Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is It Ever OK To Quit Without Giving Notice?
HughPickens.com writes: Employees and employers alike have the right under at-will employment laws in almost all states to end their relationship without notice, for any reason, but the two-week rule is a widely accepted standard of workplace conduct. However, Sue Shellenbarger writes at the WSJ that a growing number of workers are leaving without giving two weeks' notice. Some bosses blame young employees who feel frustrated by limited prospects or have little sense of attachment to their workplace. But employment experts say some older workers are quitting without notice as well. They feel overworked or unappreciated after years of laboring under pay cuts and expanded workloads imposed during the recession. One employee at Dupray, a customer-service rep, scheduled a meeting and announced she was quitting, then rose and headed for the exit. She seemed surprised when the director of human resources stopped her and explained that employees are expected to give two weeks' notice. "She said, 'I've been watching 'Suits,' and this is how it happens,'" referring to the TV drama set in a law firm.
According to Shellenbarger, quitting without notice is sometimes justified. Employees with access to proprietary information, such as those working in sales or new-product development, face a conflict of interest if they accept a job with a competitor. Employees in such cases typically depart right away -- ideally, by mutual agreement. It can also be best to exit quickly if an employer is abusive, or if you suspect your employer is doing something illegal. More often, quitting without notice "is done in the heat of emotion, by someone who is completely frustrated, angry, offended or upset," says David Lewis, president of OperationsInc., a Norwalk, Conn., human-resources consulting firm. That approach can burn bridges and generate bad references. Phyllis Hartman says employees have a responsibility to try to communicate about what's wrong. "Start figuring out if there is anything you can do to fix it. The worst that can happen is that nobody listens or they tell you no." What do you Slashdotters think about providing employers notice of departure? Has there ever been a circumstance that warranted quitting your job without any prior notice?
According to Shellenbarger, quitting without notice is sometimes justified. Employees with access to proprietary information, such as those working in sales or new-product development, face a conflict of interest if they accept a job with a competitor. Employees in such cases typically depart right away -- ideally, by mutual agreement. It can also be best to exit quickly if an employer is abusive, or if you suspect your employer is doing something illegal. More often, quitting without notice "is done in the heat of emotion, by someone who is completely frustrated, angry, offended or upset," says David Lewis, president of OperationsInc., a Norwalk, Conn., human-resources consulting firm. That approach can burn bridges and generate bad references. Phyllis Hartman says employees have a responsibility to try to communicate about what's wrong. "Start figuring out if there is anything you can do to fix it. The worst that can happen is that nobody listens or they tell you no." What do you Slashdotters think about providing employers notice of departure? Has there ever been a circumstance that warranted quitting your job without any prior notice?
If this story leaves you a feeling of dejavu, don't worry, it's just Hugh Pickens cross-posting on /. and SN again to attract more traffic to his site
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The question posed is "Has there ever been a circumstance that warranted quitting your job without any prior notice?"
Of course such situations arise. Giving notice should be the default, out of respect for co-workers who may have to juggle their tasks and schedules if you leave and ideally out of a respect for your employer. But if you work in an abusive workplace and have no ability to change that, then leaving immediately is often justified by the way you are being treated or by the way your employer is treating others.
Whether it is legally advisable, financially plausible, will hurt your career to leave, or will leave good co-workers in the lurch if you leave are all other questions that will influence the decision of whether to actually do it.
Real lawyers write in C++
I agree BUT, burning your bridges is never a smart idea if it is not necessary, you never know when the work colleague, boss etc are going to sometime in future have a say over your future prospects somewhere else, they move around employers too and you don't want them having to make a decision about you with that tainted memory in mind.
That duty is to shareholders. 51% of employees in the United States are employed by small companies. Some of those small companies are not corporations with multiple shareholders. Sometimes there is only a single shareholder. These owners have no duty to other shareholders and can spend the company money in any way they legally see fit.
It's amazing how many asshats on Slashdot make blanket statements like ALL COMPANIES WANT TO RAPE YOU ANALLY.
Jesus Christ, get a grip on reality.
"I'll level with you: I'm a white guy who's over 50 in silicon valley. I'm the last guy they want on their payroll."
This idiotic line of reasoning will forever blow my mind. I'm an HVAC mechanic, and 50+ guys of any color are solid fucking gold in this business. They are walking encyclopedias. I'm newer, but whenever I'm around early in the morning at the shop and 2 of the older guys are bs-ing about problems they solved recently, I walk right over and listen, and they like my learning initiative, and they clue me in.
Silicon Valley is a fucking meat grinder.
No. There Is No Effective Fiduciary Duty to Maximize Profits
https://medium.com/bull-market...
I realise what you are saying is effectively believed to be true by millions, but its little more than a cultural myth. I'm writing in the hope people starting new companies don't behave in the crass manner you describe.
I get calls all the time from people on my professional network asking about such or such person because they saw on their resume that they worked at a same place I used to. Often if I don't know them I will make a call to whoever I know and trust that still work there, and I'll get the straight dope. There's even been cases of double hops, with my contact reaching out to his own contacts. That's how a good network works.
When I get those calls I never badmouth anyone, but I've given enough glowing reviews about excellent former coworkers that people who ask me can tell from the lack of enthusiasm when they're dealing with a bad apple. And anyone who leaves without warning is a bad apple in my book.
Employment verification between HR departments usually serves the purpose of validating the dates on your resume. If the role to fill has any importance, it's the informal calls or discussions during a random encounter at a trade show that will seal your fate.
lucm, indeed.
Hey counsellor, notable legal minds such as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito disagree with you.
Source: Court's opinion in Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
There is NO legally enforceable fiduciary duty imposed on companies to "maximize shareholder value" or "maximize share price." Executives and the board have a duty of care -- to make prudent decisions in the governance of the corporation; a duty of loyalty -- to act in the best interests of the organization; and a duty of obedience -- to make decisions and take action that are in accordance with the corporation's mission.
The corporation's mission can be ANY legal activity or goal. While that mission MAY include "maximizing shareholder value" or "maximizing share price," there is no provision under the law which forces the company to work in the interests of that particular mission, or even adopt that mission as their own.
Your entire legal argument is, in short, based on apparently a single viewing of Wall Street back in 1987. But thanks for playing, chum.
That's a lost battle, friend. The phrase "I couldn't care less" has been misused by enough people for long enough that the popular variant "I could care less" means the exact same thing.
It sucks that stupidity winds up defining language. But that's the reality we face.
Idioms are not required to follow logic. "I could care less" means exactly the same as "I couldn't care less"
would have. Both times, moron.
Glassdoor.com