Ask Slashdot: When Is It OK To Not Give Notice? 892
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?"
No notice, no reference (Score:5, Informative)
2 week (Score:3, Informative)
A European perspective (Score:5, Informative)
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:No notice, no reference (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No notice, no reference (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:Layoffs have legal notice requirements (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm [dol.gov]
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:When you don't want a reference (Score:5, Informative)
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:2 week (Score:4, Informative)
If you're referring to this [virginia.gov] you have an odd definition of "all companies" and should realize that this only applies to mass layoffs. Many layoffs are far smaller.
Re:A European perspective (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, companies treat people more like interchangeable parts, not as people.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
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:No notice, no reference (Score:5, Informative)
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.
required to cash out vacation time is a myth (Score:2, Informative)
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:Presume no notice will be given (Score:5, Informative)
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:When you don't want a reference (Score:4, Informative)
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:No notice, no reference (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:Burning bridges (Score:4, Informative)
"Since the service is so shitty, I'll be improving it by leaving, so have fun".