were no "employment terms". I've always worked in an "at-will" arrangement, which means my employer has no obligation beyond paying me for the time I've actually worked. Usually there's some language stating that I agree and understand that I have no employment contract and that nothing anybody tells me, short of a written contract signed by a vice-president of the company can change that.

Re:No notice, no reference

[green1]

Best references are from the supervisor at the employer before last. If they say "bob who?" the either it was a really long time ago, or he was relatively mediocre, if they say he was excellent, or poor, they have nothing to gain or loose.

Re:No notice, no reference

[R3d M3rcury]

One time the company I was working for was moving to another state. I didn't want to move so I was going to be laid off. I had six months notice and if I stayed for the six months, they'd give me $10,000.

I stayed. A month and a half later they called me up for some contract work and I did that for another five months or so.

Re:No notice, no reference

[mjhans]

You haven't worked much in big business, have you?

I've known people who have been threatened legal action for giving bad references ("you cost me the job!"). I've known people who have been threatened legal action for good references ("you said this person was going to be good!"). Amusingly, I know one person who's gotten both (the founder of a 20ish-person shop)

There's a reason lots (most?) big company nowadays makes it official HR policy to only confirm salary and dates of employment. Said founder, above, also never gives out references.

If getting a statement like that raises questions for you, it raises questions for me whether you're experienced enough to be a good hiring manager.

Re:No notice, no reference

[msobkow]

Laid off means you begin your 6 week waiting period before you start qualifying for paid employment insurance benefits in Canada.

Fired with cause means you are not eligible for EI benefits, and rarely happens.

Quitting means you aren't eligible for benefits, either.

But if you're laid off, you get your 2 weeks severance plus a payout of vacation benefits. If you quit, you're legally entitled to your vacation benefits. If you're fired, you're still entitled to two weeks severance plus vacation benefits.

Personally I like it when an employer decides they want you to leave now instead of letting you work the two weeks -- they're required to pay that two weeks in that case, because you haven't quit yet, so it's a layoff situation. Truth is, such layoffs are about the only vacations I've ever had -- normally my vacation time gets consumed as sick time due to my migraines through the course of a year.

Ah, to be employable again. Ah well. C'est la vie. 'tis migraine city for me.

Re:No notice, no reference

[Kneo24]

That can be dangerous for you. Many of your colleagues might not be trustworthy and will tell their boss what is going on before you have a chance to say anything. I know this from first hand experience, as I run a team and there's always one guy everyone talks to, but he's a total tattle-tale. It doesn't matter what anyone tells him, it will be repeated to EVERYONE.

Be careful which colleagues you tell. Word of mouth can travel quickly.

Re:No notice, no reference

[mschuyler]

Yes, A/C, it is true. I worked for the state unemployment department. They sent me to school to teach me all this stuff, then laid me off. Very funny in hindsight, though I didn't think so at the time. It is, of course, vastly more complex than what I was able to post here, but what I did post is completely accurate. Naturally, I got quite a bit of unemployment out of the deal! :-)

Subsequently I went to work for the firm where I spent the vast majority of my career, and at one point was the Personnel Officer. This was a time when the unemployment rules were changing a bit so, naturally because of my background, I was tasked to figure out what we should do. We had to make a choice between becoming a reimbursable employer or one which paid 3.5% as a tax. I determined the former was better for us because we were fairly stable, and that should we find ourselves in a layoff situation, we should switch to the tax beforehand. By being reimbursable, we saved approximately 2/3rds, so it was a good deal for us. The firm still does this, though I am quite convinced they have no idea why they are or how they got there.

Later computers began to "get big," and once again, because of my prior interest and the fact I had one of the first Apple ][ computers, I wound up in IT, where I stayed 20+ years and wound up CIO. That kind of thing would never happen in today's world, but I was in the right place at the right time, so it did. When I retired we had 500 computers, 40 servers, and a 9 site WAN on fiber optic, a far cry from the single Apple ][ on my desk we started with. What a ride!!

To the other poster complaining about long hours for employees, meh? That wasn't the point of the topic. We were discussing the proper way to quit, right?

TL;DR Bottom line: If you get laid off, it's the employer's fault. If you get fired, it's up to your employer to prove you were fired for cause. If you quit, it's up to you to prove you quit for cause. Saying the right thing and making the right decision means dollars in your pocket--or not. Your choice. It's not up for argument.

Re:No notice, no reference

[chrismcb]

While the former may not be completely reliable as to how good Bob is, just getting the latter tends to raise questions.

What questions does it raise? You do know that this is ALL some companies will tell you, no matter how good or bad the employee was.

Re:No notice, no reference

[jon3k]

And do you think those people give references for that company? Yeah didn't think so. It's a two way street.

Re:No notice, no reference

[TheGratefulNet]

the joke I heard is how an employer may phrase things if they didn't like you:

"bob? you would be lucky if bob worked for you."

think about it. ;)

Re:No notice, no reference

[tsotha]

Everywhere I've worked (US), people let go were escorted out with two week's pay. The only exception was a company that gave everyone a month's notice, no work, a desk with a telephone, and the instruction "Find another job".

I'd rather get no notice and two week's pay than have to work for those two weeks.

Re:No notice, no reference

[tsotha]

Usually colleagues who still work there are instructed to refer prospective employers to HR. The best references are people you worked with who don't work there any more.

Re:No notice, no reference

[tsotha]

Yes, giving too much notice is a mistake. You're handing any flexibility you have in the situation over to your employer, and sometimes they'll use it to replace you before you're ready to leave.

Re:No notice, no reference

[NotSanguine]

references are useless.

If they're still courting bob, asking him to come back, perhaps with a raise, they will not be likely to give a glowing reference.

Relying on references is futile.

Company references are absolutely a waste, but personal references are *not* useless. If a candidate can't find three people they worked for/with in the past to say something nice about them, that's a pretty good sign that they may be a problem, IMHO.

Re:No notice, no reference

[NotSanguine]

You are another HR moron if you think that. An enormous amount of companies have a policy to give exactly that as a reference even if the person was the greatest employee to ever work that company, and the CEO offered to bend over if they would stay. You deserve to fail professionally, and morally i think you deserve to die slowly while watching your children raped by convicts.

Remind me not to take the last copy of the newspaper when you're standing behind me. I imagine you'd run me through with your umbrella for that, eh? Geez Louise!

Re:No notice, no reference

[iamstretchypanda]

Yeah I totally agree with your logic behind a blanket no-formal reference policy. It saves a ton of headaches from managers who don't know the HR basics. Normally a company will only be sued for giving a good reference for a poor employee when it can be shown that the company materially lied about the employees standing. This has been shown in cases where Employer A wanted to sabotage Employer B so therefore Employer A will giving a glowing reference to his competitor about an atrocious employee.

Re:No notice, no reference

[RJFerret]

As a landlord, I verify employment, the larger the company, the less forthcoming for aforementioned legal reasons. Blue collar workers? I'll get personal info right down to salary and expression on their faces when they arrive for their shift from managers. White collar? Position and dates from HR/equivalent.

Ironically, all I care about is the info they gave me cross references (honesty/integrity), so anything beyond dates is just entertainment to see how much a company will give a random stranger over the phone (if the applicant didn't warn them I'd be contacting--my first question). More impressive was the one that wanted fax of queries...which was returned with mostly "won't answer". Of the dozens I've done over the years, only that one requested documentation.

This is obviously a bit different as the person currently works/remains there.

Re:No notice, no reference

[shentino]

They don't have to.

It's their payroll and so long as they don't break the law, they can hire and fire and give references as they darn please.

Just because one needs to work to eat, doesn't make you entitled to a job. Until you actually earn your pay, it's not your money.

Re:No notice, no reference

[bickerdyke]

Germany.

And a free Pro-Tipp: If you ever get a german reference that states that you always "gave your best" or "helped creating a good office atmosphere" - burn it and make up a cover story about travelling the Paraguayan rain forrest for your next jon interview. Those phrases are the worst that could ever happen to you.

Re:No notice, no reference

[shentino]

Which is unfortunately why some companies forbid anyone but HR from giving references.

In some cases, giving a peer reference will get you sacked yourself.

Re:No notice, no reference

[shentino]

Yes, it is ok.

Your boss is not your equal and isn't bound by the same standards that you are.

Re:No notice, no reference

[trawg]

Here in Australia, I have heard tell that giving people a bad reference is grounds for a defamation lawsuit. As a result many companies (including mine now) refuse to give a bad reference and will instead only confirm the person was employed there and politely decline to answer any further questions.

Positive references are not a problem. So typically, if you ask for a reference and the person only is prepared to confirm they worked there, I think it's safe to assume bad reference.

Re:No notice, no reference

[dskoll]

Wow, things are different in Canada. In most cases, we're required to give reasonable notice and severance when letting someone go. Even when I've gotten rid of people right away, I've always given them at least two weeks' severance. IMO, it's a smart business decision because it reduces the likelihood of vengeful lawsuits or worse.

Re:No notice, no reference

[cundare]

Seriously, only an idiot would give a reference, one way or the other, to a former employee, other than to just confirm dates of employment. Liability issues have made such things untenable from a legal perspective. When was the last time you heard of any Fortune 100 firm giving a reference that had real information in? Probably not in the last 20 years.

Re:No notice, no reference

[shentino]

He doesn't have to.

References are his to give at his pleasure. All this rhetoric about equal treatment needs to stop, because like it or not, employees and employers are NOT equals.

Re:No notice, no reference

[shentino]

Refusal to pay wages would certainly count as constructive dismissal.

Respectable thing to do...

[singhulariti]

I gave my 2 week notice last week because I have no complaints from this place and thought I should be considerate and tie up all the loose ends before I left.

Re:Respectable thing to do...

[UnknowingFool]

I tend to agree. I, however, am not in the same position as my friend who says all former employees she knew were escorted out immediately whether they were good or bad employees. She's about to leave for another job, and she's been a good employee.

Re:Respectable thing to do...

[cusco]

Considerate, and professional. None of the places that I've worked since 1998 will do anything more than say "Brian worked here from Date X to Date Y" so it's not like I'm trying to make sure that I get a good reference out of them, I just think it's unprofessional to do anything less. A couple of times I've spent most of that last two weeks documenting the crap out of everything that wasn't, and attempting to bring projects as close to finished as possible. Maybe if I had worked for a PHB at some Dilbertesque company I would sing a different tune, but so far I've been fortunate.

Re:Respectable thing to do...

[alexander_686]

I work with a lot of sensitive and propriety information, so it works slightly differently. One of two things happen when I give 2 weeks’ notice.

If there are key man dependences then I stay for 2 weeks are train my replacement.

If there are no key man dependences then I am escorted off the premise with a check for 2 weeks.

Which, overall, I think is a fair and correct way to handle things.

Re:Respectable thing to do...

[Jane Q. Public]

"I gave my 2 week notice last week because I have no complaints from this place and thought I should be considerate and tie up all the loose ends before I left."

I give notice when I reasonably can, and *IF* I am on good terms with the company when I leave. Both of those need explaining, though.

First, as long as I am on good terms with my employer, I try to give notice. But it has not always been possible. A couple of times in my life I have had emergencies that required me to be elsewhere, and giving notice simply wasn't possible. I know on at least one occasion my employer was angry that I didn't give notice. I explained: "Hey... I have no idea where I'll be three days from now, and I have no control over that. It's better that I quit now and tell you about it than to just disappear with no discussion at all." He was angry anyway. Well, hell. I did what I could.

As for the second thing: if it's just plain a shitty place to work and you can't count on a reference anyway, just walk. I have walked out on a couple of jobs. One was a part-time job I had while in school. My supervisor was a complete jerk. One day he kept telling me how to do something in a way that made no sense (and there is no question that I am definitely smarter than him). I suspect that he was just trying to mess with me, but I didn't care. I'd had enough. He said "It's gotta be done THIS way..." and I handed him my tools and said, "Then you're going to have to do it yourself." Then turned around and walked out.

I needed the job. And the manager (not the supervisor) was a decent guy. I went to him later and told him that I really didn't want to leave but I'd just had enough of the supervisor's shit. I told him the same thing I told other people before they hired me: I'll work hard and put up with a lot of crap, if you pay me well enough. I'll work hard for less, if I don't have to take a lot of crap. But you aren't going to get all three.

Another time, I left for the simple reason that I found out the company had been stealing money from my paycheck and benefits. I gave them a week's notice that they really didn't deserve. They were damned lucky I did not press criminal charges. By the time I quit I'd already spoken to the state and the feds about it. But I ended up getting most of my money out of them, so I let it go.

2 week

[O('_')O_Bush]

In my state (VA) all companies are legally required to give several weeks notice to those being laid off.

Re:2 week

[jcwayne]

If you're referring to this you have an odd definition of "all companies" and should realize that this only applies to mass layoffs. Many layoffs are far smaller.

Re:2 week

[Mix Master Nixon]

I am from Virginia. Not only is this news to me, but it's news directly contradictory to my personal experience.

Re:2 week

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you cite a source for this? I live in VA, it is a right to work state, I can be fired at any time for any reason. Maybe you are confusing your company/organization policy for state law?

Re:2 week

[AmiMoJo]

UK companies have found a way to avoid costly employment laws. They invented something called a "zero hour contract". Basically the employee's contract says that they can get from zero to, say, 40 hours per week. If the company is busy they might get all 40, otherwise they might get 20. If the company no-longer wants them instead of firing them and paying out they just give them zero hours.

It's all taxpayer funded too. The person on the zero hour contract claims benefits to make up the shortfall them they don't get enough hours to pay rent or buy food. As you can imagine companies absolutely love it.

I think

[zulater]

Office size is the biggest contributing factor imho. Don't want to burn bridges if you don't have to. In a bad work environment at a large employer you'll probably be asked to leave as soon as you give any notice.

Re:I think

[Jane Q. Public]

"Don't want to burn bridges if you don't have to."

This is true. And I try to give notice unless it's completely impossible (rare but it happens). BUT... over the last 25 years, when bridges were burned (and they have been a few times), it was them doing the burning, not me.

" In a bad work environment at a large employer you'll probably be asked to leave as soon as you give any notice."

And then companies wonder why employees seldom have any loyalty these days.

Whenever you know they won't give you a reference

[ModernGeek]

If your employer isn't going to give you a positive reference, or has been negligent in their treatment of you or your fellow employees, then your two weeks notice is a privilege that they gave up.

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any particular reason you don't want to give notice?

Re:Why not?

[bobbied]

Having previously quit a job without notice... I can tell you that there ARE good reasons to do it. I would just caution anybody who is considering skipping the common practice to be very hesitant to actually do it. It might seem like a good idea and provide some emotional satisfaction to boot, but the side effects can be far reaching.

In my case, I was verbally abused and threatened by my employer without cause. This was part of a pattern of behavior that included not paying me as promised and infractions of labor laws. One day I got yelled at for an hour for something I didn't do. It was bad enough that I came in that night, packed up my stuff and left my resignation, keys and company cell phone on my employer's desk. Needless to say, they where really upset with me then.

I was justified but I can tell you the ramifications of giving no notice and ticking off a past employer can be far reaching. Future employers are likely going to be checking your past employment history, calling and asking questions. Most employers are careful and don't say much, but some (like the one I had trouble with) where more than willing to dish out dirt, true or not. I'm pretty sure it cost me a few job offers before I found out and it took legal action to get them to stop.

Why do I share this? As a warning. You ALWAYS want to leave in the best way possible. Don't give them a reason to say bad things about you because it may cause you issues with future prospective employers. . Give the two weeks notice, more if you can. As you leave, do your best to keep it positive, give them your contact information and offer to be helpful even after you are gone. Don't burn the bridges unless you *really* have no other choice. Where it might be a nice feeling to just pack up and leave with a "Oh by the way, I'm not coming back. So long suckers!" The negative effects on your future job prospects are hard to know. Don't risk it.

ALWAYS give 2 weeks notice.. Unless you simply cannot stay another day for any reason...

Re:Why not?

[dubbreak]

The only job I quit without notice was because I couldn't stand showing up another day. I wrote up a nice letter to the owners that stated I was leaving and quite concisely why I was leaving and would not give the courtesy of notice. I then left the letter at the main desk as long before my next shift as possible. I never heard anything back negative about me leaving (and was paid my last cheque on time), but I did hear through the grapevine the manager mentioned in my letter was reprimanded (given a lower position and more closely monitored to make sure he was actually working).

Any other case I've been as flexible as possible between my new employer and old. The most recent job change I tapered off over a month then came back later as a (highly paid) contractor to help wrap up some projects and do some bug hunting (since I was best qualified for the hardware/software mix of the issues they were having). I would have loved to burn that bridge out of spite, but I'm in a small-ish city (300K) and I didn't want to hurt my coworkers who I loved working with (I hope to work them in the future). In hindsight I should have insisted on higher pay for anything past 2 weeks since I was holding off jumping to a new job that paid 30% more and was willing to have me start the next day. 2 weeks is the accepted norm and beyond that was not only a favour but also cutting into my earnings.

Re:Why not?

[dpidcoe]

If they were willing to yell at you for things you didn't do, how do you know that they wouldn't have lied about you anyway had you given 2 weeks notice?

Re:Why not?

[chrismcb]

ALWAYS give 2 weeks notice.. Unless you simply cannot stay another day for any reason...

This is bad advice. You need to take your situation into account. They probably won't give you 2 weeks notice, so why give it to them?
MANY companies won't offer anything other than confirm employment for previous employers. Because they've been sued and lost for giving out bad references in the past...

Re:Why not?

[m1ss1ontomars2k4]

I believe that's the justification given for not giving two weeks' notice: that the employer would not have given any better treatment anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered.

Re:Why not?

[TranquilVoid]

They probably won't give you 2 weeks notice, so why give it to them?

I think the reasons are different. Employers don't give it to employees because terminating employment is more rare and almost invariably results in hard feelings. Most employers don't want a disgruntled employee working for them as it's dangerous. Employees quitting, on the other hand, is a fact of business and most managers won't try to get back at the employee for it.

Re:Why not?

[shentino]

So basically, don't piss off a potentially vindictive boss or give him ammo to fuck you over with.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's unfair as hell, but like it or not your boss has you by the balls and you need to suck it up and respect that fact.

Re:Why not?

[DeathToThePatriarchy]

I was in a similar situation and had a job offer. I stayed the two weeks during which I would have given notice and wrapped up everything that needed wrapping up. I emptied my email, removed all needed files from my laptop to storage accessible by my team. I gradually removed all personal items from my desk (no one noticed or if they noticed, said anything). At the end of those two weeks, I let my team know what was going on and swore them to silence. At the end of the day, I waited until my tormentors left, sent my resignation by a timed email to arrive two hours later, put my phone and laptop in a locked drawer and left the key where the email said it would be. I turned in my badge to security on the way out and never looked back. I did this to coincide with payday, so there was little fuss about the final check. I continued to run into my team for several years and they always greeted me warmly. I could not face one more session of being screamed at. Another employer nearly interfered with being hired by giving a "would not rehire" recommendation -- their policy was to give that to anyone who quit, notice or no. And I had given them the notice requested in my offer letter and long discussions with my then manager. I was only able to get that "would not rehire" disregarded by pointing out that I had to take that employer to court for my last check. There is no guarantee, as an employer or employee, that being reasonable will result in reasonability from behaving professionally.

Re:Why not?

[bobbied]

But, your chances of getting into a bad situation with a previous employer is much greater if you don't do the professional thing. Sure, it may be a lost cause and you may be barely able to face another second but I would advise going out of your way to not burn any bridges. It's a *small* world and what goes around, comes around. Maybe not this time, but eventually it will.

2(Wrong) != Right

[CanHasDIY]

Look, dude, if you want to walk out, then walk the fuck out. Don't look to the community to justify your behavior; obviously you're not 100% convinced that not giving notice is acceptable, otherwise you wouldn't be posting this question, now would you?

Me, I give my two weeks, regardless, because I'm better than that. If they want to let me go then and there, well, that's their prerogative. I get to keep my moral high ground by not stooping to their level.

YMMV.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[Maxo-Texas]

The rules change so quickly these days, sometimes it is nice to touch base and see what they are on a given day.

Two weeks notice is not treated the same way it was 30 years ago. Then, in most jobs it was pretty sacrosanct. It seemed to me that after 2000, companies were much more likely to let people go immediately without pay. I think it may be partially due to insurance liability if you are in any kind of sensative job.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[CanHasDIY]

The only gig I've ever been immediately terminated from when giving my two weeks was the one telemarketing job I ever had. The manager was actually dumbfounded that I was giving him notice to begin with.

The rules change so quickly these days, sometimes it is nice to touch base and see what they are on a given day.

It's not really a "rule," i.e. not codified - it's common courtesy and CYA.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[Smauler]

My last employer I gave 2 months notice... just because I thought it'd help them fill my job in that time. I knew I was going to leave, and had no ill will towards them. They were happy with it, and aside from the occasional "are you sure you want to leave", everything was fine.

I hate corporation culture with a passion, and didn't give notice because of that... I gave long notice because I thought my co-workers would possibly suffer if I didn't.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[bickerdyke]

Wow. Here, we have notification periods set by law and typical work contracts that range beween 1 and 4 MONTHS. (Usually depending on how long you workd there). And they're binding for BOTH sides.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[dpidcoe]

My last employer I gave 2 months notice... just because I thought it'd help them fill my job in that time. I knew I was going to leave, and had no ill will towards them. They were happy with it, and aside from the occasional "are you sure you want to leave", everything was fine.

The few co-workers I've known who moved on to a different company basically went the same way:

"I might potentially be finding a new job soon, someone should probably start learning the stuff I'm working on just in case"

"hey guys I'm not going to be in a few days next week because I got an interview"

"they really liked me and I'm going to be out a day next week for a second interview"

"I got accepted, my last day here is 3 weeks from now"

No hard feelings, and we usually had a going away lunch or similar on the last day they were with us.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[Maxo-Texas]

That's what I meant. What the rules of society are these days. They change fast these days.

I sure hope there will be a labor shortage as I suspect in 2016 to 2020.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[shentino]

At will doesn't mean you're free to burn bridges, even if your boss is the one dousing it with gasoline.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[CanHasDIY]

... Where, approximately, is "here?"

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[CanHasDIY]

Calm down with the language. OP does not exist. He's just a figment of Dice's imagination, and you have fed the corporate trolls.

I do wonder about that anytime I see an "ask Slashdot" posted by an AC, especially if it's job related.

No worries, even if it is a bot, somehow I doubt my response is the one they're looking for.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[Myopic]

What happens if an employee just quits and doesn't show up for his severance period? I mean, you don't have slavery right, so it's like the police are going to arrest the worker and escort him to work each morning for four months.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[Myopic]

Well... it actually does mean that. At-will employment doesn't mean that burning bridges is prudent, but it does mean you are free to do it.

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[bickerdyke]

First of all, the exact terms are negotiable, so there is still a bit leeway for both sides. (e.g. I've been able to shorten that time by two weeks by giving up one week of paid leave I still had) so usually both sides come to some kind of agreement.

But if they don't and you just don't show up anymore, It's a heavy breach of contract which would lead to a) an immedeate termination of your work contract, you'd lose your severance, and the first 6 weeks of unemployment help and can be sued for any damage

And probably worst of all: It will be mentioned in some way in your written recommendation which will make it much more difficult to find a new job in the future. (you're expected to include a complete papertrail of those that match your CV with each job application)

Re:2(Wrong) != Right

[Myopic]

That's a good answer, thank you, but I still have to wonder:

an immediate termination of your work contract, you'd lose your severance, and the first 6 weeks of unemployment help

What I really meant is what happens when an employee wants to leave for a new job. In that case, of course termination of the work contract is what you want, you wouldn't be getting any severance because you are quitting not getting fired, and you don't qualify for unemployment because you are going to a new job.

That leaves two things: the black mark of contract breach (a fair point) and legal liability (definitely a fair point). How often do people get sued? Would employers prefer to have the new employee they want, or prefer am employee that cleaves to severance periods?

How about...

[djupedal]

When it's not in your contract. Or you just won the lottery....

And you don't look forward to any decent references...

Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[Maxo-Texas]

If a large company is going to have a layoff they legally must give notice.

OTH, a friend of mine gave notice trying to be nice because she felt loyal to the company and was immediately fired.

Personally, I think if you give notice and they do not give you two weeks pay, then you should be able to be legally counted as fired. They can't both say you quit and ignore your two week period.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[CanHasDIY]

Personally, I think if you give notice and they do not give you two weeks pay, then you should be able to be legally counted as fired. They can't both say you quit and ignore your two week period.

I agree - if I give two weeks notice, that's me telling the employer that I'm quitting... in two weeks. If they decide to let me go before that period is up, then they are the ones who terminated employment, not me.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[MetalliQaZ]

I work at a large company that laid off ~400 this week. There was no prior notice given. I have never heard of any such labor law (in my state, at least).

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm

Basic Provisions/Requirements

WARN protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. Advance notice gives workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market. WARN also provides for notice to state dislocated worker units so that they can promptly offer dislocated worker assistance.

A covered plant closing occurs when a facility or operating unit is shut down for more than six months, or when 50 or more employees lose their jobs during any 30â'day period at a single site of employment. A covered mass layoff occurs when 50 to 499 employees are affected during any 30-day period at a single employment site (or for certain multiple related layoffs, during a 90-day period), if these employees represent at least 33 percent of the employerâ(TM)s workforce where the layoff will occur, and the layoff results in an employment loss for more than six months. If the layoff affects 500 or more workers, the 33 percent rule does not apply.

WARN does not apply to closure of temporary facilities, or the completion of an activity when the workers were hired only for the duration of that activity. WARN also provides for less than 60 days notice when the layoffs resulted from closure of a faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, or natural disaster.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[Tilgore Krout]

Very true. What most people forget is that when you are laid off you are normally given a couple of weeks or more notice, just that the company doesn't normally expect (or want) you to show up for those two weeks.

About 10 years ago I was laid off from a large company after being given my termination date about a year in advance. If I stayed on for the whole year (to help ease the transition of my job to several sites overseas) then I would get a rather large bonus for staying on.

Of course the last couple of months I was there I was bored to death since my job was already transitioned and I was just sitting on my thumbs in case something unexpected came up and they needed to consult me. I spent my days surfing the web, and doing job searches. When I had job interviews I told my boss and he gave me the time off to go to those. By the time of my exit interview I had a new job and reported to it that job that afternoon. I was able to pocket all of my severance and bonus for staying on until the bitter end, but in retrospect I wish I would have taken a little time off since I didn't take any vacation the previous year.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[lgw]

The WARN Act kicks in when a large company lays off more than a third of its workforce, more than 500 people, or closes a site, with certain exceptions. Large company layoffs are routinely either just under 500 people, or game the exceptions.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[Frobnicator]

OTH, a friend of mine gave notice trying to be nice because she felt loyal to the company and was immediately fired.

That is a very dangerous move for the company, especially if the friend wasn't going directly to another job.

The first and most obvious is the difference in unemployment payments. If you quit you generally don't qualify for unemployment checks. If you are fired you can get them.

Being fired means all kinds of legal requirements. Depending on location on the globe there can be many legal claims for things like wrongful termination for discrimination, retaliation, character defamation, and much much more. Firing somebody without a pile of paperwork supporting it can cost a company a fortune in legal fees. Beyond the unemployment paycheck already mentioned, other unemployment benefits kick in if a person was fired. When a person quits they may give up some of these, but when they are fired they may have different (usually more employee-friendly) rights to retirement plans, insurance plans, unused benefits, and so on.

While the boss may have had a thrill shouting "You can't quit, you're FIRED!" from a business and legal perspective that is a terrible decision.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[gb]

And in most juristictions you could sue them for wrongful dismissal - but most places you'd only be able to claim the 2 weeks worth of wages in compensation which is probably not worth the hassle. You might be able to get something for the damage of having been 'fired' on your future prospects, but I suspect that would require relevant case law to get anywhere. Still it's a cheapskate and mean spirited employer who tries it on just to save a couple of weeks of pay bill.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[Robert Goatse]

If a large company is going to have a layoff they legally must give notice.

OTH, a friend of mine gave notice trying to be nice because she felt loyal to the company and was immediately fired.

Personally, I think if you give notice and they do not give you two weeks pay, then you should be able to be legally counted as fired. They can't both say you quit and ignore your two week period.

I had a co-worker get fired 5 minutes before their shift was up. Stay classy, boss! I had one boss say I *had* to stay for 30 days, and I'm fairly certain I would have been terminated before then. Also who is to say the employer you're going to work for would want to wait 30 days?

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[CanHasDIY]

In my experience it seems less of a "trying to save a couple weeks of pay" issue, and more of a "vindictive asshole boss" sort of thing.

I pissed them off by quitting, and they reacted angrily. So it goes.

Re:Layoffs have legal notice requirements

[Maxo-Texas]

Only if you get paid for the notice period. If you don't get paid for the two weeks, you were fired.

Just think of it as a courtesy.

[seebs]

Giving notice is a way to give people time to wrap things up -- make sure your stuff is handed off to someone else if needed, start looking for a replacement, or whatever. It's done to be courteous, and to make things less troublesome for other people. I was in a small department where someone just suddenly left one day; out of the blue, email telling us he got a job he likes better and is gone now. Which sort of sucked, because we suddenly didn't have enough people for the workload, and we'd had things like vacations and whatnot planned, and everyone had to scuttle around madly making up for things with no notice, and any recovery plan (like finding a new guy) had to happen on top of suddenly dealing with this. Which sucked. If he'd given us two weeks' notice, we could have done stuff like ask him to update/annotate work in progress so we knew what was happening, and started looking for people, and had time to discuss who was rescheduling what to make up the hours.

So it's a nice thing to do, and if you don't do it, people might be mad at you. Sometimes that might be okay. Sometimes you know they'll be mad at you regardless. Sometimes you just can't deal with someone or something a day longer. In which case, well. You leave.

Think of it like any other courtesy. It's there to make things more pleasant for other people. Usually, things like that are a good strategy because they make other people like you better, which makes them more likely to help you if an opportunity to do so arises. If I run into a job that I know a bunch of my former coworkers could do, and I know a lot of people are looking for work, I might try to put some of them in touch with the prospective employer, right? Well, not the guy who ditched out without warning, obviously.

As with all social niceties, it's somewhat cultural, and somewhat role-dependent. The importance of giving notice is wildly different between, say, the sole sysadmin at a company, and one of a team of thirty junior sysadmins, none of whom ever "own" any project, but who are just going through a series of small assigned tasks which are always done or handed off by the end of the day.

Re:Just think of it as a courtesy.

[icknay]

And don't get wrapped around the axle on the cost-benefit for the other party. Your life will be more pleasant by not being an asshole. Often you will need to do things that benefit someone else ... but really you benefit in the end, just in your own psyche.

Re:Just think of it as a courtesy.

[longk]

I'm not sure if this a good thing. Working with the idea that someone will give you notice when they quit their job makes companies lazy. For the company this means trouble when someone gets hit by a truck. For the employee this means trouble if they get seriously sick or are otherwise suddenly unable to work, yet their company expects them to do some kind of "hand over". Companies might actually get their shit together if they had to pro-actively plan for people suddenly leaving.

Re:Just think of it as a courtesy.

[seebs]

No, it's a good thing. I could, indeed, keep someone else prepped to handle my stuff all the time. Doing so would take at least 20% of my time. Forever. Is it really a good bet? It's not. The fact is, I'm not hit by trucks very often. It's just not cost-effective to try to keep everything in that state. So we accept the risk that things will be expensively bad in the very rare cases where people are suddenly incapacitated, and we expect people to keep them from being expensively bad when there's no need for a departure to be sudden.

Yes, it "makes companies lazy", but only in the sense that laziness is one of the great virtues of programmers. There is no meaningful way for companies to "get their shit together" that would reduce the social benefit of giving reasonable notice, which would not cost much more than it saved.

Even if no one ever gave notice, the current practices would still be pretty much the best choice. Just think about it: Average length of employment is way over a week. A constant time sink during your entire employment is way more expensive than one large hit when you leave.

It's ok under certain circumstances

[johnny cashed]

Like when you are saying "fuck you guys" as you are walking out the door and don't expect any references from them ever. Not recommended, but sometimes cathartic. Would be considered "non professional"

Not about employer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about your coworkers. Did you leave them a mess to clean up? Leave with some critical knowledge? Then good luck getting a reference from them. Or if they move to a different company that you want to work at, good luck getting hired. Reputation spreads, leave a good one. Of course if something is crazy than use your own judgment. Or talk to your coworkers.

Layoff...

[MachineShedFred]

I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired

It depends on the size of the layoff; see: the WARN Act. I was once given a paid 60 days absence before the actual layoff because they were shuttering the division. Gave me enough time to get another job, and get home from my first day of work to find a FedEx envelope with my final severance check.

That's how you downsize with class. Or, by being legal.

Re:Layoff...

[Tex Bravado]

There can indeed be a difference between being walked out on the spot, just as you've been notified; and actually being no longer employed.
It can be hard to tell the difference emotionally as you carry your box of stuff out to your car, though.
I was walked out.
In a previous job, two positions were consolidated into one, and I got it. The previous occupant of the other stayed to help me come up to speed, and clearly hated every day of it. Now *that* is what I call professional courtesy. When I later left that company, I gave 2 weeks notice, and worked to the last day, past the last hour, and missed my 'going away' lunch, too boot. Now *that* is what I call silly.

Re:Layoff...

[R3d M3rcury]

I actually got a six-month notice. The company had been bought by another company in Arizona. I didn't want to move to Arizona. So they said that I'd be out in six months. They even offered a $10,000 bonus if I stayed the six months.

I stayed. When my last day came, they gave me my last check with the bonus and vacation time and everything else. I deposited said check, took a nice two week vacation, came back and there was a message on my answering machine from these folks saying, "Hey, are you available to do some contract work?"

Re-hirable

[Endophage]

These days, while a future employer may not check your references, it's not uncommon for them to at least call you previous employer and ask if you're "re-hirable". It's one of the few questions, other than simply confirming that you worked there and your position, that they can ask. Failing to give 2 weeks normally renders you not re-hirable by the company you ditched and raises serious questions for the company considering employing you.

Also worth considering, if you're leaving a job because there's a better offer or it's just the right time in your life to take a risk (I left my last job to join a 4 person startup), you may be back working with your previous employer in the future, At my last company, there was one guy who had left and returned 3 times.

Re:Re-hirable

[jbengt]

Leaving and returning usually guarantees that you will be one of the first to be let go in case of a slowdown or restructuring.

Re:Re-hirable

[Zynder]

Not if you're in a union ;)

Re:Re-hirable

[Endophage]

It depends on the industry, your skills, and why you left. Nobody is going to think badly of you if you leave to gain a post-graduate degree. In that situation the company may be very happy to hire you back, and keep you, as you have strengthened their talent pool.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[emag]

Where a buddy of mine works, there's a tiny clause in the employment contract stating employees aren't eligible for re-hire if they don't give three months' notice. It's completely insane, and they missed out on getting a new COO because a decade ago the guy worked there & just gave a standard 2 weeks... And it wasn't discovered until they'd made the decision to hire him...

Places my wife has worked just have a blanket policy that they won't re-hire someone.

Rule #1 Never Burn Bridges

[Hillgiant]

Rule #2 See Rule #1.

You never know when you might see these people again or in what context. Even if you hate their guts, don't burn bridges.

Re:Rule #1 Never Burn Bridges

[HornWumpus]

I saw a person I used to work with, when interviewing. I cut the interview short. Told them if they were the kind of place that hires him, I wasn't interested. Greazy bastard doing the interview acted like I'd just taken a dump on his desk.

Burned that bridge _before_ I crossed it. Dodged a bullet.

_Never_ burn any bridges you've got a period of work associated with. Obvious hell holes can be opportunities for fun and mischief.

Re:Rule #1 Never Burn Bridges

[shentino]

Corrollary: Even if your boss is the one dousing it with gasoline.

A European perspective

[Teun]

I know the article starts with "Here in the US" so European stories could be off topic but will also bring some perspective.
Earlier this year our head of maintenance announced he was leaving in 3 months time and it was greatly appreciated by the management.
It was very professional of him (that other word in the article) and gave us time to look for a replacement.

Obviously it helped he was going to a totally different industry and he could not possibly be accused of helping the competition.

Besides, a typical European contract has a similar notice for both employer and employee.

Re:A European perspective

[Manfre]

In the US, companies treat people more like interchangeable parts, not as people.

Re:A European perspective

[jez9999]

Besides, a typical European contract has a similar notice for both employer and employee.

Yeah, to give another European perspective: I'm in the UK and I've never had an IT employment contract without a minimum notice period. They generally start at 2 weeks for either side, rising to a month's notice after the sucessful completion of a trial period.

Re:A European perspective

[Carewolf]

Where I come from everybody gives 1 to 3 months notice. If you are a manager or engineer, you will always have at least 3 month notice, and that goes both ways. Of course you can always not show up for work one day, but then they can withhold your last paycheck and unspend vacation.

Re:A European perspective

[mrbester]

Plus, it is illegal to give a negative reference in UK.

Re:A European perspective

[ArsonSmith]

What US do you live in? Certainly not the one I'm in where I've been treated well at every job I've left except one.

Re:A European perspective

[xaxa]

Yeah, to give another European perspective: I'm in the UK and I've never had an IT employment contract without a minimum notice period. They generally start at 2 weeks for either side, rising to a month's notice after the sucessful completion of a trial period.

Similarly for me. In the public sector in the UK the periods (for me) are a bit longer: min(years_served, 4) weeks from the start, and min(years_served, 4) + 1 weeks from the employer. Those on the higher pay grades (mostly managers, but also the senior developers) replace 4 with 12. This is normal for most jobs, AFAIK. A quick search shows Asda's shop staff have a 2-week notice period.

Unfortunately the UK now has lots of zero-hours contracts, but that's another issue...

Re:A European perspective

[Carrot007]

> Plus, it is illegal to give a negative reference in UK.

This is simply not true.

Most companies do not go into the negative just to stay on the safe side, they just stick to the facts.

However "X worked here beetween Y and Z and was dismissed for gross misconduct" does not give any specifics and is often used.

I would however argue that it is still negative.

Re:A European perspective

[Myopic]

That's really stellar, but you shouldn't pretend that you think your experience is typical.

Re:A European perspective

[ArsonSmith]

Typical, yes. A crossed the board perhaps not. The only people considered interchangeable are those that are. Get out and fix that within your self.

Re:A European perspective

[Myopic]

It's not typical because most people are interchangeable. Even we programmers (if that is also what you do) are interchangeable. Sure, I know my work and the code better than a new guy would, but my boss would have no problem finding another Java jockey.

People who aren't interchangeable have the word "necessary" or "essential" in their employment contract -- as in "this employee is necessary for business operations". I don't have either of those words in mine, nor do most people who have employment contracts, and a large majority of workers don't have employment contracts at all.

Only a half a percent or so of workers are not interchangeable. Not everyone can fit into that half a percent so I think it's a little disingenuous to tell people to fix that within themselves.

Re:A European perspective

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The "inter" being a contraction for "internationally"?

Basic labour laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian, I am amazed that most US states don't have basic labour laws. I seems like such a basic human right that people should be given notice of employment termination, or at least pay in lieu of notice. Also seems like a no brainer that breaks and leave should be provided. Same goes for employee obligations.

Re:Basic labour laws.

[longk]

This kind of thing works both ways, at least here in Netherlands. How is it a "human right" to have to suffer your old job for another month when you have a new one lined up. Or worse, having to miss an opportunity because the notice period is too long. As an employee I have nothing but disgust for these types or rules.

Re:Basic labour laws.

[TranquilVoid]

I don't know if 'rights' thinking is the best way of framing it. These laws are about regulating the way people interact so employers don't screw over their employees and similarly employees don't screw over employers (acknowledging that often the power imbalance favours the employer).

Re:Basic labour laws.

[Z00L00K]

Same thing as for me living in Sweden - but our labour laws may be a bit extreme for some.

There's a cultural difference too - in the US it's not as common with pride in your work, you do your work and leave when the time is up. Getting fired means that if you aren't removed from the premises there's a risk of sabotage. The periods we have here in Sweden - one to three months if you are the one giving notice is there to allow you to hand over necessary knowledge to your workmates. If the employer gives notice it stretches from one month to one year depending on various factors. You and the employer can of course agree on a shorter time - usually with money being paid out instead.

Re:Basic labour laws.

[Myopic]

That's a "basic labo(u)r law"? In my opinion "basic labor laws" are workplace safety, honesty in hiring, and union rights. I don't think of notification periods as a good idea, much less "basic". I totally agree that workers need and deserve protection in harsh capitalist systems but in my opinion the way to do that is to provide for unemployment payments, which is what I would suggest when you say "or at least pay in lieu of notice".

It's A Business Transaction

[Bob9113]

Leaving your company, whether by your choice or theirs, and whether amicable or hostile, is a business transaction. It should be treated as such.

They have some value that they will get out of concessions you make, and you will get value out of some things that they offer. There is some extent to which you can trust them to be honest, and some extent to which you may believe they will be generous. The corporation has those same perceptions of you. You're both adults, sort of; you can have a frank discussion about the matter without getting hurt or angry.

So talk to them about it. Start with this question; "Does the company have a standard exit package under these circumstances?" Now you're not forcing the issue, and you're signalling your boss to think in business terms. Then you just talk through what each of you thinks is fair.

I've walked out with no notice...

[The Lesser Powered O]

I was working for a startup. We were in the midst of some regulatory and financial problems that were rather public. The president of the company asked what I though of a press release the new owners wanted put out. I told him that I didn't work for people that were that disingenuous.

As I was walking out the door 20 minutes later, I dropped my letter of resignation on his desk.

So I guess it was actually 20 minutes notice...

Re:I've walked out with no notice...

[gooman]

I was once called into a meeting and told directly to lie to my clients.
I politely explained I could not do that and watched my manager's face turn red as he raised his voice and insisted I would.
The next day I walked out. The company had already bounced a few paychecks so I felt there was no obligation on my part to offer a two week notice.

After I walked out, my (former) manager began calling my client list and started bad mouthing me for my "unprofessional" conduct.
I found this out because later that day I received several calls at home from clients asking me to keep them in mind when I landed my next job.
Two clients even offered me employment. Most of my clients followed me to the next company I went to work for.

Years later, my former manager found me at a trade show where he walked up and directed a few insults my way.
After he walked away someone else remarked, "What a douchebag!" I just smiled and changed the topic.

I've regretted a few choices I've made in my career, but I've never once regretted my decision to walk out.

Re:I've walked out with no notice...

[Z00L00K]

Being fair and honest and willing to admit mistakes works better in the long term. A reputation for being honest won't kill you but it will keep you in business. In the long run it is what counts - and the day when you make a mistake it's easier to forgive and move on.

Being less than honest - it can of course provide big bucks, but it can also cause a bad reputation. Just consider the following quote:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

Re:I've walked out with no notice...

[Havokmon]

I had a very similar boss, a CIO, who was just a complete asshat on a regular basis. An old sales guy with no working knowledge of IT. Just a buddy of the CEO.

After I had an awesome weekend, I had to hear him kicking and screaming about me turning away a video conference installer. Sorry, 'PBX Upgrade' with no information is not 'Video Conferencing Installation' - and oh, did I mention we were a credit card processor and I ran everything including PCI Compliance? We didn't even integrate AD with Corp.
I walked out that day. I do wish I waited until I had another job (I had been interviewing and never planned to work there Full Time, but they 'backdoored' me when they found out my other FT Company was sold). It was 2008 and not 2 weeks later the country took a dump :( But I wasn't about to have that dumbass ruin my InfoSec career and for the rest of my life hear, "Oh you worked for [Company X with public breach]?" No way in hell.

Kind of a timely topic

[jdkc4d]

At my current employer, they require 4 weeks notice. This gives them the time to repost your position, start interviews etc. For much of my time here, when in a position that I enjoy, I have felt that 4 weeks, though long is ok. You never know where you are going to end up in, in life and having the ability to go back to a place you have worked before might happen. On the other hand, I have also been in a few positions that I did not like, where I have been treated unfairly, and have many times contemplated being able to give less notice when changing positions or jobs. I think you need to ask yourself what are the benefits of doing either. Clearly if your new position comes with a higher salary, you probably want to move quickly, but are you going to be screwing over your current employer? What about your coworkers? What about friends you have made?

Re:Kind of a timely topic

[precisenz]

We in NZ, the land of the NSA-loving GCSB, there is an amount of time agreed up front, most commonly linked to either the time it would take to replace you, or your pay cycle. If you give notice, and leave early, there is no requirement for the company to pay your notice period as you effectively abandoned the role. If they company decides to walk you, they still have to pay you in lieu of notice. Either way, you still get any wages due, plus any holiday pay owing.

Want some fun ?

[Yoda222]

It's just 3 months if you are in France.

Re:Want some fun ?

[Andtalath]

Varies in sweden dependant on the contract.
But three months mutual is the standard.

Re:Want some fun ?

[christophe]

I resigned in 2006 and was forced to stay 3 months in a boring job (coding ABAP on SAP R/3) while my new boss was waiting for me. My future ex-employer did not really try to find my replacement before the end of the second month. It's difficult to "negociate" a shorter préavis while being professionnal (it's a small world). Just going away without reason could cost you 3 months salary IIRC.

On the other side, a French firm cannot fire you at will, it's much much more complicated (Americans never understand it, and I partly agree).

That's a pain in the neck while searching for a job or an employee, because nowadays most jobs are to be filled NOW, not 3 months later, and in the current job market nobody would resign without the next job signed.

Re:Want some fun ?

[Myopic]

Does that imply that employers are willing to wait three months between hire date and start date, or does it imply that people quit without having a new job lined up?

Apples and Oranges

[selectiontimeout]

At least in the US, most companies, out of fear of getting sued, will only confirm dates of employment. Giving a 2-week notice is a really professional courtesy to your fellow coworkers, to facilitate any transition of work.

It's not all about you

[93 Escort Wagon]

Even if you don't care about the reference... How about showing your coworkers a little common courtesy? They're the ones who are going to be picking up the extra work you're no longer doing - give them some time to plan.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[MightyMartian]

We're pretty afraid to answer that one. The stock answer usually is "It would depend on the position that was available." Again, when you're interpreting references in this litigious age, you have to make your answers carefully, and as the potential employer you have to carefully interpret the reference that your given.

Here in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

My job has a contractual notice period of 3 months. If I hand my notice in I am expected to work a further 3 months before I can leave, this is so I have sufficient time to hand over my responsibilities and instruct any replacement.

Counter to that if the firm sacked me without notifying me before hand of any problems with my work I could take them to a tribunial and seek compensation or reimployment.

Guess socialist Europe does things differently from the colonies.

Re:Here in the UK...

[longk]

3 months to hand over responsibilities? What do you do? Design rocket engines?

Re:Here in the UK...

[Jedi Alec]

1 month for the moron boss to try and find out what it actually is you do all day. Another month for HR to get their shit together and file all the necessary paperwork. 28 days for the hiring process.

1 rainy afternoon for the actual handing over of the responsibilities.

Some problems with just walking out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving without notice is not necessarily a good idea.

1. You risk burning bridges. OK, you might not want to go back and work for that employer again; but you never know what's around the corner.

2. References. Depending on the exact legal requirements where you are, an employer is generally allowed to give a true reference (even if it is bad, provided that it can be substantiated). In particular, they are potentially allowed to state that you would not be eligible for further employment with them.

3. Liability. If you don't give the notice specified in your contract of employment (or default contract according to local law), then your employer can sue you for any direct losses. E.g. if you are scheduled to do a specific job for a client, and you leave without notice, forcing your employer to find an contractor to replace you; then you could be sued for the costs of finding and employing the contractor (minus any salary that you would have earned). This would only be the case in some specialist fields not in a "commodity" job.

4. Bonuses and other payments. Your employer may have agreed to pay you for unused vacation time, etc. If you leave without notice, you potentially forfeit these discretionary payments.

5. Salary. If you give notice, while your employer is entitled to ask you to stop work and go home, they remain obliged to pay you for your notice period (or the contractural/default period if less) - i.e. don't expect to get 6 months paid, by giving 6 months, if your contract is for 2 weeks.

1 month for my layoff

[luciano.moretti]

When I got laid off, I got one month notice, plus severance, plus vacation payout. When I've voluntarily changed jobs I've given 2 weeks notice. Note that when you give your 2 weeks, be ready for them to escort you off the property. People used to joke any time someone cleaned their desk and took home excess personal stuff that they were about to give notice.

Layoffs are different than "Terminated with cause". If you're terminated with cause you shouldn't expect to get a reference anyway.

Re:1 month for my layoff

[Myopic]

People used to joke any time someone cleaned their desk and took home excess personal stuff that they were about to give notice.

Yeah my previous company got bought out, so I started to watch for "signs" of a downward spiral. Then we got bought again about a year later, and I started to watch job boards for new openings. Then they laid off 20 people (out of about 120), and that day I cleaned all my personal belongings out of my desk. I felt like that action was visually obvious, but I guess most bosses don't pay close attention to how many family photos are on an employee's desk.

Starting the next morning I completely stopped doing any work and spent 100% of my time looking for new work. I took phone interviews during work hours and started no new work. I edited my resume at work, kept copies on my computer desktop, and printed copies on the company printer. I openly spoke to the people in nearby cubicles about new jobs. They called me crazy, wasn't I afraid of being fired? Afraid!? No! If I got fired then I'd get unemployment!

Eventually I started getting job offers so I knew I was golden; I took a day off work to travel for an interview; quitting was eminent. I passed on some offers and eventually got a really great offer so I knew I could quit.

I waited one more day... because the next day was my birthday! I came in and my new pseudo-boss called me into his office to talk about new work items. I said, golly, yeah, all that new work sounds great and all, but I won't be here much longer. Later that day I quit to my real boss and he asked me how much time I was giving him. I replied "Up to two weeks, but I don't have any work going on right now" (remember, I'd stopped taking new work six weeks earlier). He was a chap: he said they'd pay me for the whole two weeks, and I could go any time I wanted. I coasted out of there a little less than two weeks later.

The question was, why did my boss treat me so nicely? I found out a month later when I heard he himself had quit. He was a planner, like me, so obviously he was planning his exit when I quit. He gave me a favor on the company dime because he felt similarly to how I felt. Man, the day I quit was one of my days of self actualization.

Not a matter of curtisoy.

[Xeno man]

Giving notice is not just a matter of professionalism but legally required both ways depending on state and country. When your fired or laid off, you get 2 weeks severance pay. That is your notice. When you quit, you also need to give 2 weeks notice to allow your employer to find a replacement or shift responsibilities. If you just up and quit and that causes the company to lose money, they can successfully sue you to reclaim those losses. Now most service positions will have a hard time showing a court of law then when you quit your McDonalds job that McDonalds suffered any sort of loss because you weren't there, so most businesses won't go after former employees.

If you choose to, it boils down to the type of job you have. If you are just a cog in a machine that doesn't respect you, do what is best for you. Did you know that some people actually feel guilty about this type of shit?

Re:Not a matter of curtisoy.

[Registered Coward v2]

Giving notice is not just a matter of professionalism but legally required both ways depending on state and country. When your fired or laid off, you get 2 weeks severance pay. That is your notice. When you quit, you also need to give 2 weeks notice to allow your employer to find a replacement or shift responsibilities. If you just up and quit and that causes the company to lose money, they can successfully sue you to reclaim those losses. Now most service positions will have a hard time showing a court of law then when you quit your McDonalds job that McDonalds suffered any sort of loss because you weren't there, so most businesses won't go after former employees.

Actually, most places are 'at will' employment and either side can end it at any time, without notice. In addition, severance pay is generally not required but many companies offer it in exchange for an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination. Unless you have a specific contract to perform for a specified time period you have no legal obligation to give notice. It's not a smart move, but that is a different story.

Personally, whenever I've quit I've always given plenty of notice so my employer could handle the transition. Then again, except for the one time i got laid off i've always worked for decent companies who treated me right and with whom I wanted to maintain a good relationship. One boss even told me that leaving is not viewed negatively but as an opportunity to get new experiences that would be valuable to them in the future; they even have an alumni association ot stay in touch with us.

Re:Whenever you know they won't give you a referen

[intermodal]

Except when you get asked in interviews if you have ever quit without notice.

That said, there are circumstances when immediate departure is necessary.

Notice may be in the form of two+ weeks pay

[pipedwho]

If your are being layed off/fired your employer is still required to give you 'notice'. However, they may opt to pay you for the duration of the termination notice period in lieu of requiring you to keep working during that time.

IMO, it is far more useful to be out looking for work for a few weeks than working for your soon-to-be-ex employer over that time. (You're still being paid.)

So no, an employer escorting you to the door with what seems like no notice, is still going to pay you for the termination period (at a minimum of two weeks or more depending on your contract and state laws) plus any obligated redundancy requirements. You just won't be 'working' on their premises.

Give just enough time to organize farewell dinner

[kawabago]

My boss heard Tuesday morning that Friday would be my last day. He managed to organize lunch on Friday for 150 people from across the country. Of course that was more than twenty years ago when my medical prognosis was death within three months. Obviously that didn't happen.

Just get on with your life

[sjbe]

I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired.

I've seen it happen from time to time. Happened to my brother in law actually - he got several weeks notice and severance. Unusual I'll admit but not unheard of. The problem for companies giving notice to someone is that some people don't take it very well and cause problems. I had an employee quite just a few days ago and quietly sabotaged a bunch of stuff as a parting "gift". (nothing really destructive, just time consuming to undo) Most people would be sad to be given notice but would behave like adults. The problem is you can't tell who the ones are who will take it REALLY badly are ahead of time.

Once you're reached the point where you know it's time to leave, under what circumstances would you just up and walk out or give only a short notice?"

If you are leaving because you can't stand the place and there are no contractual or financial constraints on your behavior then just leave and get on with your life

There are only two reasons to give two weeks notice. 1) You are leaving under amicable terms, have the time to spare and out of courtesy want to ease the transition for your former employer OR 2) You need the cash and can't afford to walk out now. Two weeks is almost never enough time to really be of any meaningful benefit to an employer and many employers will escort you out of the building the moment you put in notice anyway. Unless you had a really close and long relationship with your boss/colleagues then you probably aren't going to be asking for a reference in the future anyway so what is to be gained by giving notice? Maybe it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside but the feeling isn't going to be reciprocated in many cases. The business will continue without you and in most cases you giving notice just gives both parties a couple of uncomfortable weeks together.

be prepared

[Anonymous Coward]

if you give notice the company might turn around and fire you on the spot so don't give notice if you need to be employed during the notice period. it wouldn't hurt to spend an hour getting familiar with your state's employment laws

Burn all the bridges!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Burn all bridges
2. ?????
3. Profit

http://i.qkme.me/64fz.jpg

Try three months

[Mascot]

Where I live, three months is the norm. The law stipulates from one to three months, depending on how many years you've been working at the same place, but I have yet to work anywhere that operates with anything but three months notice after the six month trial period.

Re:It Depends

[HornWumpus]

30 days? If they want 30 days they can _PAY_ and I'll work late hours for them. Very few new jobs will wait a month. What you are suggesting basically implies quitting before you find a new job.

Hypothetically: They should have thought of how dependent they were last round of raises. My loyalty, such as it is, is now to my new employer.

In my experience 30 days would rarely be enough anyhow. Better to leave them an email address/phone number and actually give them 24 hour turnaround answers. Not instant answers; from home. Let them suck on their problem for a little while.

I like the easy questions.

[sgt scrub]

...under what circumstances would you just up and walk out or give only a short notice?

When I have enough in the bank not to have to work again.

No reference, no big deal

[sjbe]

As an employer, we don't give references for people who don't give two weeks' notice.

Big deal. Most HR pros will advise you not to say anything more than confirming that the person did work there and for how long and possibly in what sort of general capacity they were employed. Giving a performance review is generally considered a bad idea as it provides no benefit to the former employer but can result in lawsuits if they say the wrong thing. You can of course make exceptions if you like but mostly by not giving references you are just being petty.

It's just common courtesy.

So do you give them two weeks notice when you terminate their employment? That would be quite courteous. Or does the courtesy only get extended if it favors you?

Re:No reference, no big deal

[Rockoon]

So do you give them two weeks notice when you terminate their employment? That would be quite courteous. Or does the courtesy only get extended if it favors you?

People often forget that in most countries of the world (including America) that the situation is entirely asymmetric.

If you quit without notice or cause, the employer is entitled to no compensation.
If you are fired without notice or cause, the employer is then liable for some compensation. In many cases that liability is for a lot longer than 2 weeks (13+ in America - we call it unemployment insurance, and employers do pay increased costs for every one of their former employees that is drawing)

So lets not simply assume that the "courtesy" should so simply extend both ways. If you want to justify why it should, then lets hear it.

notice of intent to give notice?

[technosaurus]

Does anyone have a good template for giving notice in such a way that if the employer immediately fires you, they can't say you "quit" in order to deny benefits?

Re:notice of intent to give notice?

[Nexzus]

A CC of your resignation notice to your personal email.

I can see them trying to say "but he sent that email out *after* I fired him".

The obvious retort is "so you let a terminated employee access his computer and email account *after* you fired him?"

"But he could have forged the email..."

Hopefully by then, common sense would prevail.

Re:notice of intent to give notice?

[GuB-42]

What's the point of firing you ? You will quit anyways.
Anyways, the burden of proof is on your employer. So unless you clearly write "I quit now", sign it and date it, if he decides to fire you, then it's just that, he fires you.

Re:notice of intent to give notice?

[Slashdot Parent]

Does anyone have a good template for giving notice in such a way that if the employer immediately fires you, they can't say you "quit" in order to deny benefits?

What benefits would they be denying you if they immediately terminated your employment?

Re:notice of intent to give notice?

[Myopic]

I don't understand the hypothetical situation you describe. You did quit. Why would they need to fire you or try to lie to say you quit?

Don't forget your coworkers

[grasshoppa]

Let's not forget your coworkers, and their importance in future employment opportunities. You leave unexpectedly, it's not management that has to put up with the sudden departure issues, it's your coworkers.

These same coworkers in the coming years will be the ones that remember you when time comes to look for new employees at their different jobs.

Don't burn the bridge

[HockeyPuck]

Fine, worst case, so you're really pissed off. Your mgmt has royally screwed you and all your coworkers hate your guts.

Take the high ground. You never know if one day you run into them at some other company you being partners, vendors, whatever, and you don't want their last memory of you being the time you nailed your letter of resignation to the front door of the building.

This is probably not the case. So if you have some coworkers that you are ok with, giving 2 weeks notice means you aren't screwing them over.

By now there's probably 100 posts saying the same thing, " Don't be a dick. Give your two weeks. If they walk you out, so be it, who cares if it's corporate policy or not. In two weeks start your new job and move on with your life."

What you do to them, you'll do to me

[sstern]

If I hire you, I fully expect you to act honorably and give notice. If you say "I can start tomorrow" and I know you're currently employed, it's a big red flag that you'll do the same thing to me one day.

Burning bridges.

[MaWeiTao]

Not giving notice is a good way to burn your bridges, even when you're leaving a bad environment. You're not just leaving an impression on management, but your coworkers as well. Even if those coworkers are sympathetic you'd still be dumping your workload on them.

One of my prior employers was terrible. Employees were overworked and under-appreciated and managers were impulsive, emotional and outright incompetent. I was brought on to help improve processes but within weeks it was evident the owners were paying lip service to getting anything fixed. Over the 6 months it took me to secure another job I toyed incessantly with how I'd handle my departure.

I ended up giving these guys nearly a month notice. There was a lot to be done and I didn't want to just dump all this crap on my team. I decided there was no value in venting, in pointing out all the problems there. It would never register and they'd just see me as disgruntled making my viewpoint even easier to dismiss. This way I left with a ton of contacts which may or may not be valuable in the future. At the very least, I don't have people going around behind my back giving me a bad name.

Two weeks?

[exxaminer]

Wow..in mya country you're obligated to give two MONTHS Notice! It's a hell to change jobs or get new employees.. So freaking slow..

"At will"

[geeknotnerd]

Where I live, by law employment is "at will", meaning the employer or employee may legally terminate the relationship at any time without cause. That said, I think that being employed, particularly full-time, implies that you will be employed continuously until that employment relationship is terminated. One of the protections that a wise employer offers is that nobody is summarily terminated without some continuance of their salary - two weeks, for example. One of the implied benefits to the employer is that you'll give notice before walking out. In my mind, an employer that furloughs its employees, breaking the string of continuous employment, breaks those implied agreements. An employer that simply dumps employees on the street without continuance makes it so that it is in the employee's short-term financial interest not to give any notice unless they have the ability to immediately start at their new position. However, if you walk out on your current employer without notice, that is definitely something that the new employer would take note of. The bridge you're burning may not be just with your previous employer.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[vux984]

It's completely insane, and they missed out on getting a new COO because a decade ago the guy worked there & just gave a standard 2 weeks... And it wasn't discovered until they'd made the decision to hire him...

If neither party wishes to enforce that clause of the contract, and they both agree to ignore it, what would stop them from proceeding with the hire?

Absolutely nothing.

The fact is the company wished to enforce that clause more than they wanted to hire him. The contract did NOT force their hand, it was entirely their choice. Bottom line: the company your buddy works for is managed by idiots.

Places my wife has worked just have a blanket policy that they won't re-hire someone.

That's mostly a statement that:
  "Look, if you leave, we're not your safety net while you look for a better job, we'll find someone else who is looking to stay with us."

This is fairly common, especially at, I'll call them less desirable "tier 2" employers that get used like safety nets by the employees. The employee gets a job, works for a while, finds a better job at a "tier 1" company, loses it a few months later, and then retreats back to their original employer. A few months later they do it again. And its not just one employee doing it, but a chunk of their work force.

In reality, the policy is selectively enforced. If they really want someone, they'll hire them, policy or no.

Burning bridges

[sjbe]

I think if you don't give notice then it raises red flags for your new employer.

If you already have a new employer then why would it raise flags? They've already hired you and (probably) have no idea what sort of circumstances you plan to leave your old employer under unless you have informed them and that would be pretty dumb to do.

But industries are so small that why would you want to burn bridges?

Sometimes bridges are worth burning. Not a good idea as a general practice I'll concur but if someone came to me and said I'll triple your salary, you'll work with nice people and you get to work 20 hours a week I'd consider burning a few bridges for that. I've also had the "pleasure" of working for a few real douchebags and those are bridges I wouldn't mind burning either.

Re:Burning bridges

[linear a]

If you already have a new employer then why would it raise flags? They've already hired you and (probably) have no idea what sort of circumstances you plan to leave your old employer under unless you have informed them and that would be pretty dumb to do.

Sometimes bridges are worth burning. Not a good idea as a general practice I'll concur but if someone came to me and said I'll triple your salary, you'll work with nice people and you get to work 20 hours a week I'd consider burning a few bridges for that. I've also had the "pleasure" of working for a few real douchebags and those are bridges I wouldn't mind burning either.

1 If I'm the hiring person and you don't give your current employer notice then I'll assume that you are a snake and will do the same to me later, regardless of whether I would need knowledge transition at that point. You're talking a professional (knowledge) position here, right? 2 How sure are you that you won't ever want the old job as a reference? I've been surprised at how well some older references have worked for me.

Re:Burning bridges

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a good idea as a general practice I'll concur but if someone came to me and said I'll triple your salary, you'll work with nice people and you get to work 20 hours a week I'd consider burning a few bridges for that.

Why would that require burning bridges though? Would a hiring bonus be conditional on writing a nasty letter to your previous boss? I would expect worst case scenario the new job requires you to start immediately, so you don't have the option of giving a 2 week notice, but you can still be somewhat gracious in your exit. "I'm sorry for the lack of notice, but their offer was too good to pass up and gave no flexibility." Most people would understand than at least why you did it, instead of assuming the worst. Some vindictive jealous types might not take it well, but they probably wouldn't have handled you quitting with notice well either.

Re:Burning bridges

[kilodelta]

Same thing here. I've worked for some real mental midgets. However there was one place of employment where I gave my notice and they tried to work me like a dog those last two weeks. It came down to the day before my last day. I'm out in Massachusetts implementing something I and the company controller BOTH knew wouldn't work. When it didn't work I called my boss, explained what happened and told him to have a nice life.

Re:Burning bridges

[sjbe]

Why would that require burning bridges though?

If someone has invested a lot in training you and you jump ship to go somewhere else that could result in some burned bridges. I've seen it happen more than a few times. I've seen sales people jump ship and take customers with them when they get a better deal. That rarely results in fond feelings.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

So if I've already given notice, and I select a start date within 2 weeks from now, you'll assume I'm a snake, with absolutely no evidence of snakism?

One job I left recently I walked out on. I wouldn't ask them for a reference. They were evil, which is why I walked out. I have references before and after that one, and nobody seemed to care. I only ask for references from people I trust to give a good one.

Re:Burning bridges

[ShanghaiBill]

Both employee and employer should always leave bridges intact. You never know what the future will be. I have re-hired several "boomerangs" that left, found out the grass wasn't greener over the fence, and asked to come back. Unlike other new hires, they require no training, and often return with a new attitude, and new perspectives. I have also had many good referrals from ex-employes. Every summer we even have an "alumni reunion BBQ" in a local park to keep the network alive. Employee turnover is a fact of life. Treating it as a betrayal is idiotic. Just accept it and make the most of it.

Re:Burning bridges

[thetoadwarrior]

If you assume they'll do the same then surely that means you'll be as bad as the previous employer and deserve. You could always try to be better.

Re:Burning bridges

[The Rizz]

If someone has invested a lot in training you and you jump ship to go somewhere else that could result in some burned bridges.

That depends on how soon after the training you jump ship. If you complete the training and immediately go elsewhere, yeah - they'll assume you were taking advantage of them. If you worked for a couple of years before jumping ship, that just means you felt underpaid or under-appreciated, or got offered a much better position elsewhere, which are the normal, more benign reasons for leaving.

I've seen sales people jump ship and take customers with them when they get a better deal. That rarely results in fond feelings.

That's because customers are a company asset, and quite often the most important one. Taking a company's customers with you when you leave is more harmful than if you walked out with a half the office equipment under your coat. Theft of property is single-instance harm (and often insured) - theft of a customer is a straight loss that keeps recurring every time that customer would have bought something.

Re:Burning bridges

[snadrus]

Agreed. My last (large) company's hiring class was over 50% rehires (a group of 100). Despite how small-minded one manager may be, Having such a big company black-mark me would have been dangerous to my future. That company could be the best option for me one day in the future.

Or look at it like a psych experiment: Life after a 2-week notice is fascinating. You can say no to just about anything. "Fire me" can be used freely as a response (and they wouldn't dare pay you severance).

Re:Burning bridges

[shentino]

You know how singing one tree can burn down a whole forest?

Bridges connect to bridges, and if you light one on fire, another might catch too.

Bosses have a good chance of being friends or colleagues in the industry.

No, it's not fair.

Re:Burning bridges

[swalve]

That's why you have a training policy. If you jump ship after X years, you owe them the money back. Or you don't get reimbursed for training expenses for 24 months. Or whatever.

Re:Burning bridges

[Grishnakh]

Except that no one invests in training any more; they only want to hire experienced people. As for salespeople taking customers, this is Slashdot, so the main industries being discussed here are IT and engineering (and most of that is probably software engineering). This isn't a forum for salespeople, marketers, etc.

Re:Burning bridges

[Grishnakh]

Yep, I'm the same way: I walked out on a job a few years ago because the boss was giving me shit about coming in late, even though I always came in late, and always left late, and got more work done after 5 when everyone else left. There were a bunch of other factors about that job that I was already sick of (like the idiotic open-plan work environment), so my boss getting on me about being late (and then pulling me into a talk where he asked me why I was there; why else would I be there but for a paycheck?) was the last straw; I tossed a resignation letter at him and walked out.

Re:Burning bridges

[narcc]

the boss was giving me shit about coming in late, even though I always came in late

...

asked me why I was there; why else would I be there but for a paycheck?

...

I tossed a resignation letter at him and walked out.

Your former employer is undoubtedly very grateful you left on your own.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

Where I was, I was the team lead of the service department. Everything bad that ever happened was the fault of the service department. It became a joke. I didn't have the patience or people skills to kill the people deliberately sabotaging the department to hide their incompetence. The CEO was ex-sales and a micro manager. When an RMA was 6 -months late to where the hardware company was sending invoices, he demanded to know where the parts were. I showed them to him. He demanded to know why they weren't sent back. "I haven't gotten the RMA instructions" was my answer. "Well, that's shitty service" was his reply. The intention was to blame the service department for imporper follow-through. I did finally get the RMA request re-forwarded. Turns out the CEO had been copied on the original RMA 6 months earlier (as he was also the account manager for this account, our largest), but didn't send it to anyone else. He was loudly bashing the service department (me) for not having followed through, when he was essentially actively blocking service from getting it done.

"Since the service is so shitty, I'll be improving it by leaving, so have fun".

Re:Burning bridges

[Drakonblayde]

And you will have employees refuse the training, the smart ones anyway. I refuse to allow my employer to put me in any sort of bondage. at-will employment means an employee can walk anytime they want, and the employer can toss them anytime they want. Attempts to put fetters on the employee for leaving is an attempt to circumvent the employee protections of at-will employment.

If I ever found myself working for a company that required me to stay because I received some training or suffer financial penalty, and then made that training mandatory to keep the job, I would resign on the spot.

Re:Burning bridges

[murdocj]

Are you CERTAIN you will never ever apply for a job where one of your former coworkers that you screwed over is working? Or that no one will ever mention "Oh yeah, Joe, he just walked out w/o notice, what a jerk"? Why go out of your way to piss people off, when it's so easy to avoid, just by doing the "normal" thing.

Re:Burning bridges

[TheGratefulNet]

training does not exist anymore. I've not seen it and have been around the workforce for over 25 yrs. it used to exist 10+ yrs ago, but the world was pretty different back then.

now with h1b's being the 'new slaves' and having SO MANY of them around, companies refuse to train and actually don't even care about retaining employees. the hate companies have for us is unreal - and yet its very real ;(

quality does not matter. cost of employees matters. we know where this is headed, too.

Re:Burning bridges

[TheGratefulNet]

I had a company insist that I give them references from this company, that one and the other one. not only that, but they insisted I give them the name of my manager at all the jobs. one job was not particularly nice and I didn't even know my 'manager' well (long story..).

I told the new company that _I_ will choose who my references are, thankyouverymuch. they kept insisting and I had to walk away from the job offer. (I found out that that new manager didn't last very long at that company I was applying for.)

no one but me gets to decide who I give out as my personal or professional references. if you think you have the right to tell ME who I should list, you can go fuck yourself.

Re:Burning bridges

[TheGratefulNet]

you have it all wrong.

we work for our income. PERIOD. if you think otherwise, you are young and, well, hopefully you'll learn what life is about.

hint: its not about work.

I love what I do, but I only do it for the paycheck. you are NOT 'the company' and the company is not you. unless you are the owner or an early founder, you and the company have a work relationship and that's all. if they try to convince you otherwise, they are feeding you bullshit. don't buy into this idea.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

I can document my job history going back 15+ years. Half of those companies are out of business. Only one still has my old manager at it (now CIO). I could name my old managers and that'd not do them any good.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

No, I'm not certain. And I am certain it wouldn't matter. I've gotten a good reference from a coworker there. I just wouldn't use any of the people I had a problem with. Walking away would have nothing to do with them bad-mouthing me. And any place that would hire them is a place I wouldn't want to work. If they will bad-mouth me while I work with them to my face, I expect they'd do the same later regardless of how I left.

So, yeah, I'm ok with my decision. My question is, why does it bother you so much? I have no idea whether it pissed them off. It wasn't done to piss them off. You are the one making it personal, not me.

I walked out on another job 20 years ago, one of my first out of college. They didn't mind, and when I called and let them know I quit, the response was "what took you so long?" I never ran into any coworkers anywhere else, and it wouldn't have mattered if I did. They weren't jerks, just upper management who didn't know who I was anyway.

Re:Burning bridges

[JaiWing]

I would say to my former manager/HR droid/security droid " Not allowing me to get my personal possessions is theft. I will be back with a lawyer to collect my belonging in an hour, please be available at that time. "

Re:Burning bridges

[Dare nMc]

> working for a few real douchebags and those are bridges I wouldn't mind burning either.

One company I worked for a guy got burned for that. What happened was he left without notice to a small company that screwed him over really bad. However that small company was later bought by a much bigger company that I worked for (had almost 50% market share in the industry.) When my manager tried to hire him (knowing the full story, from more than one source.) HR refused. The database from that companies HR was incorporated into their HR database, and they absolutely refused to do their job, and hire the guy.

Re:Burning bridges

[Anonymous Coward]

we work for our income. PERIOD. if you think otherwise, you are young and, well, hopefully you'll learn what life is about.

If I worked for my income, period, I would have quit my job over a decade ago and taken one of the mindless jobs that is looking for someone with my background paying double what I make now. But then I would also loose 8 hours of my life or more every day, as i've seen how soul sucking that path is from friends that took it. I value my time and my life too much to dedicate a third of it to just getting more crap I wouldn't have time to use anyway. I'm not sure how being any older will make me wish I had more stuff and less time, as I always thought the trend went in the opposite direction when people age.

Re:Burning bridges

[ndrw]

It doesn't have to be either/or!

I like where I work, there are a lot of good folks there, interesting work to do, and a limited stress environment that lets me enjoy life with my family. That doesn't mean I can do it for free! I am attached to the job and loyal to the company, but I ask for a return on that commitment.

Re:Burning bridges

[Grishnakh]

That's all fine and well, but you have to realize that you're in an extreme minority here. When someone Asks Slashdot about giving notice, or any other job-related thing, it's generally safe to assume they're talking about an IT or engineering job, not sales/marketing, HR, or anything else. Advice that makes sense for IT/engineering jobs is frequently not going to apply to other jobs.

Re:Burning bridges

[Cederic]

Everything bad that ever happened was the fault of the service department

So fix it. Be seen to be working to improve it. Where were your service introduction standards? What were your service improvement actions? Why weren't you chasing up on missing fucking RMAs?

"Since the service is so shitty, I'll be improving it by leaving, so have fun".

I'm sure you intended it to be sarcastic, but sounds as though it was brutally honest.

Re:Burning bridges

[shentino]

It can probably be implied in this case that those who already have a job with someone else need not apply.

If you need someone right away, your only options are someone fresh out of college or otherwise just entering the job market, someone who just got shitcanned somewhere else, or someone who is willing to sell out their previous boss to jump on board your ship.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

Yeah, you sound like them. "If you knew it was a problem, why didn't you fix it?" I did. I wrote a business case. You rejected it. I notified you of it 10 times, Here's the printed email trail. And here's the email you sent to the owner claiming you didn't know about it. How is it my fault you are a lying sack of shit who tells me to take initiative, then erects road blocks when I do take initiative?

Re:Burning bridges

[xelah]

Yes indeed. And it's always worth remembering that companies are made up of people, that people watch, hear about, gossip about and judge others even when they're not subordinates, that people move around (and up) in industries, and that people talk to people.

Dump a problem on your jerk of a boss and he'll bad-mouth you to everyone else. Dump a load of unfinished work on your colleagues by giving no notice and they'll bad-mouth you, too. Apply to a company that employs someone who used to work for your former employer and you can bet that a message asking 'do you know him? what is this guy like?' is going to reach him. He might never have met you, but he might have heard about you from someone who's heard about you from your boss.

Re:Burning bridges

[ultranova]

someone who is willing to sell out their previous boss to jump on board your ship

Loyalty is a two-way street. Do you want people to give you a two-week notice when they leave? Then you'd better give them one too, rather than simply have them escorted out. And when the latter becomes an industry standard, can you really talk about people "selling out" their bosses, when they're just returning what was given them?

Re:Burning bridges

[shentino]

Yes I can.

All this rhetoric about giving what you expect to get leaves out the very important fact that a worker and his boss are NOT equals in the first place.

Your boss is not obliged to give you the same respect he himself is due, simply because he's the boss and you are not.

As a prospective employer, I can and will judge you by how your previous boss thinks of you, because if I hire you, I will take his place, and it's reasonable to assume you will treat me the same way you treated your previous boss.

Remember that I'm the one who has to answer to MY boss for hiring you. Your wages come out of my budget. I am responsible for everything you do, because quite frankly, I have to answer to my boss the same way you answer to me.

Re:Burning bridges

[murdocj]

I'm not all that bothered by it, just seems like a really dumb move.

Re:Burning bridges

[guyniraxn]

I'm still young and I was never under the illusion that work was some higher calling. I've always known it has been about getting by. Truth be told, the few who push the idea that the company is like a family and it shouldn't be about the money have always been older folks. Usually HR and management, of course.

Re:Burning bridges

[MitchDev]

you have it all wrong.

we work for our income. PERIOD. if you think otherwise, you are young and, well, hopefully you'll learn what life is about.

hint: its not about work.

I love what I do, but I only do it for the paycheck. you are NOT 'the company' and the company is not you. unless you are the owner or an early founder, you and the company have a work relationship and that's all. if they try to convince you otherwise, they are feeding you bullshit. don't buy into this idea.

THIS

The "company" doesn't give two shits about the employees, only wringing as much work out of them for as little money as possible.
And in this economy, virtually no one is NOT replaceable. All the company cares about it maximizing profit.

Re:Burning bridges

[royallthefourth]

you are NOT 'the company' and the company is not you

The wasted hours of our lives are all that the company is made of, even if we do not have a claim to it.

Re:Burning bridges

[Sarten-X]

This attitude is the main reason why outsourcing jobs overseas so often looks good to managers.

From a manager's perspective, employees who "only do it for the paycheck" are there to kill time, and don't really care about project timelines, quality control, rework, morale, or the work environment... all the things that the manager's supposed to be improving. On the other hand, an employee who cares more about doing the job than punching a timecard is more likely to notice mistakes early, push to meet deadlines, and contribute toward making the workplace a better place to be. A caring employee makes the department/project look better to the higher managers, making it easier to get approval for that precious payroll budget.

It should be noted, however, that caring about the job and becoming emotionally attached to it are different matters. Eventually, you will leave that job, and it may or may not be your choice. Let it go, and move on to the next project with enthusiasm.

Re: Burning bridges

[msoftsucks]

what a load of crap. Companies insist on treating their staff as indentured slaves and are surprised when their staff start dishing the same lack of respect back to them? They say that we have to take that because it's a new global economy. I say that is bullshit and that they reap what they sow. Today's management has done everything in their power to sell us on the story that staff is not as important as management is. From the imbalance of CEO pay to the language they use (human resources vs natural resources), it's all designed to force us to think of staff as inhuman! If a company treats me poorly, why should I have any qualms about treating them the same way?

Re:Burning bridges

[Sarten-X]

No, it's not fair.

That works both ways. I recently left a position at a small company, and I passed on a few friends as candidates to replace me. The company was pretty good, so I have no problems putting my friends, who I know will do similar work to mine, in the same place.

I've also been on the other side, too. I was interviewing at a place a while ago that a friend had recently left because of management problems. Knowing what to look for, my interview made it pretty clear the company was headed for a major failure... sure enough, they had major layoffs the next year.

Re:Burning bridges

[RobertLTux]

or for full snark call the local police/sheriff non-emergency line and have a LEO present (optional have your lawyer present also).

Re: Burning bridges

[msoftsucks]

Most companies nowadays wont pay for training. That's why most ads have a long laundry list of ridiculous requirements. They will hire someone who already has the training and let you go when they can. They expect you to be responsible for your own training.

Re:Burning bridges

[Anonymous Coward]

I can document my job history going back 15+ years. Half of those companies are out of business.

And the only common factor is you. Hmmm.

Re: Burning bridges

[BVis]

Sounds like he is in the USA, and it's not the norm for full-time employees to have any sort of real 'contract' past signing something saying they read the employee handbook. It's not binding.

Re:Burning bridges

[halltk1983]

Because no one sells IT or engineered products, and no one that would sell one of them would have an active interest in science, geeky things, or consider themselvf a nerd, and they definitely wouldn't want to keep current on tech things.

Re:Burning bridges

[Whorhay]

Like someone else said it's rarely all or nothing on each aspect. For me the paycheck comes before everything else. But right after that is pride in providing quality service. I generally like my job and especially the people I work with. But without a paycheck, or if the pay was significantly worse I would not keep doing it. Providing for my families needs is critical to me, everything else is secondary.

Re:Burning bridges

[PortHaven]

Actually, I don't think co-workers ever care about that. They understand. Bosses....maybe.

But that's usually because bosses are too blind to the abuse they subjected said employe too. And too blind to the culture they've created by so often telling anyone who gives notice - you can pack your stuff today.

It goes both ways, and you know what. Companies have been giving far less to their employees. Less of the record profits. Less benefits. Less of so much.

Re:Burning bridges

[Doitroygsbre]

Yes, you can be a little tyrant, demand respect you don’t deserve, and blame the people that report to you for your failures. At least you can do that until your boss catches on and fixes the problem (my last supervisor was demoted (twice?) for pulling stunts like that).

If you think you are something special and you deserve respect because you can abuse your authority, you are going to have a bad time.

Re:Burning bridges

[gothzilla]

If you only do it for the paycheck then it's not the job you love, it's the money.

Re:Burning bridges

[0racle]

If the employee is motivated to just leave, it's doubtful they're going to be open to coming back, that's basically a fuck this shit move.

A company gives notice when they have to let someone go for reasons that are not performance related, they escort you out when you have to go now. An employee should view it the same way, notice when your leaving on good terms, walk out now when you are not leaving on good terms.

Re:Burning bridges

[Tamerlin]

I worked for a company that was so mismanaged that the management frequently didn't even bother to tell the software team that they needed some software written until after it was due. Naturally, they blamed us for the software's late delivery... this is also a company that had an entirely pointless dress code (i.e. no shorts even if you're just in the office and not seeing a customer), and no developers in the hall with the management and executives... and the list goes on.

I got a new job with a relocation package, so I had six weeks of notice. I waited until my last day at work to e-mail the director of HR that I was leaving and that was going to be my last day. She called me and asked me about it, and I gave her quite an earful before I left.

A developer at Amazon got pissed off at his management for not letting his team fix some problems that could lead to crashes, because new features were (politically) more important.

When he got page in the middle of the night because of a crash caused by the very problem that he'd been pushing to get fixed for months, his response was to send an e-mail to his manager saying he wasn't coming back to work.

Corporations only think that they can get away with this sort of double standard because the people working for them allow it.

My coworkers have been good references, so I haven't lost anything by burning those bridges.

Re:Burning bridges

[Tamerlin]

Right, because all employers treat their employees with at least courtesy.

If you're smart and you were concerned about their leaving their previous employer without notice, you'd be wondering about that employer rather than first assuming that your new employee is a snake, because you DID just hire them.

Of course, if you plan on treating your new employee like dirt, then you deserve what you get.

Re:Burning bridges

[tlhIngan]

Why would that require burning bridges though? Would a hiring bonus be conditional on writing a nasty letter to your previous boss? I would expect worst case scenario the new job requires you to start immediately, so you don't have the option of giving a 2 week notice, but you can still be somewhat gracious in your exit. "I'm sorry for the lack of notice, but their offer was too good to pass up and gave no flexibility." Most people would understand than at least why you did it, instead of assuming the worst. Some vindictive jealous types might not take it well, but they probably wouldn't have handled you quitting with notice well either.

Even with no flexibility some can still be found - by offering support for a couple of weeks to enable knowledge transfer and other things. It would mean the first couple of weeks you'd be working doggedly hard since you'd be doing two jobs, but it's only a couple of weeks and you did at least make an effort to simplify the transition period.

Though in general, most companies expect flexible starting dates - if nothing more than hiring something is a slow process because you have to have a position etc., to fill and unless you already had one person in mind to hire pretty much unconditionally, there are interviews and time required for applications etc., which takes time. What is a company to do? Hire the first person to waltz through the door asking for a job? And there's still a pile of general paperwork that happens when someone is hired and before they start (you may need to requisition supplies including computers, hardware, space to work, allocations of tasks, initial training, etc).

It would be extremely rare for a job to require one to start immediately the next day - usually one can work in at least a week if not more, and there are plenty of ways to turn a week notice into something mutually agreeable by providing after hours support and such.

You can still leave without burning bridges. If you just got expensive training and have to leave, well, work out a way to pay back the training costs. Yes, the company is still hurt, but at least you offered and made reparations. Likewise, a sales person shouldn't take a client list with them (they are, however, allowed to take clients from memory) - instead, once they settle in, they could make contact with those customers and offer them the ability to choose voluntarily if they want to switch suppliers.

There are ways to leave without being a complete dick about it. Sometimes it involves a lot of extra work on your part, but that doesn't excuse not doing it. And sometimes it will be viewed as being a dick by others, but so be it - what you should do is make it known that you at least tried to smooth over the transition by either paying back the training, letting customers decide to jump ship (you don't 'take' customers, you give them choice), and offering help for a short period of time. Hell, if it involves writing documentation in your free time to transfer knowledge, good on you.

And in general, it may be fun to burn bridges, but it's never bad to leave a lousy job as the "better" person. Just remember to document your efforts.

Re:Burning bridges

[WillAffleckUW]

Yeah, you sound like them. "If you knew it was a problem, why didn't you fix it?" I did. I wrote a business case. You rejected it. I notified you of it 10 times, Here's the printed email trail. And here's the email you sent to the owner claiming you didn't know about it. How is it my fault you are a lying sack of shit who tells me to take initiative, then erects road blocks when I do take initiative?

Yes, but you were supposed to fix it for free, in unpaid time, without using company resources, which we had directed be used to stocking the CEO's yacht with goodies for his golf trip with his mistress.

Re:Burning bridges

[graphius]

I have been offered jobs away from my (then) current position. Every employer has been impressed that I want to give two weeks notice, even if the current employer is known to be a douchebag. It shows a level of integrity and honesty that is more important than any hard skills you may have.

Re:Burning bridges

[Gen_Music]

Because the media taught us a long time ago that we want to be 'normal'. That we want to be submissive, quiet, obedient proto-slaves. F*ck normal. If you don't want to be talked about, live in a cave, otherwise pull your balls up and state your case for walking out w/o notice.

You're only a jerk if you let their side of the story be told without voicing your.... unless you were just a jerk, which then you should be accepting of that statement instead of trying to hide it. All this dancing around facts to appease others is so weak, and the more we weasel around our problems the less happens to actually fix them.

Re:Burning bridges

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

That depends on who you are pissing off. I had a co-worker walk out without notice and had no problem getting another job. Employers actually sympathized with him because they had heard stories of our boss. We had several contractors leave because of him, so our boss' name got around the industry quickly. Any of us that worked with him would have gladly given him a good reference.

Re:Burning bridges

[anyGould]

1 If I'm the hiring person and you don't give your current employer notice then I'll assume that you are a snake and will do the same to me later, regardless of whether I would need knowledge transition at that point. You're talking a professional (knowledge) position here, right?

On the other hand, most jobs I've got (knowledge or otherwise) want you ASAP - if you can get out of your old job sooner all the better for them.

On a more practical note, I've seen people get punted the day they gave notice (in one case, for "business confidentiality reasons", in the other because the employee had vacation pre-booked and the company preferred to get them off the benefits sooner rather than later). Modern corporations have made it quite clear that their loyalty to employees is on a day-to-day basis. (Small companies are a different kettle of fish.)

2 How sure are you that you won't ever want the old job as a reference? I've been surprised at how well some older references have worked for me.

Can you even get a job as a reference anymore? Last I checked corps wouldn't give a reference (beyond "confirm dates of employment"). (And again, working for Real People instead of Paper People changes your mileage.)

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

And you are wrong.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

I'm not the only common factor in all companies that have gone out of business. Your logic is flawed.

And I was using the "small business failure" definition. You do know why so many small businesses fail, right? If you start a business tomorrow, make $10,000,000 this year, then sell it for $100,000,000,000 next year, you'll be listed as a "failed" business. It's stupid, but it's the "official" definition of "failure".

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

Not a yacht, but a new SLK 55, and a vacation home on the beach. Otherwise, you are spot-on.

Re:Burning bridges

[FreekyGeek]

So true. After 25 years in my career and looking at another 20 before I can even think about retiuring, I can say to youong people: do NOT buy into the "company loyalty" thing. Anyone who talks about 'deidcation" and :loyalty to a company only wants one thing: YOUR WORK FOR FREE. No company will ever feel any loyalty for you, that's for darn sure. That doesn't mean "be a slacker" or "don't do a good job". Be professional and do your job well. But never buy into the horse shit. Avoid being promoted to management like the plague. Far better to be paid less and do honest work than become an evil toady. If anyone uses he phrase "good work ethic", ignore everything else they say. Your life is yours, and anyone who tries totake soem of it from you without fair compensation is not your friend, and they myth of "work ethic" and "loyalty" are just concepts invented by slave masters to make the slaves work more without having to share more of the profits.

Re:Burning bridges

[Myopic]

Maybe. Or maybe he was "worth it". Geniuses are often hard to work with, but it's worthwhile to have geniuses on staff. Most people aren't geniuses so it's fair to assume that OP isn't one, but you never know.

Re:Burning bridges

[Myopic]

It's not the money, it's all the other things that money buys -- the things of life. Some people are driven to dedicate their lives to work, which is awesome, but all the rest of us are exchanging our labor for the capacity to choose our lifestyle. To exercise lifestyle choice is the meaning of life.

Re:Burning bridges

[Myopic]

Similarly, it works both ways with other organizations. Since graduating from college in 2002 I have told several high school kids that, no, I wouldn't actually recommend my alma mater. I tell them why in whatever level of detail they care to hear. It's a prestigious place so some kids are surprised.

Re:Burning bridges

[ultranova]

All this rhetoric about giving what you expect to get leaves out the very important fact that a worker and his boss are NOT equals in the first place.

Yes, we are. I do work that directly contributes to the bottom line and he takes care of the logistics to direct my efford to get the maximum benefit from them. It takes good people in both positions to achieve success.

Your boss is not obliged to give you the same respect he himself is due, simply because he's the boss and you are not.

I think you are confusing "boss" and "feudal lord". A "boss" is a task, not a title of nobility. Do not confuse the two.

As a prospective employer, I can and will judge you by how your previous boss thinks of you, because if I hire you, I will take his place, and it's reasonable to assume you will treat me the same way you treated your previous boss.

I treat my boss as a valuable member of the team. Should he not do the same, well, he'll still retain the underlings he deserves. As for you, you need to decide between people who're desperate enough to put up with being treated disrespectfully and professionals. It's one or the other, you can't have both no matter what the field. Should be an easy choice: do the wrong thing or be succesful. But then again, I guess I can't really know what kind of complexes might drive your behaviour.

Re:Burning bridges

[Dare nMc]

The anal retentive nature of HR had little to do with the day to day job. Since the problem was HR and 1000 miles from the location he would have worked at; And the job was a office location with a dozen people (only one asshole, and he was not the boss.)

Re:Burning bridges

[shentino]

+1, Funny

Re:Burning bridges

[MrResistor]

All this rhetoric about giving what you expect to get leaves out the very important fact that a worker and his boss are NOT equals in the first place.

This is true. A boss needs workers. Workers don't necessarily need a boss.

Re: Burning bridges

[hab136]

The employee handbook sometimes is an implied contract. Here's one source.

Of course, most employee handbooks say that you can be fired for every offense, so.. no problem for the employer.

Re:Burning bridges

[AK Marc]

I think you are wrong. I'd do what I do if I didn't have it as a job. I just managed to convince some schmuk to pay me for doing what I like. If that's now what your job is, then you need a new job. The joke from Office Space of "if you didn't have to work, what would you do" and many people who have jobs flipping burgers or such go home to play with DVRs and such. So why not take it a step further, and get a little training and work coding, designing, installing or supporting DVRs?

Where I am, I get to designing large chunks of the Internet. I'd never get to do such things without working at a large ISP. Sure, there are some parts that I don't like, but I put up with them to get to the good stuff. And bonus, they pay me lots (well, top 10% of US wage earners, which still isn't that high).

Re:Burning bridges

[shentino]

It could well be a trap set by your boss to catch people willing to jump ship.

Someone else in this article posted how a new prospective boss not only refused to hire a new applicant, but rat him out to his old boss and got him fired for moonlighting.

Re:Burning bridges

[shentino]

Depends, can your old boss sabotage your new job?

If so, swallow your pride and accept that he's got your career by the balls.

Re:Burning bridges

[zildgulf]

You have done both yourselves a favor. You are into "I need freedom to get the most work done, hours be damned", and your employer seemed to be into "I need a warm body to do 'some work' during a very rigid time period. It is a culture clash and the best thing to do is actually quit with immediately and free both of you from this unnecessary battle of wills.

Karma

[jklovanc]

Most posts seem to be about whether or not one will get a reference. I look at it a different way. How would I feel if another employee left me in the lurch by not giving notice. It is especially important in the high tech industry to finish lose ends and transfer responsibilities and knowledge. Is everyone so self centered that they will abandon their coworkers to pick up the pieces? Notice is a courtesy to employers and coworkers.

Give the two week notice

[dacut]

At many companies, not giving two weeks notice will make you ineligible to be rehired. While you might not care, future employers might. It's a legal gray area, but one of the questions sometimes asked of former employers is, "Is X eligible for rehire?" as a way to skirt the we-can't-give-references issue. A "no" answer raises questions -- the impression it gives ranges from "Well, that company is just a bunch of jerks to their employees" to "He's has a bad attitude and makes it uncomfortable for everyone else" to "He was walking out the door with cash and half of their servers; they just couldn't catch him." If you're up for a position with multiple applicants, this could sink you.

While it might provide fleeting catharsis, not giving notice can't help you. At best it will do nothing; at worst, block you from a job you really want later on. Don't do it.

No notice is necessary, but is customary

[hawguy]

Unless you have any special contractual obligations, no notice is necessary in an "at-will" employment state like California. That goes both ways - both employees and employers are allowed to terminate employment without notice (except in certain situations like a mass layoff which might have some legal requirements to give notice, severance pay, etc. It's possible that if the employer generally gives severance pay, they may be obligated to give you severance pay if they terminate you, but you might have to take them to court to get it.

That said, I've never worked at an employer that didn't give at least 2 weeks of severance pay and/or notice even when they escorted the employee to the door on the day of the termination. This was true even for employees let go due to performance reasons... I haven't been involved with a termination involving misconduct so it's possible that those fired with-cause have been let go without any severance. Sometimes severance pay was longer than 2 weeks, based on how long the employee was employed at the company. At one startup where I worked that closed suddenly after running out of cash, the CEO paid 2 weeks of severance and up to 3 months of health insurance premiums out of his own pocket to all 30 employees.

As an employee, I've never given less than 2 weeks of notice as a courtesy. (and have always offered transitional consulting services after departing the company to help with bringing the new employee up to speed). I don't like to burn bridges because you never know when you're going to run into a former employer or coworker again. Screwing them over by leaving without giving any notice is not going to earn you any points if you end up interviewing with them at some future company.

At one company I worked at, we had someone start working for us and after 2 weeks he stopped showing up at work. He didn't respond to phone calls, and eventually, HR finally tracked him down through the Emergency Contact he listed on his HR forms - we all thought he'd been in some kind of accident or something. It turns out that he had just decided not to work there anymore and didn't see the need to tell anyone. His manager found out through a contact at the guy's former employer that the guy had never left his job at that employer and had taken 2 weeks of vacation to come to our company and check it out, he didn't like working at our company, so decided to go back to his former employer after his "vacation". The manager from our company told the manager at the other company, when they found out what happened, they fired him. Thanks to it being a relatively close-knit industry with a lot of people knowing each other, the guy was not able to find another job in the same industry and last we heard he had left the country.

So, the moral of the story is - don't screw over your employer because you don't know who your boss knows and when you might come across him again.

Emergency and Conscience

[Intropy]

The two reasons off the top of my head where it would be acceptable not to give notice would be for emergencies or conflicts of conscience. If you find you have an illness that required immediate attention, or you have to move across country immediately to take care of a relative or are called for military service or something of that nature, then you're fine not giving two weeks notice. If you find your company is preferentially hiring on the basis or sex or hunting Man for sport, then you're fine not giving notice (might want to blow the whistle too).

Why aer you leaving?

[taustin]

Giving notice isn't really about your employer's interests, it's about yours. Even if it will have no impact on your future work life, you know whether or not you were fair to your employer. If that doesn't bother you, given that very few companies give references anyway, do whatever the hell you want.

From an ethical standpoint, compare you deciding to leave to the company deciding to let you go. Is your decision the equivalent of them laying you off? Just a business decision that it's time to make? Most companies will give you at least some notice (even if they're not required to) or at least severance pay. It's only polite to give them notice.

On the other hand, if the company has done something equivalent to a firing offense, where you'd be shown the door and goodbye, then I wouldn't think you owe them much more than telling them you quit, and sign whatever paperwork you have to in order to get whatever payout they owe you.

But again, it's nothing to do with them. It's about what kind of person you choose to be. Someone who would leave an employer in a bind by leaving without notice, under the circumstances, or someone who gives them fair notice because they've given you a decent job. Only you can answer that.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[rsagris]

That policy is there to prevent people from actually being able to actively look for work. So far, in my experience, except for fairly rarified fields, employers don't even look to hire people that far out. By requiring people to give 3 months notice or never work for them again, basically the only way you'll ever work for them is if you are lay off and then tried to be re-hired at a later time. -rs

Contract?

[longk]

Shouldn't the notice period be mentioned in the contract?

In any case, it really depends on the circumstances. If I'm simply switching jobs I would give notice. It looks better to your new employer and you never know when you need a favor (or job!) from someone at the old place.

Office Morale

[jimmifett]

It depends on the type of work you do. Let's say it's an office job. You give your two weeks, employer has option of granting or walking you out. If you are walked out, that news spreads to the other employees and kills office morale if they think the person was nice, a productive worker, and makes the company they work for seem scummy and that it might be a good time to reevaluate themselves. If the person is a jerk, ppl are likely to think "finally, can't believe she was here that long to begin with" and think little else of it.

If the company goes with the two weeks, maybe throw in a small pizza party or some cake during a good bye party, it boosts morale of those still remaining. Those employees don't feel the urge to bolt and leave unfinished tasks undone, and everyone benefits.

Of course, this is all predicated on the business's financial status. Do they continue to pay while looking for a replacement. Do they have a track record of reduced production of employees on the way out? It may make better financial sense to just let that person go on the spot. Paying any kind of severance helps to keep up morale of the other workers, but if the business can't afford it, they can't afford it.

What isn't needed is some asinine regulation requiring severance or something else to make getting rid of bad employees anymore difficult. That leads to not hiring untested entry level positions that are a pain to get rid of later, and leads to large youth unemployment, like france.

Re:Whenever you know they won't give you a referen

[CanHasDIY]

If the author works for a helpdesk in Louisville Kentucky that has a name similar to a certain muscle do yourself a favor and just get out.

Rock?

Venis?

Bergina?

Janus?

C'mon, man, don't leave us hangin!

4 weeks notice

[Monkk]

I gave 4 weeks notice to an employer I really liked.  (Reasons for leaving are too much to go in to now.)  I found that after about a week and a half, I had pretty much wrapped up hand offs for all my projects and no one was coming to my with any new stuff.  The final two weeks were complete and utter boredom.  Unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, I would say two weeks is probably sufficient notice.

Sometimes people don't show. Plan for it.

[sjbe]

No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.

I assure you it is not. There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law. Doesn't make doing them a good idea but no notice is really barely better than 2 weeks notice. Businesses should assume people won't necessarily show up the next day because sometimes accidents happen. I've had employees suddenly get very ill and from the perspective of the operations of business that is really no different. If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload and sharing important information and that is the fault of the company.

seriously?

[IrquiM]

Just leaving is nothing I would consider at all, as long as your job is not flipping burgers. The norm/law in Norway is the next 3 full calendar months outside the "trail period" - within, normally a month. And it goes both ways. Yes, you might be put on garden leave if you quit, but you are still being paid. And considering the planning and training of a replacement, 3 months isn't always enough. I am glad I am not an American employer.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[CanHasDIY]

There's a call center here in town that will permanently disbar you from employment if you so much as show up 30 seconds late to the mass interview session, or skip a question on their online "application." Learned that one the hard way.

Not like it was a big loss - I wouldn't want to work for assholes like that anyhow.

be professional

[denbesten]

"Being professional" is always the best approach. You never know who you may be asking for a job in 5 years.

Give the notice - it's the polite thing to do

[davidwr]

But be financially prepared to be terminated immediately, especially if you had access to sensitive information.

Oh, and any medium-sized or large company laying off more than a small number of people will give plenty of notice or pay-in-lieu-of-notice, for legal reasons if nothing else.

Think about your coworkers.

[Above]

Most people here are focusing on the relationship between an employee and their employer, but the fact is that already went sour if someone is leaving. More important is your relationship with your coworkers. Communities tend to be smaller than you think,and word gets around. While your employer may do nothing but confirm the dates you worked their, a coworker when asked might spill the beans about how you dumped a mess in their lap. Down the road you may want to bring on a former coworker, or go to work where they end up.

If you can give no notice and not screw your coworkers, it's probably an option. If you're going to dump a big mess in their laps, you may want to give notice, and use the time to do your best to give it to them in a way that doesn't totally make their life crap for the next few weeks/months.

"being professional" vs "dramatic exit"

[denbesten]

If make a "dramatic exit", your pay will cease immediately (presuming no contract). If you give two weeks notice, the company has three options:

1) Let you keep working and pay you, realizing that you will be "less productive".
2) Pay you for the two weeks, but not require (or perhaps not permit) you to come in.
3) Fire you on the spot,

Employers who have been through this are unlikely to pick the "fire you" option because it increases the likelihood of unemployment claims and legal action.

A "dramatic exit" may be more "fun", but "being professional" will likely put more money in your pocket.

Walking out can be the right thing to do

[sjbe]

Like when you are saying "fuck you guys" as you are walking out the door and don't expect any references from them ever. Not recommended, but sometimes cathartic. Would be considered "non professional"

If I'm at the point where I'm walking out the door flipping the proverbial bird to the people behind me then the "non professional" behavior has already been done by someone other than myself. I walked out like that once when I was accused of something I didn't do for a job that paid $2.25 an hour (less than half minimum wage at the time) by some idiot manager. The non professional behavior wasn't me walking out but it was what caused me to walk out.

Re:Walking out can be the right thing to do

[Billly Gates]

I was in your boat trust me it is hard!

Don't let the assholes win by screwing you over. If you want to stand up for the man in the mirror the best thing you can do is to just have the guts to tell them:
1. On this date you did this and I did not appreciate it
2. On this date we talked about how we could work together and you blew me off or whatever x or Y might be when that didn't work in your situation
3. I do not feel this is a good working arrangement and after multiple attemps I feel we need to part ways for the betterment for both of us.

I therefore, am giving my 2 week notice. :-)

That is what I did 2 weeks ago and kept my reference (not from the abusive boss) but from her boss and HR.

In essence it was a reverse firing. Give the 2 weeks not because you are kissing up to them but because you:
a. Have bills to pay regardless
b. In this economic climate the employer wins and leaving without a 2 week is suicide. There is nothing you can do to change this as I agree it is unfair that employers do not give us that, but you need to think forward.

I counted my days and it seemed like forever but trust me I had to do and I am glad. The abusive bosses felt sad and worried and shut up after the 2 weeks. I knew I won and have extra $$$ which is needed as I do job searches.

Re:Whenever you know they won't give you a referen

[Rhacman]

It isn't the employer I'd be worried about but your customers and colleagues (as applicable). Knowing the right people and having good relationships with them can make all the difference in finding the good positions, if not for your next job then for the one after that. If you bail unexpectedly on your team, or leave one of your customers high and dry without warning it could leave a bad taste not only in their mouths but in anyone they spread the word to. Even if your employer and everyone you worked with was a jerk you are only giving them more ammo to badmouth you to others. Beyond some fleeting satisfaction, burning a bridge will never help you and may end up hurting you in ways you can't easily predict.

Just Go.

[vomitology]

If you're about to leak your employer's secrets onto the Internet and seek asylum in a foreign country, it's probably best that you don't give notice.

Companies don't give references, coworkers do

[PaperGeek]

2 weeks is customary even if the company might end up acting badly. I have not had a single job in the last 20 years where the company would give a reference other than "yes he worked here for these dates and his job title was such and such."
When the corporate world was taken over by lawyers and HR policy focused on not getting sued, most companies took the safe approach to references, because even a good reference becomes a "bad" reference when someone doesn't get the good reference they thought they deserved.
My coworkers, on the other hand, have always been the people I turn to for references. Companies never give references but they always want them from you, and they want them to talk about you in great detail. Nowadays everyone asks for multiple references even before the job is on the table (record number needed = 10!).
All that I have to offer those (usually) former coworkers, bosses and colleagues is to do the same favor for them, and to do them the courtesy of giving 2 weeks' notice when it's time to move on.

No notice is okay if....

[arfonrg]

No notice is okay if the creditors are coming in to repossess the furniture...

Seriously: Employers walk you out to minimize sabotage. In my book it's okay because too many idiots have given them justification. The people griping about how unfair it is that you are supposed to give notice but the employer can treat you like dirt just are full of crap.

If you DON'T WANT TO BURN BRIDGES, give notice... If you don't care, don't give notice but remember that you never know when your old boss may be your boss again at a different company. (Looks at temporary project managers)

 

dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[davidwr]

None of the places that I've worked since 1998 will do anything more than say "Brian worked here from Date X to Date Y

I don't know about your former employers but many employers will give the dates of employment and whether the person is eligible for rehire.

Quitting without notice can turn "eligible for rehire" into "not eligible for rehire" pretty darn quick. That might not keep you from getting your next job if you already have an offer, but it CAN keep you from getting the job after that one.

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[Jane Q. Public]

"... many employers will give the dates of employment and whether the person is eligible for rehire."

Pardon me, but I don't understand what you mean by "eligible for rehire". My former employers have absolutely no say over who I work for now.

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[Drgnkght]

It means you will never be hired by your former employer again, no matter how qualified or perfect you are for a job they need to fill. It has nothing to do with other employers. It is strictly internal to the original company.

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[LocalH]

Eligible for rehire with the employer being spoken to.

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[Jane Q. Public]

"It is strictly internal to the original company."

Thanks. I should have figured that out.

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[tragedy]

Yes, what he said. To paraphrase: it's a petty power trip by HR empire builders who get their wisdom out of fortune cookies.

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[Jane Q. Public]

Yeah, I got it now.

But I don't think an employee should care much about their "eligibility for rehire" with a company they've left. If you look at a simple tree of possibilities, it generally goes like this:

[A] The employee left while on good terms with the company.

[B] The employee left while having disagreements with the company. (Bad terms?)

[C] The employee was fired.

Now, obviously, in the case of [C] the employee is not going to have "rehire eligibility", so we can stop our analysis there.

For [A], there are two possibilities: [A1], the company likes the employee and wants him/her back. This is good for the employee. [A2], the company is pissed off that the employee left, so there will be no "rehire eligibility".

For [B], there is probably only one possibility: no "rehire eligibility".

So all other things being equal, there is only a 1 in 4 chance of the employee being "rehire eligible", even if they did a good job.

None of those probabilities are weighted of course, but without knowing the individual circumstances it isn't really possible to weight them. The main point I was getting at is that there is close to a 50-50 chance that even if the employee did a good job, the company still would say they aren't "rehire eligible".

Re:dates worked + eligibility for rehire

[Slashdot Parent]

Pardon me, but I don't understand what you mean by "eligible for rehire". My former employers have absolutely no say over who I work for now.

It's your former employer stating whether or not you're eligible for rehire with that old employer.

Obviously your old employer can't declare you ineligible for hire with the new employer, absent some sort of noncompetition agreement!

Don't do it for spite ?

[obarthelemy]

Don't burn bridges. Not so much with your ex-company, as with your ex-colleagues, especially if the situation is not that bad. If you don't have a good reason for cutting it short, do the time required to exit gracefully. Discuss it with your n+1 or n+2 if you work well with either of them, or with HR if you don't. Then again, if you new employer needs you RIGHT NOW, your colleagues are assholes, and your company are slavers, do whatever. Just don't expect any leg-up from them, ever.

It's okay

[brianh4667]

Speaking as an employer of tech people:

When you're ready to "rage quit" and walk out the door with no notice, you probably should. You're probably not important enough to miss, and your work is probably already substandard and in most cases the workplace moral will immediately improve AFTER you leave. If you will be missed, your employer may refuse to accept your resignation and instead offer to change the working conditions that are precipitating the rage quit. (As a rule once you've found another job there is nothing the employer can do)

As a rule you SHOULD give two weeks so you don't screw over your co-workers who immediately have to pick up the slack. When you screw those people over they don't/won't think highly of you -- of course (again) by the time you're ready to throw them under the bus, they probably feel the same way about you. I think a lot of people who rage quit feel they do all the work, in my experience, they are morons and the place runs smoother without them.

Since it's clear you don't have another job lined up (since you didn't mention having another start date and MOST employers are start ASAP) then it's clearly a "rage quit". Generally speaking, I think rage quitting on the spot to be fine -- better to pull it off like a bandaid and not let it fester. If the employer is providing an unsuitable work environment, they really don't deserve any notice (they had it coming).

Personally speaking - IF I have employees who do give two weeks notice, I thank them, then tell them to finish the day, pack their desk, and provide them with two weeks severance on the spot. I don't like "short timers" around the office, it's bad for morale. I inform the exiting employee if we have any questions over the next two weeks either myself or somebody else will call them to inquire about how something works, or status on something. I also tell them that in exchange for a good reference (from me, or any other manager at the company) they should not attempt to solicit any former co-workers at their next job .. that's it.

Re:It's okay

[HornWumpus]

I generally won't poach former coworkers. Unless I brought them in, then they're 'mine'.

Escorting out is not about the time...

[noitalever]

Owning an IT company that does on site service for several mid size businesses, I'd say there is a policy in place with 95% of the companies I service that if an employee gives two weeks notice that they got another job, they are locked out of the system that day, escorted out of the building and given a two week paid vacation(special projects, or unfinished critical business may dictate otherwise). It's not hostile, or angry, and it has nothing to do with trust of the individual employee, it's just good business sense. More than likely they are moving to a similar company, and their heart is now not here. Both of those situations dictate that the risk of loss of IP or just simply paying them to take up oxygen when they may/may not have "Senioritis" is not wise. Getting the new person in place as quickly as possible is a benefit also and your cubicle/computer/parking space is needed for them.

Now NOT paying the employee and escorting them out is bad form on all levels.

Re:Escorting out is not about the time...

[noitalever]

Also, this doesn't mean they can't come in that friday for a send off, or going away/good luck party... they just don't have access to the network or work there anymore.

Two weeks notice without notice

[jbengt]

I was going to say it's never OK to not give notice, but then I remembered I once gave two weeks notice on the first day of my boss' vacation. It wasn''t a career type job, though, and the office was in turmoil due to the second-in-command having gotten caught clocking in one of the workers when they were late (she never made it in to work, and got fired for his effort to be nice). It turned out that the boss knew this sort of thing was going on all the time and he was OK with it. He didn't get in serious trouble, himself. He was sort of a creep, too, known for cornering people in the elevator and standing way too close for comfort. So I guess their could be times when it would be alright to quit without notice, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's just common courtesy and good business practice to give notice. This works both ways.

I don't know if this matters, but...

[techsoldaten]

I employ about 20 people.

About 70% of the time, when people quit my company without notice, they are leaving with business. A client talked them into contracting with them directly at a higher rate, or another company made them an offer based on walking with a project.

It's a free market and people are supposed to do what makes them happy and all, but shady is shady. I check people's references before making them an offer and never hire people who have left a job without notice. I don't take on projects people bring with them unless they have been away from their former employer for a long, long time. I am not making assumptions about someone's reasons for quitting without notice - in fact, I usually give people a chance to explain themselves, and I would be open to hearing reasonable explanations.

The thing is they never do. I hear a lot of grousing about how work was part of their last job, he / she "just couldn't take" some aspect about it any more, or how there was this bull and it had horns and those horns needed to be seized. But no one has ever pointed to legitimate factors such as an abusive workplace, not being paid on time, not receiving fair / just compensation, or the like.

(Well, to be honest, that's not true. There was one time that someone left a job in protest after management refused to put in assistive devices to help with his handicap. I could understand this. But he was not being honest about his experience and lost out on that factor.)

I don't know if I am the only employer who is like this, but I suspect there are more people who do things this way than you might expect. Seriously, I just want to know when I invest in training people up, having them travel the world with me, setting them up as a thought leader, listen endlessly to their stories about kids and dogs and things they want to buy and their colds and everything else, they are going to at least have the courtesy not to vanish on their way out.

 

Re:I don't know if this matters, but...

[betterprimate]

You are the one who is shady. I have walked out on a job because of sexual harassment. Was it provable, no. Would the former employer admit to it, no.

Nice high rode you got there, dumbfuck. Be a better employer and associate and business and employees wouldn't leave.

It all depends on why

[larwe]

The answer to this totally depends on why you want to give zero notice. Maybe you have an amazing opportunity but the window is "you have to start Monday or we're going with Candidate B". Maybe you have to run to Canada to escape a fraud investigation. Maybe you just hate your current employer and want to give them the finger. If the reason you want to leave without notice is more like my first example above, and less like the other two, then TALK TO YOUR BOSS. Explain that you've got an amazing opportunity and you have to leave at once, you know it's a big disruption to them, etc. Offer to help in your own time to clean up documentation, provide answers to questions from your replacement, etc. People, even bosses, are understanding of such things as a rule. If you've got a once in a lifetime opportunity your boss will understand that, and if you offer to work with him/her- especially if you do it in email so there's a record - you will help smooth the bump.

Re:Surreal discussion

[Kjella]

In Norway, we have 3 months notice (both ways). By law. If you have worked for a long time (10+ years) at the same place, it's even more.

Not really, but it's very common. The legal requirements are:

Tryout period (max 6 months): 14 days
Default: 1 month
More than 5 years: 2 months
More than 10 years: 3 months
More than 10 years & age > 50: 4 months
More than 10 years & age > 55: 5 months
More than 10 years & age > 60: 6 months

In practice I've never had a job with shorter than 3 months though, but they all usually have the full tryout period first. If you've had someone on payroll for half a year you probably know if an employee is a keeper or not. And I don't think most Americans know what working 10+ years at the same company is...

Take The High Road

[SuperCharlie]

It is not about the employer, it is about who you are. Take the high road, give the notice, and if they do the escort, then so be it. It is not about tit for tat, it is about being a decent person in spite of asswipe management, a company that would just as soon outsource you as look at you and the other million reasons why sticking it to them may seem right. Its not. Unless you care to be an asswipe too, in which case, it doesnt really matter now does it?

PHBs in charge

[fhic]

The last time I left a job, I was going to a competitor and just assumed my current employer wanted me gone. (It was, and still is, their policy in that circumstance to walk the employee out and pay them for the last two weeks.) My boss made a big stink about me planning to leave immediately, brought HR in, and they told me I'd have to sit out the two weeks or I wouldn't get my accrued vacation time. (Which is illegal in my state, but never mind.) So I unpacked my box, and started a new project that afternoon. You know the punch line. My badge didn't work the next morning, security escorted me to my desk and watched gimlet-eyed as I loaded up my box again and they walked me out the door.

If paychecks are way behind

[Rob the Bold]

If the company is way behind on your paychecks, and it doesn't look like that's gonna get fixed anytime soon, and you've got something better to do, I think you're making a reasonable call to cut your losses and walk. It's nice, I guess to leave things all neat and organized for your more optimistic coworkers.

Re:If paychecks are way behind

[HornWumpus]

If paychecks are at all behind, walk with as much company gear as you can carry. The more critical the better. Bring in a dolly. Take the local server rack.

If a company isn't making payroll, it's likely they were not sending your tax withholding to the tax man prior to that. You are about to get fucked.

First bounced paycheck; you have to get what you can get!

Not all employers are bad

[dave562]

We just let a guy go because he proved himself to be incompetent and a liability. Despite the fact that the guy was a complete screw up, we still gave him two months heads up that it was time for him to go find a new job. He resigned three days later.

It depends on the industury

[ThatAblaze]

No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.

If you happen to be involved in customer service or any kind of "blue collar" work than a little notice is still appreciated and expected both ways. For Engineering, IT, or any other kind of technical job you employer isn't going to give you notice.. and if you give them more than 1 day things will just get awkward.

Re:It depends on the industury

[swalve]

Do they give you any kind of severance? If they do, then that counts as notice.

Re:It depends on the industury

[cdrudge]

For Engineering, IT, or any other kind of technical job you employer isn't going to give you notice.. and if you give them more than 1 day things will just get awkward.

So turn in your 2 week notice but be prepared for it to be a 2 minute notice. Every time that I've left one company to move on to the next one I've arranged to be able to start more or less immediately if the need arises but would prefer to start 2 weeks out as a courtesy to my existing employer.

If my existing employer decides that they don't want to continue to employ me during those 2 weeks for information security or any other reason, then that's their choice. But in making that choice, they lose the option of saying that I left them in a lurch by just walking out with no notice.

My experience

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I worked for a small firm for 11 years. I singlehandedly landed the largest contract in the company's history (mainly by seducing the CEO of the other company, but that's for another story) and had a stipulation in the contract for a bonus (10k in this case) once the requirements of the contract were completed.
Contract done, no bonus (the boss was a cheapskate) so I
(a) quit on the spot
and
(b) called all my clients and let them know I was no longer working there, and why.

I left the field I was in entirely, but last I heard, the firm had folded because no one would do business with him any more.

Long story short, treat your employees well and they will respect you when they leave.

Huh. Not what happens internally.

[EngineeringStudent]

For inside of super-big companies, the acceptable notice can be set by the current boss and can be up to a year.

At My Last Place...

[Nexzus]

I gave 2 weeks and 3.5 days notice.

By that last week, I just didn't give a fuck about the job anymore and almost had to have my supervisor (who was a great guy) call me to wake me up in the morning.

Only professional pride made me get through that final Friday afternoon without stripping naked and rubbing my taint in the COO's face.

Yeah, it's a nicety, but really, who is anyone trying to fool?

New times, new rules....

[erp_consultant]

From a courtesy standpoint, sure, you should give 2 weeks notice. But courtesy is a 2 way street. If they treat me well, I'll treat them well. From a reference standpoint, many companies are forbidden from giving official references of any kind. All they are allowed to say is when you started, when you left and your position at the company. If you want a reference don't get it from some dweeb in HR...get it from your boss or a co-worker. Now if you've screwed your boss over by quitting without notice..well..they are not likely to give you a reference to begin with. A co-worker might be more willing.

Having said all that, a company would have to had screwed me over really bad to leave without any notice. It's just bad form. But legally, there is nothing they can do to you. But as a general rule, I'd just hold my nose, give them the 2 week notice and leave. It might make you feel better to tell "the man" to go fuck himself but you've really got very little to gain by doing that.

It depends

[NoKaOi]

All of the answers so far say do this or do that. I think that probably each piece of conflicting advice applies to the that person's specific situation. Since you're asking the question, I assume you actually care about not being able to collect those 2 weeks worth of pay and don't want to be terminated on the spot. I'm also going to assume that collecting anything for accumulated vacation or sick time is irrelevant, otherwise that should answer the question for you.

If you're working for a small company, then you should feel out the personalities of your bosses. If you are in a position where you have unique knowledge or responsibilities that others don't have, then your bosses will probably be appreciative of as much notice as possible so you can handoff your responsibilities, or possibly train or even hire your replacement. It's always good to not burn your bridges if you have the choice.

If you work for a big company and do the same thing as a bunch of other people, then they might just let you go on the spot because they don't need you and can just get on with hiring your replacement. In this situation, you should be mindful of what the HR department will say if future potential employers call for a reference. Some large companies have a policy of only being allowed to tell others the dates you worked there. Others may have a policy of saying whether you were terminated or quit. Also be mindful of the working relationship you have with your bosses. Are they going to be pissed off and likely to fire you on the spot, or maybe the figure you're not going to get anything done anyway and let you go, or are they going to be happy to have you around for 2 more weeks, throw you a going away party (hopefully with cake and ice cream), and wish you the best?

And of course, if you work for a large company see what's happened to other people who have given notice.

Re:Not only that...

[alexander_686]

There is a big difference between verification and references.

Verification is just facts – Did person X work at Y for Z period. You can’t be sued for liable for stating facts.

References – the subjective evaluation of a person’s work – that is a whole different ball of wax.

uhh. never.

[lophophore]

"Never" is the right answer. If you are a professional, employed in a professional job, earning a fair salary, working for a company that treats you reasonably, it is **never** ok to leave your job without notice. Your company might choose to escort you out when you give notice, if so, that probably means they view you as a liability, and not as a professional.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live the word gets around. This is in a metro area of 6+ million. People know people who know people who know you.

If you are planning to leave town, maybe you can get away with it. Most likely not. Word gets around.

If your job description includes...

[critter42b]

Asking "would you like fries with that?", I figure you're OK not giving 2 weeks notice.

Burnt Bridges

[nurb432]

Are hard to repair. If you stay in the same city, you will find out really quick how small it really is.

I didn't

[djirk]

I worked at a large health insurance company for nearly 10 years. I was pretty gung ho when I started there but the place slowly wore me down. Horrible management (except for one person) that lied to it's employees (about important things like "Are you going to move the office to another town 90 miles away?") while slowly outsourcing our jobs to India. They would fire people by waiting till the person left the building to go to lunch then have their supervisor box up all the personal stuff at the desk and meet them when they came back from lunch, in the lobby, to hand them their box and take their security badge. I saw many nice people walk away crying. When I finally had enough and got a different job I just called my supervisor the day before I was starting my new job and said "I quit". I have no qualms about doing so either.

Always give 2 weeks

[Billly Gates]

Not because the assholes at work deserve it, rather you deserve and you are better as an adult not to sink to their level.

If you leave without a reference they win and you get screwed over again in the job search.

You can argue about how employers do not give you the 2 weeks why should you give them that! But economic reality is the employer always has the bargaining power and there is little or nothing you can do to change this.

My story:
I left and fired my employer just like they fire other people. I mentioned what was acceptable and not for the contract and work load and pay and customer satisfaction (they were not treating them well).

1. After being abused and picked on and not appreciated I had a talk and documented it in an email.
2. Next, I had a second talk with her and her boss about what is going on and how we can over come this and they were not open
3. After cussing at me over something over my control and near sabatage for helping a vice president out that threatened me with discipline for not following orders as I was supposed to blow her off I frankly had it.
4. Forth interaction I treated it like a firing. I said on this date you said this and that and you failed to deliver. We talked about this remember? I do not like how I am being treated. I do not feel valued or appreciated. You are not happy with me here anyway right?

At this point I am officially giving you my 2 week notice as I do not feel we have a good fit.

It was very liberating and the look on their faces was that of shock. The bosses boss begged me to come back :-( But I made a deal and a deal is a deal. So in essence I won and got a reference and stood up for myself in a professional method using their own medicine.

Re:uhh. never.

[neminem]

If you were working for a company that treated you reasonably, why would you *want* to just randomly quit without giving notice? The whole point is if you were working for a company that *didn't* treat you reasonably, and one day you just decided you'd had enough. (Or you'd been looking for work elsewhere, finally found it, and couldn't wait to leave.) I've seen enough companies (happily, only second-hand, not first-hand) that I would run screaming from; places where you're reamed out by your boss for correctly implementing his incorrect specifications, but you're reamed out by your boss if you dare to ask whether his incorrect specifications were incorrect, because they look like they might be. Places where you're expected to get up in the middle of the night if your work phone rings, only to be told that it isn't your problem and go back to sleep, on a regular basis. Places where you feel physically sick due to lack of sleep because you're always working, but you can't complain because so is your boss, and your boss refuses to believe that you aren't overworked, because to him, if you have too much work, it just means you aren't working hard (or long) enough.

If I discovered I was working at a place like that, I would definitely not wait two weeks if I'd managed to find a more sane place that would hire me, burned bridges or not. (Thankfully, I don't work at a place like that at all. I just know people who do.)

Re:Sometimes people don't show. Plan for it.

[Culture20]

There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law.

Like scheduling surgery and a European vacation such that your unscheduled (from the company's point of view) paid medical leave and scheduled paid vacation butt up against one another so you miss six months of work? Bonus: get the wife pregnant three months before the surgery and take some paternity leave.

Notice when laid off.

[Plebis]

I've totally gotten two weeks to a month's notice from companies when being laid off in the past.

Re:Notice when laid off.

[shentino]

Your sarcasm touches on the magic answer. You and your boss are not equals and are held to different standards.

It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[Billly Gates]

That can be standard on some contracts where it is critical that someone finish their term such as teaching where kids do not have a teacher or a Windows 7 migration project.

I had one employer who did this and I agreed. THen they claimed to let me go due to budget problems only to rehire me 2 weeks later. SInce they violated the contract I felt after 4 months I had the right when it was brought up during my 2 week notice. They realized I was right and didn't want to muddy the waters so they agreed to give me a positive reference when I left.

For permanent employment that is a very assholish clause and I wonder why the COO would want to go back to that?

Two weeks doesn't keep bridges intact

[NReitzel]

I also think you shouldn't burn bridges.

However, with a lot of companies, simply quitting is burning the bridges, and a "good reference" is a fairy tale.

It all depends on the company you're working for. Not giving notice is rude and improper, and having a document that shows you did in fact give notice may be the only thing that keeps one of "those" companies from telling your prospective employer that you made off with trade secrets, the coffee fund, and the boss's secretary.

Are you serious?

[DRMShill]

Is Eeyore the OP? Asshole employers exist therefore we should assume the worst and act like asshole employees? Much like the dating world this kind of attitude won't get you far in the business world.

Presume no notice will be given

[sjbe]

If I'm the hiring person and you don't give your current employer notice then I'll assume that you are a snake and will do the same to me later, regardless of whether I would need knowledge transition at that point.

You SHOULD assume that any employee might not give you notice. Sometimes employees aren't able to give you notice because they fall ill. Sometimes they get an opportunity and have to act on it immediately. Sometimes things just don't work out between the company and the employee. Plan accordingly. I run a small manufacturing company and I assure you that two weeks notice makes little practical difference. It's certainly not enough to find and train an adequate replacement and if you cannot gracefully transition that person's work then management screwed up bad. In my case that means *I* screwed up since I'm the boss.

The two weeks notice thing is nice and courteous but if someone is leaving without prior notice the first place you should look if you want to know why is in the mirror. I've walked out of jobs without any notice and I assure you that it was because of the unprofessional behavior of those I worked for. It doesn't necessarily mean they are a "snake" but what it does mean is that you have a poor understanding of what at-will employment really means.

How sure are you that you won't ever want the old job as a reference? I've been surprised at how well some older references have worked for me.

I've been in the workforce for about 25 years now. A good reference is NEVER a company. It is a person you know. It is impossible for a company to have a personal relationship with you or to know you. It is always a close colleague or someone I had a good personal relationship with who provided the references. Whether I gave two weeks notice or not has never once been a factor.

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in the workforce for about 25 years now. A good reference is NEVER a company. It is a person you know. It is impossible for a company to have a personal relationship with you or to know you. It is always a close colleague or someone I had a good personal relationship with who provided the references. Whether I gave two weeks notice or not has never once been a factor.

I've had this exact conversation with many people, and they don't seem to understand that when you put previous employers on a resume, the only information they are allowed to give anyone that calls about your employment with them are things that are a matter of public record: the dates of your employment, and possibly any criminal charges that may have been leveled against you by them, though that last one they may actually have to get from a background check. It's your personal references that they will call to ask more detailed questions about your work history with them.

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[mvdw]

It's often more telling what is not on the reference than what is on there. Similarly, it's often more pertinent what is omitted in a reference than what is actually said.

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[Oligonicella]

"... the only information they are allowed ..."

Not at all true. If anything, it's locally regulated. They may not *want* to, but they're not (universally) prohibited.

If your personal reference is someone within your previous company of employment, then it's still pretty much asking your former employer.

I always kept my private and professional life ruthlessly segregated. My only references were previous co-workers and supervisors. Never once hurt me.

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[musth]

Wow, that's deep.

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[guru42101]

Don't forget the important one. "If you had the need and opportunity, would you hire this person again"

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[Lew-the-nerd]

I remember my small company being called and I was the only person around to grab the phone.
The HR person on the other end asked me to verify dates of employment; I replied with 'he started on {date} and happily he left on {date}.'
There was a very long pause, I assume as the caller parsed the possible meanings, and then the caller asked if would I hire this person again.

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[mdervin2001]

It's not a law/regulation but the threat of a lawsuit limits what HR can discuss about former employees. While they won't give descriptions of the performance, they can say "He did not give us 2 weeks notice."

Re:Presume no notice will be given

[Tamerlin]

It's great that your experiences have worked for you. In general it's best practice to give notice. If you spend two more weeks in a job that you hate, to me that says a lot about your character.

Agreed. It says your a spineless loser who'd rather kowtow to an idiot than stand up for itself.

Re:Very big deal

[Culture20]

In this current economic climate I or anyone wont hire anyone with a gap on their resume or without a reference recently.

So because people are out of work, you won't hire out-of-work people? Even when they're going to be a steal salary-wise?

At bad jobs in the past

[kaatochacha]

I always dreamt of just leaving and flipping off the boss.
However, once I'd found a better job, that feeling was replaced by doing the "classy" thing, giving notice, and feeling better about myself as I left the jerks to their jerkery.

Re:Very big deal

[Billly Gates]

I am not an asshole as I am out of work myself. More as, if I have 40 applicants my boss will use currently employed as a filtering mechanism to disguise those who are incompetent or loose cannons.

HR does not care about you. All they care about is their employer and nothing else. If you worked for 3 years at ACME corp and your references are so old some of them do not remember or you just slight have vague notion when Bush is in office then I need a reference from ACME. If they can't give me one then I assume it was a firing and the resume gets thrown in the trash.

It sucks but it is frankly reality. Wouldn't you also only want the absolute best candidates? When you look for a job don't you want only the best employers? It is a 2 way street and hiring someone without a recent reference is not the best you can do.

In Canada..

[anethema]

Here in Canada, if you don't get to keep working for your notice period. They have to pay you your wages you would have worked if they just 'escort to the door' as you say.

Nice to have at least rudimentary labour protection laws.

Re:Very big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

In this current economic climate I or anyone wont hire anyone with a gap on their resume or without a reference recently.

That brings big flags! Terrible advise.

First off, learn how to spell, or at least use the proper fucking word.

Why would I even talk to you when I get 55 applications within 48 hours from desperate out of work people! It is not 1999 anymore and ask anyone who was hot shit back then who got laid off between 2009 - 2012 how well their job search is going? Yes, on good terms you can be hired elsewhere.

I'm a UNIX 'big iron' administrator. I don't need you're pathetic fucking reference; I've earned my cred via my resume and most importantly the engineering interview.. which was a panel interview of five other engineers. I dominated. I have the offer. I turned it down because it didn't pay enough more than I currently make to interest me. I just cowed my current employer into a raise with the offer tendered. I get cold-called weekly.

Suck my dick.

No references then it is Walmart and minimum wage for you! That is just reality

No son, you're the management egghead apparently.. I assure you your sorry MBA ass is very much replaceable compared to me.

Giving Notice

[hduff]

Many years ago, I used to co-own a restaurant. A sous chef who had worked for us two years gave two weeks notice that would have him leave the day before Mothers Day for a "better opportunity". Since he was an employee in a key position, it would take longer than two weeks to interview, hire and train somone at his level. We asked if he would stay through Mothers Day (so just one more day and we'd pay him double time for that day) since we only had him and the chef (the other owner) to cook and it would place a huge burden on the chef. He declined.

It turned out that he did not have another job but just wanted to avoid working on Mothers Day (the busiest and most harrowing day in the industry). While I never gave him a bad reference (he was an excellent employee), he could not find a job in town because the kitchen staff talked about his day-before-Mothers-Day departure to their friends in other restaurants; they were pissed at him. He finally moved out of town to find employment.

MORAL: Leaving like a douchebag never pays off like you think it will.

Re:Giving Notice

[HeckRuler]

Moral: Even when you do the professional thing and give two weeks notice, management will still call you a douchebag.

Re:Giving Notice

[sonamchauhan]

So an "excellent employee" gave you a perfectly valid notice period, and you call him a douchebag for rejecting an additional request you made... well, take a good close look at yourself.

He's probably much better off where he is now

Flawed issue framing

[sjbe]

Being a good person is something that will always be good for you.

Demonstrably not true. And giving two weeks notice or not giving two weeks notice does not determine whether you are a good person or not. There are circumstances where not giving any notice is perfectly appropriate and justified. The reverse is sometimes true as well. If someone is treating me badly then I am going to leave. It's MY life and I'm not going to waste it trying to martyr myself proving how much better I am than someone I don't respect.

Being an asshole because you can not see any immediate ramifications of your poor decision does not make it a good one.

Cute (though false) way to frame the issue but first you need to prove that not giving two weeks notice somehow will prove to be a "poor decision". It might but since none of us can see the future with perfect clarity you're going to have a pretty hard case to make. Furthermore you'll have to prove how quitting immediately makes someone an "asshole". They might be one but that typically is established LONG before they leave their job.

Re:Flawed issue framing

[Dishevel]

You can live any way you choose. You do not have to prove to others how being a good human being is not necessary. Way too many people already think that way.

If you feel that you need it though I am perfectly willing to state for the record that you are allowed to be as big of a dick as you choose when ever you think that you are justified in being a dick.

You can now rest assured that you will be one of the very small number of assholes in the world that truly feel justified in their behavior.

Re:Flawed issue framing

[Grishnakh]

You're still assuming things, and haven't addressed the prior question: how does quitting immediately make someone an "asshole"? Respectful treatment is a two-way street; if the employer doesn't treat the employee with respect, there's no reason for the employee to bend over backwards to make things easier for the employer. It's better to save your time and find a new job ASAP.

Re:Flawed issue framing

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an asshole. I am too, but for the sake of others I'll make explicit the opportunity you missed:

Instead of breaking down why this guy was wrong, and focusing on the bad, you could have focused on the positive, and explored the good side of the general concept he brought up. You did not do this at all, and while your exposition is technically correct in the context of the discussion, it only serves to make you feel better about your reading comprehension abilities. This is what assholes who are neither leaders nor followers do.

For the folks at home, this man is the kind of man you should avoid being like. Cultivating this kind of attitude and behavior tends to lead to you dying alone and bitter.

Re:Flawed issue framing

[fearofcarpet]

Being a good person is something that will always be good for you.

Demonstrably not true. And giving two weeks notice or not giving two weeks notice does not determine whether you are a good person or not. There are circumstances where not giving any notice is perfectly appropriate and justified. The reverse is sometimes true as well. If someone is treating me badly then I am going to leave. It's MY life and I'm not going to waste it trying to martyr myself proving how much better I am than someone I don't respect.

Being an asshole because you can not see any immediate ramifications of your poor decision does not make it a good one.

Cute (though false) way to frame the issue but first you need to prove that not giving two weeks notice somehow will prove to be a "poor decision". It might but since none of us can see the future with perfect clarity you're going to have a pretty hard case to make. Furthermore you'll have to prove how quitting immediately makes someone an "asshole". They might be one but that typically is established LONG before they leave their job.

Are you a parent? Because once you have kids, decisions can come back to bite you in the ass years later in ways that were not at all obvious at the time. I realize we are talking about the workplace, and understand your point, but being a good person and not an asshole is the first step towards raising kids who are good people and not assholes... sometimes I think children are the origin of parables and generalities about "doing the right thing" and "being a good person" even when you have nothing to gain. All that nonsense about setting a good example can easily follow you home from work.

Re:Flawed issue framing

[dwater]

> > Being a good person is something that will always be good for you.
> Demonstrably not true

Indeed (clearly not *always*), though I consider it poorly worded than just 'not true'. IINM, there was recent reports showing that being selfish is not good for you in terms of evolution (or something like that) - yeah, a bit like Spock said, I suppose.

Oh, I even have a reference : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849 ...but, yes, YMMV, to say the least.

Not cool!

[Dorianny]

As a former worker in the hospitality business, where for many the way to resign was simply not to show up, I can tell you that the only ones that got screwed were your ex-coworkers that had to cover your shifts. Not cool!

The Two Week Loophole.

[VortexCortex]

Once upon a time I did IT work for a company in the financial sector. They did contracting for big banks that you've heard of, securing and processing loans... It was all shit, still is I'm told. They were always looking for loopholes around regulations and just saying "yes" to any contract even if they couldn't meet the licensing requirements. The big banks know what's up, it's a calculated risk to go with the "corner cutting", illegal, but cheaper contract work.

In my employee contract I had signed an agreement to give two weeks notice before my last day of employment... But screw these jerks. So, I hunted for another job and once I found one I ran a request for vacation time past HR, and it was approved. I handed in my two week notice, the day before I went on my two week paid vacation.

Loopholes are a bitch.

Unemployment benefits

[sjbe]

If they fire the employee who gave notice, that employee is probably eligible for unemployment benefits.

Sadly I've had to deal with the unemployment agencies as an employer. They RARELY care much whether the person quit voluntarily or not. The rules are that if they quit voluntarily they aren't eligible for unemployment benefits but it really doesn't work that way in practice. We've had people leave voluntarily with no notice, apply for unemployment and start working again somewhere else while still collecting unemployment. We had one employee do that and the only way we could get out of paying undeserved unemployment benefits was to offer to rehire her. (she did not respond thankfully)

Re:Unemployment benefits

[Jaime2]

The people that get undeserved unemployment usually are the ones that lie to the labor department. You're never going to win against these people because it's a your-word-against-theirs situation and the labor department generally believes the employee (probably because it's cheaper for them when the employer loses). So, since you can't win no matter what you do with this class of people, it doesn't matter how you behave.

On the other hand, if you go and fire people who give notice, the honest ones will get unemployment benefits along with the dishonest ones who were going to get them anyways. So, from a game theoretic perspective, it's better to accept everyone's resignation and let them work their two weeks. You won't always come out ahead, but you'll come out ahead more often than if you fire them. You said RARELY. Even if it only reverses one case, it's still positive.

required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

The is no federal requirement for them to do so, the actual laws may vary from state to state, but in many states they are not required to cash out your vacation time.

Many companies have a policy to cash out vacation time, provided you do give 2 weeks notice, so no notice, no vacation pay.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[TheGratefulNet]

I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about!

vacation time IS money. they fully 100% owe you un-taken vacation. in the US this is true. I know this for a fact. not sure what your experience is - how long have you been working and where did you get this misinformation from??

vacation pay has value and for them to deny you that is to rob you of EARNED value.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[quetwo]

There are no federal laws on vacation time. There are some state laws about it (not in my own state), but it varies greatly from company to company.

Vacation is not a taxable asset, so it is not a guarantee in most places. My current employer will pay out half the vacation time that you earned if you leave on your terms, and the full amount if you leave on their terms. They won't pay out sick time at all, unless in retirement which they will extend your health insurance until the end of your sick time.

I implore you to point to the federal law that makes this universal in the USA.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[iamstretchypanda]

"If you have accrued vacation days that you haven't yet used when you quit or are fired, you may be entitled to be paid for that time. About half of the 50 states have laws requiring employers to pay out an employee's unused vacation when the employment relationship ends."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/paid-vacation-what-are-rights-33485.html

Like the parent said there is no federal law that compels a company to cash out your vacation pay. About half of the states do not require a company to cash out the vacation pay. So no, you don't know what the hell you are talking about - at least 50% of the time.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[Known Nutter]

I implore you to point to the federal law that makes this universal in the USA.

There may be no single US CFR one could point to on the matter, but remember that some employee/employer relationships are governed by state laws, rules, and regulations. and also possibly under a collective bargaining agreement or other types of contractual stipulations (some which are covered by a multitude of federal laws).

Here's a toilet read on California's thoughts on vacation pay... tl;dr - if you've followed your employer's vacation policy, they owe you.

Under California law, unless otherwise stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement, whenever the employment relationship ends, for any reason whatsoever, and the employee has not used all of his or her earned and accrued vacation, the employer must pay the employee at his or her final rate of pay for all of his or her earned and accrued and unused vacation days. Labor Code Section 227.3. Because paid vacation benefits are considered wages, such pay must be included in the employee's final paycheck.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_vacation.htm

There are remedies for employees whose employer fails to meet these obligations.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[neurovish]

I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about!

vacation time IS money. they fully 100% owe you un-taken vacation. in the US this is true. I know this for a fact. not sure what your experience is - how long have you been working and where did you get this misinformation from??

vacation pay has value and for them to deny you that is to rob you of EARNED value.

How does unused vacation time evaporate at the end of the year then? There are some states where employers are required to carry over some amount, like California, but most states do not have such a law. I've worked at places that paid untaken vacation time, and others that didn't. For the ones that didn't, I used what vacation time I had left during my notice period. And yes, everybody talks about getting a lawyer and suing for the unused vacation, but most people don't actually do that since the lawyer should tell them they don't have a case.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[neurovish]

I implore you to point to the federal law that makes this universal in the USA.

There may be no single US CFR one could point to on the matter, but remember that some employee/employer relationships are governed by state laws, rules, and regulations. and also possibly under a collective bargaining agreement or other types of contractual stipulations (some which are covered by a multitude of federal laws).

Yeah, that's what quetwo is saying....there is no federal law.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[Myopic]

As others have said, no, that's not true at all. Vaca time is a defined benefit and they have to cash you out for it.

Mods, please undo his +1 Informative, he doesn't deserve it.

Re:required to cash out vacation time is a myth

[Macgrrl]

In Australia, typically notice periods are specified in your contract and often are aligned to your pay cycle. I've worked for organisations with 2 week and 1 month notice periods.

If the employer decides that they want you to leave sooner than the contracted notice period they generally have to still pay you for that period - in lieu of salary (it's sometimes referred to as garden leave).

In addition to this, any unused annual leave time must be paid out. Sick leave is not paid out. Long service leave is paid out pro-rata for periods of service greater than 7 years (however you can't use Long Service leave until 10+ years with the organisation).

If you are made redundant, there is usually additional terms of an addition X number of weeks pay per year or part there of service. For a long time employee this can add up to quite a bit, and may be capped in your contract to an upper limit.

The biggest payout I've received from over half a dozen redundancies was nearly 9 months salary. It certainly softened the blow of losing the job quite a bit. And I've stayed on good terms with the guys from that job, I've ended up working with people from there at several jobs since.

Re:Very big deal

[kaatochacha]

There are some really awful studies on this recently. Essentially, it's easier to get a job outside of your field of experience if you're currently employed than it is to get hired within your field of experience if you've been unemployed for 6 months or more.
Thus: Currently working IT guy wants to become hairdresser has an easier time becoming one than an actual hairdresser who hasn't worked for a year.

Re:Whenever you know they won't give you a referen

[kaatochacha]

And I was just about to begin work at Gluteous MaxiMouse technical support and pet store. Damn.

Always be professional, Always give notice!

[bobbied]

When ever you can, do the professional thing and give the two (or more) weeks notice. It is always good to exceed expectations with employers. Go above and beyond what they expect or deserve. Always give proper notice, even when you don't want too.

I know it is tempting.. Man it would feel good to march down there and toss the resignation letter on the bosses desk and just say "So Long Sucker!" However, remember that this guy could be talking about you to some prospective employer in the future or you may run into him some other place. You may not know when or how, but it is *possible* his opinion of you may come around to haunt you. It's a small world. I had an issue with a past employer who got miffed it's not a good thing. I don't know how many jobs that cost me before I found out. Don't just hand somebody a reason to bad mouth you if you can help it because the world is pretty small sometimes.

I was laid off once, and I left my contact information with them. "Call me if you need anything I can help you with." They did call, multiple times. I helped them when I could. They didn't deserve it, having canned me, but I got good references out of being professional and helpful. Yea I was miffed at them for laying me off, but I was professional about it. In the end they realized that they had done the wrong thing and asked me to come back. (No, I didn't take the offer..) Proving that they made a mistake was WORTH the effort. I got lots of satisfaction in turning down their offer, but I still get glowing references from them... :)

Always keep it professional. Always leave on the best terms you can. Go out of your way if only to show them how a real professional acts. It may not pay off, but you never know when it might.

best example ever

[slashmydots]

Our head purchaser gave 2 weeks and they fired him same day. Now when I leave, they're getting zero notice. That's how that works. I hope they have fun with that one because I'm the sole IT staff and we have 6 servers, 40 desktops, and complete idiots working there.

FWIW

[overshoot]

My own personal policy:

1. * I owe the employer as much notice as they normally give in severance. In some cases this has been months; so be it.
2. * I tell the new employer that I cannot in good conscience promise to start earlier than reasonable notice would allow. If they can't deal, I'm better off not working for them.
3. * On the other hand, if I suspect that the current employer is likely to hand me a check and have Security bring my personal items I might suggest the possibility to new employer that this might happen and inquire as to whether they would want me to start earlier in that case.

This is pretty much historical in my case; my current employer hasn't laid anyone off since 2007. One of the rare ones, for certain. I'm not planning to take another job, either -- not much point since I'll be retiring in a few years.

Re:FWIW

[overshoot]

The one time the issue came up it was seven weeks, and the new employer was OK with that.

Almost Always Give Notice

[CrankyFool]

Firstly, having been laid off about five times in my career, in every time I was given notice in the way that is appropriate -- severance pay. IMHO, severance pay is exactly the equivalent of an employee giving notice -- it's "hey, this is ending, here's some extra [thing you've been getting from me regularly] to tide you over."

I work in the Silicon Valley which has tons of opportunities, but is also an incredibly small world. It's rare for me to not be able to find a backdoor reference on someone we interview, and I've literally not actively looked for a job using cold calling / emailing for about 15 years. The only thing I can count on is my reputation.

Which is why, barring the company doing illegal things, I will always Always always give at least two weeks' notice. And if I like the company, I'll do something closer to four weeks' notice. I don't think there's a significant downside, and ... you never know what will happen. I know at my current company, quite often we see people who leave come back a year or two down the line. I'll bet you they're happy they didn't needlessly burn a bridge.

(That's different, of course, from refusing to do something and accepting you may be fired on the spot; I once was hired by a company who, on my second week there, wanted me to implement an email snooping mechanism I found unethical; I told them I was refusing to do it, and accepted that they may find that they need to sack me on the spot).

Been there done that

[Lokni]

I worked as a contractor for a year on a military project. In short time I was more knowledgeable than the supervisors and it got to the point where I could not get my job done because I was helping other people, and when I tried to help the people actually assigned to me, I would take too long for managements' metrics. Why? Because I actually helped the people on the other end of the phone. It didnt matter if it was a general or high ranking commander on the other line, I had to finish the call in 15 minutes or less or I was red flagged on the call. I asked them to move me up to supervisor so that I could spend my time training other people to help but it turns out, the whole goal of the operation was not to actually provide good technical support to our servicemembers. The goal of the operation was to meet metrics that were impossible if you actually did your job. To move up to supervisor you had to meet your metrics and the only way to do that was to get people off the phone as quickly as possible, even if their issue was not resolved. Fast forward a bit and I posted my resume on Craigslist. A month later I got a call on a Tuesday for an interview that was then scheduled for the next day. Wednesday afternoon I got called back for a 2nd interview which was then scheduled for Thursday. Friday morning I got a call saying I was hired and asking when I could start. I told them on Monday I could start. I walked into my old job 4 hours late( when I woke up, not when they wanted me to be there), logged into my computer, typed up a letter of resignation, cleaned out my desk, walked over to the nearest manager (mine was out) told them I quit, gave them my ID badge and asked for an escort out of the office. Told them to call me if there are any questions. Im still at the new job 7 years later, got promotion after promotion and now travel the world as a consultant for the company. Burning that bridge was the best thing I could have ever done.

Do you hate your co-workers and your boss?

[Sarusa]

Keep in mind that when you just quit you're hurting your co-workers. All your stuff is going to get dropped on them. Definitely short term, possibly long term. It will be much easier with a transition period. If the boss says 'Fine, get out now!', well, you tried. Or perhaps you hate them all!

I would definitely take the time to contact your good co-workers and tell them what happened and why ('Sorry, but...'). It's also a surprisingly small industry at times - word gets around more than you might expect. I keep running into people from 20 years ago!

I wouldn't stress about exactly two weeks if you miss by a day because the boss was out.

IFF Your boss is a bastard AND you just hit powerb

[Lehk228]

IFF Your boss is a bastard AND you just hit powerball

OK, Smart, or legal

[PPH]

I've worked for a number of firms that 'sweeten the pot' so to speak to get departing employees to give notice and help with a transition. legally, they have to pay you for your hours worked. And in some jurisdictions, for your accrued vacation time. But I've received nearly a year's salary in severance pay and benefits that they didn't need to give me just for sticking around for my last few weeks. This includes one situation where a bunch of us were being laid off at the end of a project and the company didn't really need to train replacements.

That's the 'smart' thinking at work. If future employers see you cutting and running from an old job, they will assume that there was something negative at work to make you forgo such compensation. And they will assume (correctly or not) that it was partially your fault and there may be something afoot with you.

Leaving on a moment's notice can be a sign (correctly or not) that your previous employer doesn't trust you on the property anymore. I've received a 60 day WARN notice and stuck it out through the last day. When asked about this by future employers, I just pointed out that I considered it a matter of professional ethics to provide an employer with a smooth transition or shutdown. And there was no suspicion that I might have been 'escorted to the gate'.

Ding your performance and let you go.

[mssuxorz]

I used to work for a large US based Fortune-500 company for many years. There was a shakeup where the president of the company and many of his direct reports were taken out. The layoffs were slow and stealthy. We would see many really good employees being given average or bad performance reviews and subsequently being terminated for "poor performance". It gets tough if your boss himself is in CYA mode and looking out for his job - he won't support you. Still, having been in the workforce for many years, my team and I exited gracefully since you never know when you'll do business together later. In short, never, ever burn your bridges, not unless your company / boss was doing something illegal or criminal. Unethical doesn't cut it.

Loyalty to any company is bullshit.

[mark_reh]

Your relationship with your employer is a business relationship. They don't regard it as anything else; you shouldn't either. The minute they fail to meet their obligations under your employment agreement or contract, you should terminate it. Don't feel bad. They won't feel bad about terminating your employment on a moment's notice.

The only way things will change is if companies that dump people start having a hard time hiring people and that will most likely be because people who get dumped warn others not to go there.

It's just business

[Livius]

Your relationship with your employer is a business relationship. Don't make it personal.

Also there's a lot of satisfaction in later looking back and saying you were the better person and the better professional.

Plus, resolving all the loose ends and ensuring things are ready for your replacement makes for a good story in an interview situation.

Of course, if notice isn't possible under the circumstances, then just accept it's not possible, but otherwise act like the professional you want your next employer to see you as.

Re:Very big deal

[Billly Gates]

Yep which is my point.

The whole point of the hiring process is to not hire you. It is simply a filtering mechanism and people do become sociapaths at work and not care when under authority. That has been documented as well.

In the real world you need a reference and a reason not to be filtered more than a reason to be hired.

I left my last job with short notice

[scourfish]

The boss was a controlling, emotionally abusive asshole who made the workplace a nepotism-filled hellhole and his children were sniveling prima donnas, I left less than a week notice and got a job that paid better and was less hostile. This was in white-collar land, and quitting abruptly will not affect my job prospects at all.

Keep both jobs

[patmans]

I've found it most profitable to not quit the old job - just don't show up anymore, and see how long it takes before they actually stop paying you!

She spills secrets

[WOOFYGOOFY]

http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Confidential-Secrets-Company-Know---/dp/0312337361/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376614268&sr=1-1

Best book I ever read about employment. You know corporations and HR personnel conspire against employees and what's more it's institutionalized but you probably don't know the gory details. Well, there they are.

I would say always give notice because you effectively have no power in the workplace whatever the law says.

Workplaces are effectively like 17th century pirate ships, where you are a member of a pirate crew and you work and get paid according to your terms but there's nothing like "justice" on that pirate ship. The captains and ranking mates are, if facts were known, probably some form of criminal and you wouldn't think of going against the larger group for any reason at all.

Employers have ways around law-breaking, employment-killing slander including but not limited to grapevines, coded speech "is she eligible for rehire?", and even tone of voice . Good luck busting them for any of that.

If you want a meaningful workplace then the American solution is to work for yourself. that is to say, for your customers or the market. It's amazing to me that after a few years working virtually any job in America , all employees aren't giving this a shot.

Oh wait, that's what H1-Bs are for - they don't have that option. I think those ships are called "slave" ships.

What the contract says?

[Old Wolf]

Isn't this just determined by your work contract?

If your contract has a notice period and you don't give that notice then your employer can sue for breach of contract, and vice versa.

Just a few circumstances

[EmagGeek]

1) You discover your employer is willfully engaged in criminal activity
2) Your employer asks you to break the law or violate ethics rules that may apply to your job, or to perjure yourself during a court proceeding or other investigation

I can't really think of any other reason it would be okay to just walk out the door. But, in these two cases it would be perfectly okay.

Let go 3 times

[the eric conspiracy]

1. Given 6 months severance + 3 months extension to qualify for heath insurance on retirement. This was after 20 years. I was at a pretty senior level.

2. Laid off without notice.

3. Laid off without notice and it took several months to receive last pay check. They did eventually also pay for unused vacation.

The current employer has had some layoffs since I joined them and has given two weeks notice in each case. It is likely I will retire from this company in the next couple of years. I intend to do so in a gentlemanly way.

Except for #2 which I am not surprised at because the proprietor was a flamer I don't have any real complaints.

When they notice I'm not there.

[HeLLFiRe1151]

/.

Give notice and reason, be prepared for response

[damn_registrars]

There are of course times when you can give notice and expect no negative response - for example if you are moving across the country so your significant other can further their career, or if you are going back to school full-time are a couple examples - but even if you do get a negative response you can at least honestly tell your future employer that you did the right thing. It is still likely to work out better for you than just bailing on a moment's notice.

As for being laid off or fired, notice of those varies a lot to. While the latter almost never has an advance notice, the former often will if the position is professional. I've known people who have had up to 6 months advance notice of layoffs in some situation. On the other hand I've had times where I've gone to work on Monday and Tuesday and then been laid off that Wednesday but those were not professional positions.

But if you already have an offer and a start date for your next job, you don't have that much to worry about. Try to be cordial and hope that your current employer reciprocates.

Ooooops

[careysb]

Ooooops, I left my resume in the xerox machine.

Not providing notice is rude?

[Cryacin]

Sir, a gentleman is NEVER unintentionally rude.

Just do it

[gnu-sucks]

Just give the two weeks notice. There is nothing to loose, and it is professional to do so.

In my case, I gave a one month notice. The boss asked me to focus on documenting my work, which I did. It was actually one of the greatest months out of all my time at that company.

When you announce your departure, write a very logical and very true letter. Don't be afraid to say something like "I think my boss lacks the skill to delegate authority" or "the office kitchen is infested with mold". So long as you are truthful and logical, it can never be held against you, and it may even serve to prove your character as unwaveringly logical.

Just tell it how it is. If they give you a cardboard box and an hour to pack up, don't sweat it, they will almost certainly be paying for your next two weeks either way.

Leaving without notice is:
1) unprofessional
2) costs your (ex) company a lot of money and time trying to figure out what to do
3) of course looks bad if anyone ever finds out from another company (but they most likely wouldn't)
4) is unethical (even if your ex company was unethical towards you, it is not justification)
5) you might get sued because they can claim you purposefully left things in a state of chaos and then cut the cord without notice, costing the company millions of dollars, downtime, etc
6) burns your bridges with the ex company. Who cares, sure, but why do it?

My guess is the reason you are considering this is that you do not have a definite day in mind to leave, but as soon as you find another job you wish to just cut it off entirely that day. Don't do this, it will also look unprofessional to your next employer if they notice that you are all-too-eager to 'move on'.

Re:Just do it

[Plasmoid]

When you announce your departure, write a very logical and very true letter. Don't be afraid to say something like "I think my boss lacks the skill to delegate authority" or "the office kitchen is infested with mold". So long as you are truthful and logical, it can never be held against you, and it may even serve to prove your character as unwaveringly logical.

In no circumstances should you ever do that. It can only be used against you.

If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find
something in them to hang him.

-- Cardinal de Richelieu

You former employer doesn't care about how logical you are. At best, you saved them EI payments, and at worst you just left them with a mess that will need to clean up. At best, you might want to grab a beer with a *trusted* co-worker to discuss problems. Doing an exit interview is only slightly less stupid than writing a letter.

Not everyone who quits is giving the finger

[BillX]

It really depends on the company you work for. I know that at many larger companies, there is all sorts of lawyer-inspired "wisdom" on how firing/layoffs and employee notices are handled. You know, layoffs happen on a Friday afternoon; immediately escort an employee giving notice out of the building so they don't bug your system, etc.

But, it does not always have to be that way.

A tiny datapoint: I work at a small company (~30 employees) in an at-will state. In nearly 10 years' employment, I have never seen an employee laid off with less than 4-6 weeks notice. Likewise, I have never in that time seen an employee leave with less than 2 weeks' notice, despite the fact that anyone legally could. The vast majority have likewise given 4-6 weeks' notice. I don't think it is coincidence :-)

I know it is not representative of all companies, but at this particular one, a security guard with a box does not materialize at your desk the moment you announce that you are leaving. There are many reasons an employee leaves; most of them are not "fuck you". In recent memory, some reasons were that an employee had to return to their hometown to care for aging parents, were going off to get their masters/PhD, or their spouse couldn't find work in the area or couldn't stand the climate, or of course the usual "better offer" / change of pace. In each case, the employee gave several weeks' notice and it was greatly appreciated. It allowed time for some knowledge transfer, cleaning up any loose ends and transitioning projects to someone else. I suspect that if the company did escort on-the-spot, or the boss/owner didn't work so hard to avoid layoffs and give ample notice when they did happen, employees would give a lot less notice too. It's really a two-way street, and depends a lot on your company culture.

Where do thay say that?

[www.sorehands.com]

What law prohibits employers from giving information? In the USA, I don't believe there is a law against giving any information. In fact, there is a limited privilege for giving references. However, most companies will give out very little information so as to avoid being sued.

Re:Where do thay say that?

[jasper160]

My wife often has to deal with these calls for former employees and she was instructed by the HR nothing derogatory can be mentioned due to the threat of lawsuits.

Re:Where do thay say that?

[Myopic]

If you give out negative information then you open yourself to a lawsuit. Truth is an absolute defense, but having to defend a lawsuit is a pain in the ass out of proportion to the satisfaction of giving out the negative information. It's not a "law that prohibits giving information", it's a "law that makes you liable for giving information".

Jobs rarely give you notice when they fire you

[Nyder]

One thing I noticed is jobs rarely give you notice before they let you go. I guess if you are worried about references and that crap, but otherwise, screw them because they would have screwed you if the situation was reversed.

Re:Jobs rarely give you notice when they fire you

[bill_mcgonigle]

One thing I noticed is jobs rarely give you notice before they let you go. I guess if you are worried about references and that crap, but otherwise, screw them because they would have screwed you if the situation was reversed.

That's probably not a bad measure - every large company is going to have some bad fits, so if you're there long enough to give notice then you can see how they treat others they let go. If they never give notice to employees, then I can't see how they deserve any notice from employees. But if they do, then the respect is earned.

An old rule of thumb I often hear is "one week per year of employment". If you're there for 25 years, giving two weeks notice is going to cause major problems. If they don't deserve that, then work something out. Part of the time can be availability as a consultant.

alumni reunion BBQ

[www.sorehands.com]

I worked (on contract) for a company in Round Rock that had that. It was a great group of people to work for. Sometimes Tim would draw a mustache on me, which could be a bit annoying.

Re:Sometimes people don't show. Plan for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload"

I seriously hope you reconsider this opinion at some point in your career - ESPECIALLY if you are in management.

Fact is, if a company is not affected by the sudden loss of one of it's human employees, they utterly failed in hiring talent. Or that person shouldn't have been working for the company at all.

A company that expects an employee to have a positive impact on hire and yet have zero impact on leaving is a sad, inhuman viewpoint.

I try not to leave anyone in the lurch.

[jcr]

When I resigned from Apple, I gave my notice about a month ahead of my end date, and stuck around through the developer conference. I didn't want to let anything drop on the floor.

-jcr

Re:I try not to leave anyone in the lurch.

[jcr]

Does that pass for a clever dig in your social circles?

-jcr

Re:I try not to leave anyone in the lurch.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Does that pass for a clever dig in your social circles?

It looks more like an automated insult-o-matic running on a poor implementation of a Turing Test contest entry. Fortunately they don't have social circles yet.

Perhaps when you're a contractor

[RocketRay]

I was recently employed as a contractor. I got, and accepted, an offer for a full time position with another company (with quite nice benefits). I asked friends about whether I should give notice or just quit, they said give notice. So I did, and the next day they fired me. There was no hard feelings, I understood it didn't make sense for them to keep training someone for a job he wasn't sticking around to do. But it did put a bit of a crimp on my finances as I had some unexpected time off before starting the new job.

If I could do it again I'd wait until Friday and just quit.

I've been given notice by an employer

[buddyglass]

I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired...

I was laid off by IBM and worked there for a month after finding out about the layoff. Then I got something like 10 weeks severance pay on top of that. So far, I haven't worked for an employer that I've hated enough to quit without giving notice.

If possible, leave on a good note

[bioneuralnet]

Not giving notice will look bad to both your new employer and your old. Why care about your old? You may end up working with some of those people again. Best to leave on a good note. During my most recent job change, my old employer expected 4 weeks notice. Obviously, my new employer was not happy to hear that. In the end I compromised and gave 3 weeks. While no one was ecstatic, they both understood that I was trying to be as fair as possible.

Re:Sometimes people don't show. Plan for it.

[ukemike]

No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.

I assure you it is not. There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law. Doesn't make doing them a good idea but no notice is really barely better than 2 weeks notice. Businesses should assume people won't necessarily show up the next day because sometimes accidents happen. I've had employees suddenly get very ill and from the perspective of the operations of business that is really no different. If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload and sharing important information and that is the fault of the company.

You, and many others here, sound like you've never worked for a small business. I assure you that for small businesses having an employee quit is often a big difficulty. It often means that others have to step in and do the work of the person who quit until that person can be replaced and the replacement is trained. Small business isn't a football team with a backup quarterback waiting on the sidelines warmed up and ready to play. The margins are tight and there isn't money for extra employees. When someone gives 2 weeks that gives a tiny bit of breathing room for the employer to begin finding someone new, and is the minimum courtesy for a professional leaving a job. Quitting and walking out without notice is appalling rude. I can't blame people for leaving if they found something better, but the way they leave is often more revealing of character than anything else.

Luckily this is something that decent people just know, and just do. If you have to ask then I hope it is because you work for a terrible employer, if not, I hope you aren't applying for a job at my office.

Re:IFF Your boss is a bastard AND you just hit pow

[aaronb1138]

If you hit the Powerball, you buy enough of the company to fire the bastard boss and then retire after getting a friend the boss' job and a replacement for yourself.

Why bother?

[russotto]

You give notice, your co-workers understand, your pointy-haired boss knows that you did the right thing according to the PHB rules, and either they send you home and pay you out for the time left (you win), they expect you to work it (no big deal), or they're dicks and they tell you to leave immediately and don't pay you (no worse than if you quit with no notice). What do you get if you don't give notice?

Any employer you might be going to that "needs you NOW" and doesn't respect your desire to give notice is going to screw you in the future.

There are certainly cases you might want to quit "right now" -- e.g. your boss calls you up on a Sunday and wants you to come in. You say "This is the third Sunday in a row, and my wife's water just broke and we're on the way to the hospital." The boss says it's absolutely required you come in anyway. THEN you should quit on the spot. But just an ordinary job change? It's not worth it. Your boss and your co-workers that you left in the lurch will remember, and it might bite you in the ass in the future.

Long notice

[glsunder]

The last job that I quit, I gave 6 months notice so I could train the guy replacing me and they could find someone to do it. They ended up hiring 3 people to replace me (one admin with 2 helpers). Unfortunately, the guy who replaced me (I had no input on his hiring) never came in for any training, and fired the guy who I trained during that time a few weeks after I left. He then ripped out everything, spent 10x more than I did the whole time I worked there, couldn't get anything to work and got fired after a few months. The company rehired the guy I trained. I have no clue what happened after that.

It depends on your value system/treatment

[Virtucon]

I've walked out on places in my career without notice because the places sucked ass, it never hurt me or my network of references.
I've also given notice to organizations (sometimes as much as 8 weeks) where I was moving to a better opportunity but I still had respect for my coworkers and the opportunities I had while working there. It's common courtesy.

Then there's the other places, two of them, where it was easier to drop my badge on a desk and walk out because they'd would have had Security walk me out anyway. Of all the retarded policies companies have about employees, that one is the rudest, most offensive that a company can take. If a guy says I quit, walking him/her out just makes your whole organization look like a bunch of douche bags.

Re:It Depends

[Seumas]

30 days? If they want 30 days they can _PAY_ and I'll work late hours for them. Very few new jobs will wait a month. What you are suggesting basically implies quitting before you find a new job.

When you are offered a job, they typically ask when you could start and you tell them that you need to give your current employer two weeks notice. This is entirely common and as they want the same consideration from you in the future, they understand extending it to your current employer.

As for the other way around -- at least at Sun Microsystems, back in the day -- if they laid someone off, they were given sixty days notice but were not allowed to work as of the morning they were given notice that they were being laid off. They would pay you for the sixty days and you would continue to be "employed" during that time. You just wouldn't have access to any of your logins, the network, the buildings, etc and would basically spend that time (I guess) at home looking for a new position.

Re:Surreal discussion

[Seumas]

In America, employment is "at will", so either party terminates whenever the hell they like with whatever notice they do or do not want to bother giving. Everything else is simply about professionalism and not burning bridges. You want references, after all. Not to mention future networking and the possibility to return to the same company in a different role, some day.

However, I've found that in the professional world, contracts generally lay out the lengths of notice and other terms required to be met by either the employer or the employee should either one decide to terminate.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[Seumas]

A colleague of mine gave notice as they were offered an incredible job at another company. When it came time to get the reference from their former manager, the manager refused. They basically stated that they were concerned that giving a positive reference to an employee that had left the company might look bad on them as a manager (and the manager was constantly in fear of losing their job).

Re:Depends if you care about burnt bridges

[shentino]

Actually, in bankruptcy law (at least in the us) outstanding paychecks get paid first.

You were probably going to get the money anyway and the accountant just saved you some time.

I got 8 weeks notice and 24 weeks severence. :)

[Chirs]

I had worked for them for quite a while though...

in Canada you can't let someone go without pay

[Chirs]

If someone is laid off, the company owes them either notice or pay-in-lieu, as well as severence pay (which is intended to cover the typical time taken to find an equivalent job in a similar field). Both are on a sliding scale depending on time with the company and type of job. Once all that expires then there's still Employement Insurance benefits.

some places have pay-in-lieu of notice

[Chirs]

Where if they don't give notice, they can pay you the equivalent amount of money.

What's the problem?

[stenvar]

If you give two weeks notice, it means that they pay your for two more weeks, and you are at their disposal for two more weeks to help with the transition if they want you to. If they escort you off the property sooner, you get two weeks paid vacation. Seems like you really don't lose anything either way.

casualisation - the way companies have made it

[bigtreeman]

Last two IT jobs were pack your desk... now,
shorter notice than a casual job.

In my current industry we just follow the good contracts.
Contractors often ask me to come across to the new sub-contracting firm.
Same work, different company paying the cheque.

In Australia, and I believe across the world many workers are casualties of casualisation.
Government bodies outsource and love the flexibility of a casual workforce.
It works both ways, they call me when they want me to work,
I take whatever time off I like, I leave when I like.

No work today, go surfing,
go surfing, no work today,
has a comfortable symmetry about it.

It's your (moral) call

[Camael]

In most cases, period of notice is something which is in stated in the contract. To me it is a personal promise, that you will not leave the company without letting them know X weeks in advance. It should therefore be kept unless there are really exceptional grounds for not doing so.

Lets face it, nobody leaves their current employ unless they're unhappy with it. In most cases, most people will feel that their current employer treated them like shyt. This does not mean you should not take the high road and carry out your part of the bargain.

To illustrate, say old man Grouch has been making my life hell working under him for the last 5 years. But he pays the salary on time. I'd probably give proper notice and stick it out.

OTOH if I worked under Mr. Nice and just found out that he had been porking my wife behind my back for the last few months... or that the company was doing something illegal and I was going to be made the scapegoat... I would probably bail with no notice. Why? Because the company/bosses are the ones who have betrayed you. They deserve no respect.

Re:It differs.

[betterprimate]

I have to repeat this again because it's the best advice and was modded down. The golden rule still applies regardless: You only care about your employer as much as they care about you.

-5 for mods

[betterprimate]

Are the mods this stupid? All the posts modded up are worthless.

I've gotten 2 weeks notice before getting laid off

[MrEdofCourse]

I was working for a company in 2001 when I got laid off. I'm tempted to name the company or at least the former CEO of the company in order to praise them. The company is still very much in business.

9/11 hit right in the middle of the 2 weeks, so the CEO gave us an additional week.

This was really a big deal. Not only in terms of the money earned during that time, but also to get our stuff together, finish projects and hand stuff off to those who wouldn't be laid off. Sure, it was a given we'd also be working on putting our portfolios and resumes together, but it really was a decent and appreciated way to go out and help leave something behind that could be successful (and maybe re-employ us again).

I've also been given notice when the company was going under. The CEO was straight with telling us how much runway we had and things weren't looking good for a while. He was trying to sell the company and we could hang on, but each week would be a risk. Most of us did, and the company was eventually purchased with all of us who stayed given jobs.

I've always given 2 weeks notice, if not more. I don't know why you wouldn't. I could see if someone offered a job where I had to start right away, but I've never been offered a job under those terms. Everyone expects that you'll want to start as soon as possible, but that would be at least 2 weeks.

I guess the answer to the question could be best given if the question is rephrased... when is it ok to act like a jerk? When you're getting treated worse by even bigger jerks.

Korea

[crossmr]

In Korea, employees are not legally required to give notice to quit, most places try to put clauses in requiring 30 days notice, but they're not legal and aren't enforceable.
Employers are required to give extensive notice before letting someone go except in rare circumstances where they can prove they had to let that person go that very minute.

and Korea has extensive defamation laws so employers really have to think twice about bad mouthing a prior employee.

Re:Surreal discussion

[Molochi]

That sounds way too civilized for any American employer to abide by.

Re: 2 weeks in VA

[funkboy]

Well, I got laid off in VA about 11 years ago (from what was at one time a Nasdaq 100 company) and the notice I got was my boss calling me up with HR on the line, and that day was my last day of employment.

Of course, the company declared chapter 11 about a week later, so it wasn't like the writing wasn't already on the wall.

Re:... and more may be required in many countries.

[Man Eating Duck]

I know the article mentions the US and I can't comment on that.
But in many other countries, the minimum time to give notice is much longer and increases with the time you've worked there.
[...]
Employers might walk you off the premises when you give notice (or if they lay you off), but that's relatively rare (as it is expensive for the employer to pay for the remaining time).

Yeah, in Norway thre months bilaterally is the standard if you're not in a six month "trial", where you generally can quit or be fired on one month's notice. For a management position it's different, but they generally have a severance clause which amounts to the same security.

As for the "escorted out by security" as a matter of course, I don't get it when the employee himself is quitting. I mean, if they were disgruntled they've had all the time in the world to sabotage things, but their remaining time could be valuable for knowledge transfer. If you get fired I understand the rationale behind it.

Re:Not only that...

[shentino]

You can be sued for anything.

And usually, who wins depends on who has more money to spend on legal bills.

Re:If you're entering any position where previous

[shentino]

I think the three months notice thing is meant to give the employer all the power to be flexible, while requiring the worker to kiss ass and give all their base up.

It's also useful as leverage.

simple answer

[shentino]

Your next boss will not be sympathetic. At best he has his own bottom line to watch, and at worst he'll be chums with your old boss and will take every opportunity to stick it to you if you piss off your old boss.

Just respect the fact that the employer has the upper hand and you need to make nice if you expect to be treated well. Give your old boss his due and give the proper notice even if he doesn't deserve it.

How hard you get screwed doesn't matter, because your old boss still has your potential reference check by the balls.

Contract

[ledow]

What are you contractually obliged to give?

Then you have a choice - follow the contract, or break it.

Everywhere I've ever worked, it's been two MONTHS minimum. And, yeah, probably nobody would hunt you down if you didn't do it, but at some point almost every employer wants a reference and/or will contact your former employers.

I'm not sure I'd employ someone if I heard that they'd broken their contract. I'm not sure I'd employ someone who'd just walked out of their job (unless, and this quite critical, they then filed for unfair dismissal, or an untenable working environment similar - the fact that you BOTHER to go to court means that you didn't actual want to go).

I have been "poached" at least three times - once by a former client, and twice by another workplace. I was working, I was unhappy, I knew I wanted to leave, they offered a better situation, they were happy to take me there and then (and at least one specifically said they wouldn't care about me leaving my former job without notice).

I didn't. I did what I was contracted to do, moved on. In one case, I went above-and-beyond and negotiated one day a week at my previous job just to ease the transition for a few months. And, in fact, that particular one that I went back to help was the client that then - a year later - poached me back from that job (after they'd sorted out money and hours enough to meet my request).

Leaving without notice is rude, inconsiderate and potentially (in fact, almost certainly) breach-of-contract. The question is quite why are you leaving without notice and what risk you place on doing that to go somewhere else.

Personally, I see notice periods as the cleanup period. Hey, you don't want me. I'm going elsewhere. It's probably time for you to learn all that I did, hire a replacement, get some direct hand-off while I'm still here and not piss me off before I go. Then I won't leave loose ends, won't leave you in the lurch, will document all that odd crap that nobody got around to writing down, etc.

Some people are saying that your boss will make you work harder to spite you in the notice period. So what? They could have done that AT ANY TIME and are probably DOING that to make you leave anyway. Fulfill your contractual obligations. Ask them if they'd rather you left without notice. If they kick up a fuss - well, sorry, my contract says nothing about doing X, Y, Z and I finish at 5, and staying "for any reasonable unforeseen circumstance" (or whatever is in your contract) doesn't cover this situation - they can argue it in court if they like, but they won't. What are they going to do? Sack you? In your notice period? Yeah, that's just a perfect way to show your new employer that you were right to leave.

Suck it up. Be professional. Tell your new employer that you REFUSE to leave your former employer in the lurch or give them an excuse to blame you, so you're going to clean up all the loose ends by working your notice, no matter what. It infers integrity and honesty and that you can suffer fools. Do exactly as you are required to do, then move on.

Want to know how I know? I'm in the fourth case of doing this for myself at the moment. MASSIVE summer upgrades, in what's become a one-man-IT-show. Impossible deadlines, independent verification by my own employer's auditor that I need more help to meet demand, etc. all totally ignored. So I'm applying for jobs, and then will work to the completion of my current project (no matter what) and then I'll go, not before. Let's see anyone try to blame me for finishing up properly.

Just knowing that they will still have to pay me, will still be no better off without hiring two replacements for me, and that it will royally put a lot of people's noses out of joint actually makes it worth it. Once you've made the decision to go, the rest is just entertainment.

Re:Very big deal

[shentino]

Simple advice: Don't get fired.

If the timing works out,

[John.Banister]

you can sort of do both, by giving two weeks notice on the morning of the first day of your two week vacation. They get two weeks notice, and you don't have to go back after you've quit some place you don't like anymore.

Re:Severance pay = notice

[shentino]

There is no such thing as equity when it comes to giving notice.

You give your boss as much notice as he wants.

Be professional and give notice.

[pubwvj]

Be professional and give notice. If you don't it will very likely, almost assuredly, come back to haunt you, perhaps not at this job if you already have it lined up but at the next job.

Understand that employers look carefully at dates on resumes and double check them with your past work places. If there are gaps that is a red flag. If they don't match up that's a bigger red flag. If you lie that's a huge red flag.

you have to ask yourself

[argStyopa]

...which is more important?:

- a momentary burst to your ego when you 'stick it to the man', or

- the respect of your coworkers (because you know who's going to get your crap dumped in their laps, right?), the respect of your employer (yes, we've all heard of companies all firing people instantly, but that tends to be for-cause firing), and the knowledge that you did the right thing whether you "had to" or not?

Two Months Notice

[16Chapel]

I'm amazed by this thread - at my current position (where I'm now the lead dev) I have it written in to my contract that I'll give two months of notice (this was a requirement when the gave me a raise). That's not really that odd here in the UK - previously I've had a three month notice period.

Re:Two Months Notice

[maroberts]

The UK is different - many states in the US have "At Will" laws allowing instant termination of employment and vice versa.

I did my daily work, then left

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, if you just can not take what they are assigning you, it works in your benefit to leave. I was doing the job of 3 people, after 6 months of this, I could not physically do it anymore. I came in, did my daily work, all priorities, then went to the manager, gave my badge and walked out without saying a word.

A month later they called me back with a raise and less work.

July 27th....

[NotSanguine]

Was "National 'Don't Be A Dick' Day." Don't be a dick. Give appropriate notice. Whether or not your employer cares or handles it well, is another story and, IMHO, not really relevant to not being a dick. Even if your boss/employer is a dick, that doesn't mean you have to stoop to his/her level, does it? And what does it say about you if you just up and leave without giving your employer and co-workers an opportunity to plan for your departure? even if they don't take advantage of said opportunity, you are being a stand-up guy/girl.

I expect that there will be some who will pooh-pooh this and say something to the effect of "it's a tough world, no one is going to go out of their way to make things easier for me, why should I stick my neck out for anyone if it doesn't directly benefit me?"

Well, the reason is simple. quality human beings are honest and do the right thing *because it's the right thing to do* not for some perceived or real benefit. So I guess the question is, "do you want to be a quality human being?" answer that question and you'll know what to do.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Depends on the employment agreement

[dskoll]

I own a company and I always put in the employment agreement a requirement of 15 days' notice if the employee wishes to leave, and 15 days' notice if I wish to terminate the employee without cause (with an option to simply pay the employee without requiring him/her to show up for work.)

If a really unhappy employee wanted to leave right away, I'd consider waiving the requirement, but I put it in as protection for me so I'm not scrambling to replace a valuable employee with no notice.

There is a discordance.....

[PortHaven]

The real issue is that most of the time that you give your 2 weeks notice. The company asks you to leave that day. And you're out 2 weeks of pay. Youch!!!

But if they let you go or fire you, then you are gone that day.

The issue is one of "security", and it's kind of the sad state of this world where there is little trust or integrity on either side. I do feel that the law should state, that if an employee gives his or her employer two weeks notice. And the company asks them to leave that day, that they should be required to pay the employee for those two weeks.

Re:Sometimes people don't show. Plan for it.

[seebs]

You know, "something that decent people just know" is a really big red flag. Lots of decent people happen not to know some things. Generally, better to explain things explicitly, especially when dealing with people who haven't had exactly the same experiences you have.

Tie it together

[Anonymous Coward]

I ask for a reference letter up front and if I don't get it they can shove their notice and knowledge transfer up their ass.
Never trust anything to the good graces of a corporation.
When you give them "professionalism" without quid pro quo you're just being someone's bitch. Professionalism is fast becoming a synonym for bend over and spread your ass cheeks. In reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Bologne

[PortHaven]

I left a job, where I sometimes arrived 5-10 minutes late. But many days could find myself stuck till late evening finishing up a rush order.

If you want employees to be perfectly timely at 9-5, then it should be reciprocated. 5pm you're on your own boss. If you want to invade that personal time, then you need to be understsanding if they're a few minutes late. (The exception is life critical jobs, nurses, etc. But for most of us, that's not the case.)

The truth is, because of economic recessions and big corporate lobbying, there is an economic environment which mostly favors the employers. The fact that you are in a more powerful position, doesn't make you right in your demands. It simply means you are a tyrant.

A moral employer would say, hey, I respect you. Either by saying I want you here 9-5, and you are not obligated to be here outside of those times. OR we understand life, and the world are crazy. We expect you to normally be in by 9am. Or at least within a few minutes. But we're flexible. Likewise, there will be days when we really need your help beyond 5pm.

And we can all be mutually respectful.

Re:Bologne

[anyGould]

If only to have mod points...

Here's the thing to remember - if you're on salary, you are not paid by the hour. And odds are your employer didn't write specific hours into your contract, because they always want to squeeze extra hours out of you for free. (Or to be more charitable, to have some flexibility.)

The last time I had a boss try the "expected hours" line on me (which if memory serves was after staying multiple hours late over several days, and then coming in a half-hour later the next day), I simply suggested that if he was concerned that I wasn't at work enough, we should change my employment to hourly. I'll punch in and punch out (for lunch and breaks too!), and in a month we'll see who's coming out ahead.

Subject never came up again.

Re:Bologne

[FreekyGeek]

Suggesting that you switch to hourly is one tactic. I think the best one is to say to your noss "so, you want me to do extra work for you on my own time, for free? Ok, then - when are you coming over to mow my lawn? What's that? You don't spend your spare time doing free work for other people? How odd!""

Re:Bologne

[Myopic]

Yep. I was once asked in an interview how late did I consider to be "late". I didn't know what to say, so I said "five minutes", but I told him hey if he needs me there at 7:59:59 then that's fine I'd be there at 7:59:59. And that was true, but if he wanted me there at 7:59:59 then he could expect to see me stand up and go home at 5:00:01 (I didn't say that part). In my opinion that would be very shortsighted management, but managers have the prerogative to be shortsighted if they want to be.

How about severance pay?

[mr_mischief]

I've been laid off on the spot, but generally they pay me for the next two weeks without requiring me to be there. That's pretty much better than notice and then requiring you to train others those last two weeks.

My mom volunteered for early retirement in lieu of being subject to the next round of layoffs at her long-time employer. In exchange her employer paid her insurance for six months before allowing COBRA to kick in and gave her one year's severance up front. Along with this, she walked away knowing she probably saved someone else's job because she was a top performer.

Many Companies Are Decent

[assertation]

We've all heard stories about (or perhaps experienced) a quick escort to the parking lot upon giving the normal notice, and I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired.

At the end of the dot.com era I was at 3 companies that gave ample notice, one even gave a severance package. Yes, companies that just turn off your door card and send you an email do exist , but not all companies are that low class.

Not giving two weeks notice can STILL tarnish a reputation. The worst that will happen is that you will get two weeks off unpaid, with which to relax and prepare for your next job.

I hear what you are saying about how some companies treat people, so I would never give more than 2 weeks.

Always.

[Anonymous Coward]

Always give 2 weeks notice.

In most places, if you are being laid off, there is a mandatory notice period. You might be escorted out right away, but they are on the hook for paying you for those two weeks (or whatever it is in your jurisdiction). It's up to them if they want you to work the notice period or just pay you out.. whether they give the notice or you do.

Actually... walking off the job with no notice might even lose you out on the pay you would otherwise get.

Plus, employees just leaving is abig fuck you to management, it puts everyone in a hard spot and isn't going to benefit you in any way.

If you must leave early, it can be done, but talk to the employer about the situation. Don't just say "I quit, bye"

Re:Very big deal

[tragedy]

In this current economic climate I or anyone wont hire anyone with a gap on their resume or without a reference recently.

Good grief. Are you familiar with the concept of a death spiral?

Doing the right thing is sometimes unpleasant

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been in the work force for many years, and I have always given 2 weeks notice. Most of the time it means a boring 2 weeks, as i have already documented everything, so I pound sand for 2 weeks. Yes, I would rather start my new gig, and sometimes I have missed opportunities. But, you never know what your current employer expects.

If you do quit and leave them in a bind because things are not documented, or knowledge isn't transferred, then your repuation will take a hit. Many people don't care about this, but many coworkers (at different jobs) have mentioned that they ran into a former colleague at a summit or conference "and they had great things to say about you" - I would rather that, then bad things.

Because even though your company can only verify employment, your coworkers can speak their mind. And if you get a reputation (even one time) of the guy that ran out and left others to pick up the pieces, you just may not get that next job. I know I have less respect for someone that runs out without giving 2 weeks (except in the rare case of an abusive work environment).

Give the Same Consideration Your Employer Gives Yo

[Anonymous Coward]

I always give an employer the same consideration given me. If an employer gives a two-week notice when firing employees, I will give two weeks notice when I fire my employer. So far, I haven't found an employer from whom I could expect this kind of equitable treatment.
 

I made an exception one time for an employer I liked and trusted, and gave him two weeks notice. He let me go immediately, saying he could no longer trust me. Admittedly, this guy was a little weird in spite of his other good qualities, but since then I have never given notice. If no loyalty is given, none should be expected.

i have quit without notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I job hop quite a bit...

1. company told me I needed to find a new job in the company. They didn't have anything. I had tuition I would have to pay back if I quit (had a better job lined up). Company refused to put me on 'layoff' and refused to give me a last day. I needed to start my new job. So I quit by email.

2. Worked for a contract company where a guy gave notice and then they kicked him out that day. Why would I give notice?

3. If I think they will whine and complain about me quitting. Happened twice. Too much hassle.

4. This didn't happen to me, but I heard about a company that fired people if they found out you were looking for a job. Why give notice? Its cause for termination.

When you see....

[tomboalogo]

10 black Securities and Exchange Commission vans driving towards the office and you're just getting out of your car in the parking lot. Get back in and go to the nearest bar.

Awkward question from my point of view

[dolmen.fr]

I'm working in France where the standard notice period for a skilled job like software developer is 3 *months*. This notice period works both ways: for the employee and the employer. If some party doesn't want to respect that period, the other party can require compensation.

So that zero days or two weeks period is so strange to me...

Transparency Begets Trust

[NewYork]

When you're a open source programmer.

I just did it

[Moe1975]

and it was one of the best things I have ever done. The drunk hooker addicted sociopath I was working for deserved it, plus I was not about to give him and his pets a chance to yet make my life more miserable there for two whole fuckin weeks . . .

Re:I just did it

[neminem]

He's addicted specifically to *drunk* hookers? That's a remarkably specific addiction.

Notice of Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a very small company, and my boss said if I was considering leaving that I should warn him. In other words, give notice that I may give notice.

Depends, how does the company do layoffs?

[Skip Morris]

Some companies *do* give advance notice of a layoff.

I worked for DEC/Compaq/HP on-and-off for 25 years. Was layed off three times (the middle time cancelled when the division moved to Texas and I agreed to a transfer instead). I always had at least 4 weeks notice. The first time the entire department was told 8 weeks in advance; by the time L-Day arrived all but two people (out of 50) in the department had found new jobs. This practice generated tremendous loyalty. Some departing employees worked extra hard to make sure what they were leaving behind was in good shape before they left.

Look how the company (and your local management) treats people it is downsizing. When you leave give them the same consideration.

Notice

[whitroth]

Actually, what normally happens, to my knowledge, is that when being laid off or RIFed, you may not get two weeks notice, but they will *pay* you for that time. Same thing is true when you give two weeks notice - if they're not scum, they may have your manager meet with you, and tell you that you can leave earlier, but again, pay you for that time.

                    mark

Knowledge transfer

[justfred]

The two-week "knowledge transfer" period can really suck. "We need you to write down everything that you know that we will ever need, and then brain-dump on these other less-qualified people who were never any help before, and won't be any help after you left except to blame you for anything that goes wrong."

If it's not documented well enough that you could walk out today, two weeks won't help.

Two Weeks Vacation = Two Weeks Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never quit a job with out two weeks notice. I did turn in a two week notice the day before I started a two week long vacation. The vacation had been scheduled months earlier and in the few weeks before it started the environment at work started getting very toxic. The look on the managers face when I dropped my two week notice was priceless.

Read contracts

[fulldecent]

My prior company's employment contract mentions that benefits stop immediately when you give notice and they do not have to pay your accumulated vacation days. During their last restructuring people complained of these provisions being actually used.

I gave 2 days' notice after using up vacation days and getting health care started with the new company. That's to cover my ass. Fuck if I want some insurance company 30 years from now to claim my car accident was caused by a pre-existing condition on the day I was switching jobs. Of course, I wrapped up all my projects and "cross-trained" others in all my work before leaving. That's being professional. Got three public, positive references after quitting and they are brining me back as a consultant.

A Good Time Would Be...

[tmjva]

The day before the subpoena arrives.

One word: LinkedIn

[appellj]

It's not the boss you're hurting when you leave without notice--it's your colleagues. They have to pick up your workload without enough knowledge transfer AND still deal with the douchebag boss. Keep in mind that whenever you interview for a job, everyone on the interviewing team will look at your employment history, and if they happen to know someone who worked with you at any point, they're going to ask them about you. So if you intend to put your last job on your resume/LinkedIn, or if you end up interviewing at a company where one of your former co-workers now works, you're screwed, unless your colleagues are also jumping ship and sympathize with your plight (or better yet: see you as their hero).

I got a 4-week notice last job

[jlowery]

And a 1-year notice the job before that (with a 50% retention bonus).

Not all companies are psychopathic.

Just Do It For Fuck's Sake

[KingTank]

Stop being a grovelling little pansy. Show your boss that treating his employees like shit has consequences.

This is required by law in many countries

[rodut]

In many countries, the law forces both the employer and the employee to give a minimum of 15 (or 20) working days notice before terminating the contract - in this way the company will have time to find a replacement, and the employee time to find a new job.. Not doing this can have serious consequences for both parties - the employee might loose his last paycheck and have a permanent 'mark' in his work contact history (that is accessible for any new employer), while the company might face more serious consequences ..

Companies are neither people nor always right

[drew_eckhardt]

Depends on the situation. My current employer is in the process of outsourcing engineering to India, and keeping the US engineers on for varying periods of time (3-9 months) to facilitate the transition. There are incentives to stay through the end, but many have decided it's better to get out now. There is no bridge to burn, and people that are leaving already have new positions elsewhere when they resign. What is the possible incentive to give more than one or two day's notice?

1. You may care to work for and/or recruit people from that company and not want to make their lives worse.
2. The company may be wrong.

A year after a big company acquired a startup I worked for they decided to schedule the product's end-of-life, send it over seas for maintenance, and close the office.

1. I recruited a project manager and two engineers from that group to work for my next startup and joined the PM and one engineer at the one which followed that.
2. The company wasn't happy with the quality of the outsourced engineering and had to hire people back as high-paid consultants
3. While the competing group didn't care for the product the customers did, kept buying, and got the end-of-life pushed farther into the future (a few times IIRC)

Give some type of notice

[sasquatch989]

I'd err on the side of always giving a notice. It might be a one- or two-day notice, but I believe that in the normal process of employment you will find that you have plenty of time to give notice. Some jobs I did when younger.....in the fitness industry :barf:.... it was typical to see high turnover, no-shows, verbal explosions, and other shit like that. But that is a very unprofessional industry to begin with. People leaving on a whim with no notice was often enough that I always For the IT crowd i can see a situation where you are being asked to join a project that starts Monday which means you need to tell your boss on a Friday morning that you start your new job Monday....but at least you are giving notice and hopefully NOT crashing all the dev servers on your way out.

I've experienced it both ways.

[ToddInSF]

Given notice, and been escorted out, despite having been practically loved by the entire department.

Given notice, been asked to stay two months, stayed, and regretted it because of the unreasonable work load added, and the stress involved, with no real compensation.

Just outright quit and walked-out, because the company had a rep for escorting people out that gave notice, so screw them, I needed two months off just to recover from having worked for them for two years anyway.

Didn't give notice, but took another full-time job in another industry entirely, without telling either employer, and it worked out awesome despite the stress, because the first employer went into Chapter 11 not a month later, and when they did, EVERYBODY just quit, rendering staying mote.

Started my own company, gave notice, was asked to stay longer, asked for some incentive to stay the period they requested (4 months), they refused to negotiate at all, I offered 4 weeks instead, and was locked-out without notice the very next day. Which only bothered me because of the commute that day to a non-existent job, which turned out really cool because I picked-up a new client in the same complex as I sat in a coffee shop there and overheard some guys talking about needing help NOW and not knowing where to turn.

One job I had for 6 months I quit over the phone after a 4 day cooling off period after the employer attempted to get me to sign a document assuming responsibility for a criminal incident that happened at a college campus facility my only involvement with was to daily pick up paperwork. They actually fabricated documents to make it look like I was the on-duty supervisor there, and when I went out in the car and produced MY copies of MY daily paperwork, which I kept, which they'd forgot they gave me permission to have, they backed-down. At that point, though, I knew I was dealing with a company that was basically a criminal organization - oddly enough they were a bay area security company !

In every situation I was genuinely nice (with an effort), despite often wanting to cuss. But I've been working since I was 15, and had a lot of time to watch and listen.

Re:Surreal discussion

[Myopic]

What does an employee do if they find a new job and want to start it before three months later?

It Is OK To Not Give Notice

[NewYork]

When you're NOT a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slave

If your company gives severance

[eviljav]

If your company has a policy of giving at least two weeks severance when they lay people off, then you should give two weeks notice.

If they give less than that, then they don't deserve notice, but you might want to consider giving it anyway.

When you hear stories of people being escorted out instantly when they give notice, they're usually still getting paid for the two weeks notice they gave.

Re:It Depends

[HornWumpus]

Two weeks is fine. But if an employer wants 30 days they are in fact making if damn hard to find a new job without quitting first. Have you ever told a prospective employer 30days? They usually try to get you to cut 2 weeks short. e.g. Can't you negotiate 1 week fulltime, then evenings? Can't we give you project docs and have you get started learning our systems on evenings? etc etc. Granting; if they are too desperate that's a red flag.

I'm not saying there aren't circumstances where I'd sign such a contract. But I'd never consider it for a normal job. If I'm so god damn irreplaceable, why am I so unhappy I'm looking for a job?

I'll give them two weeks as a courtesy. I'll give them slow phone/email support beyond that.

I won't go into a job hunt with one arm tied behind me, just so a bad boss can continue to not-plan.

The fact is getting laid off sucks, having part of your team quit sucks. Two sides to the same coin. Many companies want everything their way. They can suck it.

If I were to ask to continue to be employed until I found a replacement job, they would laugh at me. If they were to ask to continue the job until they had a replacement trained, I would shoot them a hell of a price, I would laugh at them when they tried to negotiate. In the real world, both cases involve a little sneaking around and somebody being unhappy with the outcome.

It's true...

[iq145]

An employer WILL have the nerve to say to you: "Well, this isn't a good time. Could you stay on a little longer until we can find a replacement for you?" But if they're letting you go, could you say it's not a good time and you need to stay on? HA!

Re:No, don't do that.

[toddestan]

Not a bad idea, but if you're going to play games with words that way, I would first read the employee handbook VERY carefully.

Never.

[jpublic]

That's rather rude.

Re:Never.

[jpublic]

I agree 100%.

Re:Sometimes people don't show. Plan for it.

[Macgrrl]

Every person at an organisation should provide value and make a positive impact on the company, but that doesn't mean that their absence should bring the place to a standstill. It's called succession planning, you should always have a plan for if any mission critical staff get hit by a buss, have a heart attack or simply win the lotto and decide to quit. This might be having all procedures well documented, status reporting so that someone else knows what is being worked on or training and job shadowing.

It's 2 years since Steve Jobs passed away, Apple hasn't crumbled yet. Partly due to succession planning, he at least knew it was coming.

Re:Whenever you know they won't give you a referen

[CanHasDIY]

Deloris!

Only when asked to do something illegal/dangerous

[mcmonkey]

1) I believe in karma, or "what goes around comes around."

2) It can be a small world, especially if you stay within the same industry.

If you're asked to break the law, ignore regulations, do something that will endanger your health or safety or the health or safety of others, feel free to quit on the spot. No job is worth getting hurt or going to jail for.

I still wouldn't recommend it. I'm more the type to make them fire my ass, but if it's the type of environment where you're asked to do those type of things, there are likely other issues and you're been waiting for an excuse to quit.

But otherwise, employers will notice and so should you. If your new employer gets the impression you're not giving the old job full notice, I'm not saying they'll rescind a job offer, but they will take note that you're likely to do the same to them some day.

If it's at the new employer's initiative--e.g. an extra bonus if you start right away--remember at this point you're as much an outsider to them as your old boss. They obviously don't have morals and won't hesitate to screw you over some day.

People remember that sort of thing. Even if you don't ever want to go back to your old employer (although I've seen that a lot, people trying to hastily rebuild bridges from long cold ashes) the coworkers and managers you gave that middle finger will move on to other employers. And when your resume comes in, HR folks may not be the most useful tools in the chest, but they can make simple associations. "Oh, Bob worked at Acme Inc. Sue, you used to work at Acme, did you know Bob?"

You may think, I was pretty close to Sue while we were at Acme. She'll be sure not to say anything that might hurt my chances of getting this job. And that may be true. But there will be people who won't remember you as fondly. Or even someone who is otherwise neutral, but goes on the defense. "If I fail to say something about the way Bob left Acme, and he pulls the same stunt here, I look bad. If I give Bob the thumbs-down, whoever they do hire may suck out loud, but at least it won't be my fault."

So now you can never go back to your old employer (the HR computers will remember you even if anyone you worked with is gone), you won't have a shot at any company that acquires or merges with your old employer (this thread has examples of merged HR systems), and you've also complicated your chances of ever getting hired anywhere a former coworker (or anyone from the old employer who hears the story of the guy who give the company the big middle finger, even if they never worked directly with you) goes.

You might as well take that employer off your resume, and forget about working in that industry forever.

And what do you get in return? 2 weeks? Two weeks where you weren't going to do a lot of work anyway. Two weeks where you could come in late and leave early. (What are they going to do, fire you?) As long as you're not actively destroying files or sabotaging projects, no one will hold a grudge, or likely even notice, if you're not giving "110%" those last two weeks. But walk out on short notice, you're burning a bridge that doesn't need to be burnt.

Now a lot of places will walk you out that day. For some bosses it's an ego thing, but mostly it's just a security consideration. Why have you in the building with access to who-knows-what if you're not part of the team? And that's fine.

And certainly there are cases of employees getting fired or laid off with no notice, and I certainly agree it's a two way street. You owe your employer no more consideration than they give you. However, with the firing, it's rarely true there was no notice. Usually there's a process. For example, you know if you work in a place where showing up on time is a big deal. And you know you've been told your late arrivals have been noticed. So when you show late and are turned around at the door and sent away, you can't really say you didn't have any notice. With lay-offs there's usually a severan

Depends on your industry...

[CountZer0]

It really depends on the industry you work in (no, IT is *not* an industry).

For example, the financial services industry is incredibly incestuous and there is an extensive network. Most people know several people at every other big shop on the street and it's extremely likely that when you are interviewing for a new role, there will be someone who knows someone at your prior company and will get an informal reference.

Staying on good terms with co-workers is essential in this industry as any reputation you get (especially bad) *will* get around and follow you till you switch industries.

nt

[shentino]

The correct answer has nothing to do with how much notice they deserve, but how much they can hurt you if you don't give them what they want.

Accept the fact that your boss gets to decide how good a reference to give you and plan accordingly.

Why we work

[Unixnoteunuchs]

We work so that we may have leisure. We must have leisure to lead the good life.

unless you can gauge the ok of your employer

[KingBenny]

in the equator you're stuck with your own morals