More importantly, you could draw unemployment which affects your employer if they decide to fire you
You are not eligible for unemployment if you were fired for cause. If you were laid off, you would be correct. However, if you are fired....you can not "stick it" to your employer by filing for unemployment. It doesn't work that way.
You apparently didn't see any value in having him around to tie up loose ends, pass information on to his successor, etc.
Correct.
Was that because the nature of the job was such that there wasn't information in his head that the company needed, or because you screwed up?
It was a sales position so I suppose it's the first one you mention. Sales is a very easy game to score, with respect to employee performance. Yes, we will take a minor hit getting the new guy up and running but that's a small price to pay in the overall scheme of things.
Sounds like it backfired on you.
Not sure why you would say that. We always consult attorneys in situations like this because I want to know what the law actually states and how it is interpreted. While I understand where your comment comes from, attorneys are not all that expensive when compared to the severance. Maybe $1000 for the attorney and around $10K for the employee. That's money well spent in my mind.
You ask a legit question. It all depends on whether you want that employee around. For employees "in good standing", it's not a problem to keep them around and I appreciate the heads up. In response, I will often give an extra week of pay as a tradeoff for the help they provide during transition.
It is all dependent on risk/reward. Sometimes it's better to keep people around for transition reasons....and sometimes it's better to get them out as quickly as possible so they don't poison everything else.
In our particular situation, firing on the spot was appropriate.
No, it's not illegal if you didn't work those two weeks. Companies are under NO obligation to pay you for days that you don't work. It is no more complex than that. However, if you work the final two weeks, then you are correct your employer is obligated to pay wages for the days you worked.
Just because you offer to resign in two weeks does not mean your employer has to accept your offer. They can choose to accept your offer or they could just fire you right there on the spot. If they chose the latter option, you have no recourse and that employer is not obligated to pay your for the two weeks (because you didn't work those two weeks). It may suck but that's the way it is.
Lots of companies pay the two weeks, thinking they can avoid the possibility of any litigation. The 2 weeks pay is a "cost of doing business" and they will often pay employees even if they are not reporting to work. But make no mistake, they don't have to do it that way.
Honestly, it's no more complex than this: you should never expect to get paid for days you don't work. If you do, consider yourself lucky, take the money, and go quietly into the good night.
I know a guy who did the same thing and was fired on the spot. He was escorted out and paid only through the end of the day. I was the one who fired him.
I don't know why that company would have to keep paying your friend. Once you offer up the fact that you plan to resign, the company is under no obligation to do anything else for you. In fact, they could have just as easily said "no" and fired him right there and then (like most employers will do).
Please, please, please do not follow the parent's advice on this. In almost all cases, it will not turn out well for you. I speak with authority because I am an employer and have dealt with this very issue recently. Attorneys were involved, counsel was sought, etc, etc. I am not talking out of my ass on this one.
If you are laid off from your employer, how are non-compete agreements enforceable at all? I am suspicious of your claim that people who had their "jobs slashed" would still be under a non-compete of anykind.
It's like unemployment. You don't just automatically get unemployment if you are out of work. If you are terminated for cause, then you get no unemployment. If you quit on your own, you get no unemployment. However, if you are laid off, then you will qualify for unemployment.
Non-compete agreements have the same basic legal structure. You can't be held to a non-compete if your employer lays you off as a normal part of downsizing. You may very well be held to a non-compete if you are fired for cause and/or quit on your own.
The distinction is subtle, but important in the eyes of the law.
No, it will BROADEN your job opportunities. While it's fashionable to bash business and capitalism on Slashdot, in the real world.....money makes the world go round. The more you understand how that money makes the world go round, the more valuable you are both to yourself and to your employer (if you have one).
I've read all of the replies to this thread and the only thing I can say conclusively is this: Slashdot is fucking retarded for economic and/or financial discussions. It is -literally- useless and I'll even go one further: it's dangerous to your financial future (if you believe what is posted here).
Ummm, MSFT and GE are taxed at the worlds highest rate of 35%, just like most of the publicly traded companies in America (sans S-Corps). Bitch all you want about the tax credits and tax deductions they are afforded but please don't spout off about them "not paying taxes". You are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Better yet, you get double fucked if you happen to own a piece of a company. Not only does the company pay a 35% tax on it's profits, but you get to pay a tax on the dividends AND the capital gains.
But I guess it's OK since only "fat cats" own anything anymore....
Who would want to work for BP? They're non-profit,
Full stop. What? BP is NOT a non-profit. They never have been. In fact, not only are they a for-profit enterprise, they are publicly traded on the London stock exchange and have ADR's here on the New York Stock Exchange.
I find it amusing that the industry thought they could get away with that one. That they thought such a law could withstand the will of hordes of enraged and ruined people. No, BP is going to pay far, far more than $75 million.
This law was specifically written for exactly this type of incident. The fact that you don't think it will remain in force is naive on your part. The "industry" won't suffer until you no longer need petroleum products. Which is.....not in your lifetime.
Light? Microwave? Ok, either I am really a newb at eletricity or I am not catching what you are saying.
Let's take the light example. In other words, a laser. Can you build a laser big enough (as well as a receiver that is big enough) to transmit the energy required to run one of these rovers? I am asking a question about scale. I realize you can transfer some energy via laser. My question is: can you transfer enough to run a Rover? I don't think you can. I don't think we have advanced the technology even close to achieving that.
Same problem with microwave or any other non-wired technology. If this could be done from satellite to the mars surface, then why don't we all have "wireless power cords" by now?
Granted, I am not a sparky (Elect Engineer) so my knowledge might be lacking here....
How, exactly, can electricity/power be "beamed" from a satellite to the rover? As far as I know, we can't "beam" any significant amount of electricity because so much is lost in the medium. While I know it's possible to do some induction (like Wii remote chargers), I don't think that technology scales up very well.
In all of my life, I am not sure I have ever read a more cynical post than you just wrote.
You sir, are the very definition of a crab in a barrel. Do you know what happens to crabs in a barrel when one of them tries to escape? The others pull him back down into the barrel.
Instead of celebrating the overwhelming success of the program, you denigrate it by saying it was too successful. Making something fail because of some artificial time horizon is just....well...stupid. My god man, don't you have ANY pride in success?
...or are all successes just failures waiting to happen???
spun, I had much hope for our discussion but it is clear you are nothing more than a radical and a shill. You don't even have the slightest grasp of "how things work" and instead of trying to learn and genuinely understand, you just mouth off a bunch of nonsense. As it stands, I don't entertain such banality so good luck to you and your "facts".
I never try to hide my biases. I make them crystal clear.
On this point, we 100% agree. Your biases are there and are plainly evident. This is why I posted a response in the first place. Your biases have clouded your understanding of this subject and you are incorrect with your assertions as well as your innuendo.
spun, you post on this subject a lot. I am certain, if we ever met in person, we would have a lot to talk about.
However, your post on this subject is only 1/2 of the story. It is a fact that the Community Reinvestment Act played a part in the loan debacle. Fraud also played a part but I don't hear you complaining about the "liars" who lied on their loan docs.
To explain "the great recession" without mentioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac role is disingenuous at best. And just so we are clear -- FNM and FMC are 100% government creations. Go read up on the history of those entities and then ask yourself: "does their very existence change the game?". Yes. Yes it does. I am not saying that is a good/bad thing. I am only saying that their very existence - by default - changed how the mortgage market works. I contend it changed the market for the worse because it gave people an abnormally low cost of capital.
I am hear to keep you honest, spun. You have good ideas and good replies.....but you need to be honest about both sides of the equation. It's not just "greedy, fat cat, republican bankers and politicians" that caused this mess. Plenty of misguided ideology is also responsible.
The other reservations in AZ that I've visited are primarily agrarian (with a few casinos), so for the most part, they're eating healthier foods, and they're out there performing physical labor to cultivate the food.
Bullshit! I am calling shenanigans. You have NOT visited any "primarily agrarian" reservations where "most" indians are eating healthier food, and doing physical labor buy cultivating said food. You sir are 100% completely full of shit and I'm calling it.
Wanna know how I know you're full of shit? Because it is Arizona. Look at a map and look at average temperatures. Nobody is "subsisting" out there. Not even the Indians. And yes, I have traveled extensively through the state and I've been to plenty of reservations. You might be right if we were talking about (eastern) Oklahoma but we're not.
...or did you think the US government gave them the "good" land?
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, you could draw unemployment which affects your employer if they decide to fire you
You are not eligible for unemployment if you were fired for cause. If you were laid off, you would be correct. However, if you are fired....you can not "stick it" to your employer by filing for unemployment. It doesn't work that way.
You apparently didn't see any value in having him around to tie up loose ends, pass information on to his successor, etc.
Correct.
Was that because the nature of the job was such that there wasn't information in his head that the company needed, or because you screwed up?
It was a sales position so I suppose it's the first one you mention. Sales is a very easy game to score, with respect to employee performance. Yes, we will take a minor hit getting the new guy up and running but that's a small price to pay in the overall scheme of things.
Sounds like it backfired on you.
Not sure why you would say that. We always consult attorneys in situations like this because I want to know what the law actually states and how it is interpreted. While I understand where your comment comes from, attorneys are not all that expensive when compared to the severance. Maybe $1000 for the attorney and around $10K for the employee. That's money well spent in my mind.
You ask a legit question. It all depends on whether you want that employee around. For employees "in good standing", it's not a problem to keep them around and I appreciate the heads up. In response, I will often give an extra week of pay as a tradeoff for the help they provide during transition.
It is all dependent on risk/reward. Sometimes it's better to keep people around for transition reasons....and sometimes it's better to get them out as quickly as possible so they don't poison everything else.
In our particular situation, firing on the spot was appropriate.
No, it's not illegal if you didn't work those two weeks. Companies are under NO obligation to pay you for days that you don't work. It is no more complex than that. However, if you work the final two weeks, then you are correct your employer is obligated to pay wages for the days you worked.
Just because you offer to resign in two weeks does not mean your employer has to accept your offer. They can choose to accept your offer or they could just fire you right there on the spot. If they chose the latter option, you have no recourse and that employer is not obligated to pay your for the two weeks (because you didn't work those two weeks). It may suck but that's the way it is.
Lots of companies pay the two weeks, thinking they can avoid the possibility of any litigation. The 2 weeks pay is a "cost of doing business" and they will often pay employees even if they are not reporting to work. But make no mistake, they don't have to do it that way.
Honestly, it's no more complex than this: you should never expect to get paid for days you don't work. If you do, consider yourself lucky, take the money, and go quietly into the good night.
giving two weeks notice is a courtesy that I am extending
...and paying that 2 weeks salary is a courtesy your employer extends. If you leave, then you should expect to forgo the 2 weeks salary.
That seems fair to me.
I know a guy who did the same thing and was fired on the spot. He was escorted out and paid only through the end of the day. I was the one who fired him.
I don't know why that company would have to keep paying your friend. Once you offer up the fact that you plan to resign, the company is under no obligation to do anything else for you. In fact, they could have just as easily said "no" and fired him right there and then (like most employers will do).
Please, please, please do not follow the parent's advice on this. In almost all cases, it will not turn out well for you. I speak with authority because I am an employer and have dealt with this very issue recently. Attorneys were involved, counsel was sought, etc, etc. I am not talking out of my ass on this one.
If you are laid off from your employer, how are non-compete agreements enforceable at all? I am suspicious of your claim that people who had their "jobs slashed" would still be under a non-compete of anykind.
It's like unemployment. You don't just automatically get unemployment if you are out of work. If you are terminated for cause, then you get no unemployment. If you quit on your own, you get no unemployment. However, if you are laid off, then you will qualify for unemployment.
Non-compete agreements have the same basic legal structure. You can't be held to a non-compete if your employer lays you off as a normal part of downsizing. You may very well be held to a non-compete if you are fired for cause and/or quit on your own.
The distinction is subtle, but important in the eyes of the law.
You do realize you have that same option, don't you? It may not be palatable to you but it's there nonetheless.
You are doing it wrong...
Can't stop the signal, Mal....
I don't drive GM because I don't buy consumer products from my government. I would prefer to buy them from private, non-government owned stores.
I wonder if the government will still own the majority of GM in 20 years?
It will narrow my job opportunities,
No, it will BROADEN your job opportunities. While it's fashionable to bash business and capitalism on Slashdot, in the real world.....money makes the world go round. The more you understand how that money makes the world go round, the more valuable you are both to yourself and to your employer (if you have one).
I've read all of the replies to this thread and the only thing I can say conclusively is this: Slashdot is fucking retarded for economic and/or financial discussions. It is -literally- useless and I'll even go one further: it's dangerous to your financial future (if you believe what is posted here).
PLEASE stick to technology and "things we know".
So all buyers are dumb?
Interesting theory you have there.....
Ummm, MSFT and GE are taxed at the worlds highest rate of 35%, just like most of the publicly traded companies in America (sans S-Corps). Bitch all you want about the tax credits and tax deductions they are afforded but please don't spout off about them "not paying taxes". You are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
For the record: The USA has the highest corporate profits tax in the world -- up to 35% tax rate on corporate profits.
Better yet, you get double fucked if you happen to own a piece of a company. Not only does the company pay a 35% tax on it's profits, but you get to pay a tax on the dividends AND the capital gains.
But I guess it's OK since only "fat cats" own anything anymore....
Someone missed the day when we talked about diversification and risk....
Who would want to work for BP? They're non-profit,
Full stop. What? BP is NOT a non-profit. They never have been. In fact, not only are they a for-profit enterprise, they are publicly traded on the London stock exchange and have ADR's here on the New York Stock Exchange.
I find it amusing that the industry thought they could get away with that one. That they thought such a law could withstand the will of hordes of enraged and ruined people. No, BP is going to pay far, far more than $75 million.
My money says you are wrong.
This law was specifically written for exactly this type of incident. The fact that you don't think it will remain in force is naive on your part. The "industry" won't suffer until you no longer need petroleum products. Which is.....not in your lifetime.
Light? Microwave? Ok, either I am really a newb at eletricity or I am not catching what you are saying.
Let's take the light example. In other words, a laser. Can you build a laser big enough (as well as a receiver that is big enough) to transmit the energy required to run one of these rovers? I am asking a question about scale. I realize you can transfer some energy via laser. My question is: can you transfer enough to run a Rover? I don't think you can. I don't think we have advanced the technology even close to achieving that.
Same problem with microwave or any other non-wired technology. If this could be done from satellite to the mars surface, then why don't we all have "wireless power cords" by now?
Granted, I am not a sparky (Elect Engineer) so my knowledge might be lacking here....
How, exactly, can electricity/power be "beamed" from a satellite to the rover? As far as I know, we can't "beam" any significant amount of electricity because so much is lost in the medium. While I know it's possible to do some induction (like Wii remote chargers), I don't think that technology scales up very well.
Can you explain this please?
In all of my life, I am not sure I have ever read a more cynical post than you just wrote.
...or are all successes just failures waiting to happen???
You sir, are the very definition of a crab in a barrel. Do you know what happens to crabs in a barrel when one of them tries to escape? The others pull him back down into the barrel.
Instead of celebrating the overwhelming success of the program, you denigrate it by saying it was too successful. Making something fail because of some artificial time horizon is just....well...stupid. My god man, don't you have ANY pride in success?
spun, I had much hope for our discussion but it is clear you are nothing more than a radical and a shill. You don't even have the slightest grasp of "how things work" and instead of trying to learn and genuinely understand, you just mouth off a bunch of nonsense. As it stands, I don't entertain such banality so good luck to you and your "facts".
I never try to hide my biases. I make them crystal clear.
On this point, we 100% agree. Your biases are there and are plainly evident. This is why I posted a response in the first place. Your biases have clouded your understanding of this subject and you are incorrect with your assertions as well as your innuendo.
spun, you post on this subject a lot. I am certain, if we ever met in person, we would have a lot to talk about.
However, your post on this subject is only 1/2 of the story. It is a fact that the Community Reinvestment Act played a part in the loan debacle. Fraud also played a part but I don't hear you complaining about the "liars" who lied on their loan docs.
To explain "the great recession" without mentioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac role is disingenuous at best. And just so we are clear -- FNM and FMC are 100% government creations. Go read up on the history of those entities and then ask yourself: "does their very existence change the game?". Yes. Yes it does. I am not saying that is a good/bad thing. I am only saying that their very existence - by default - changed how the mortgage market works. I contend it changed the market for the worse because it gave people an abnormally low cost of capital.
I am hear to keep you honest, spun. You have good ideas and good replies.....but you need to be honest about both sides of the equation. It's not just "greedy, fat cat, republican bankers and politicians" that caused this mess. Plenty of misguided ideology is also responsible.
The other reservations in AZ that I've visited are primarily agrarian (with a few casinos), so for the most part, they're eating healthier foods, and they're out there performing physical labor to cultivate the food.
...or did you think the US government gave them the "good" land?
Bullshit! I am calling shenanigans. You have NOT visited any "primarily agrarian" reservations where "most" indians are eating healthier food, and doing physical labor buy cultivating said food. You sir are 100% completely full of shit and I'm calling it.
Wanna know how I know you're full of shit? Because it is Arizona. Look at a map and look at average temperatures. Nobody is "subsisting" out there. Not even the Indians. And yes, I have traveled extensively through the state and I've been to plenty of reservations. You might be right if we were talking about (eastern) Oklahoma but we're not.