Naïve Quitting | Hacker News Reader

Naïve Quitting

sivers.org

157 pointsniyazpk65 comments

If I were the employer I'd say, that's really nice, please make sure you serve out your two weeks and we'll post the job, she can apply.

Bringing in an outsider for a job on your own initiative can open up your employer to all kinds of nastiness, for instance, maybe there is someone in line for promotion that immediately has a case because the job was never posted.

Really, this will work only very rarely, if you're working for 'bigcorp' x, I'd highly advise against trying a stunt like this.

You also can't just disclose all kinds of stuff to third parties that are not under an employment contract. Even a librarian has access to all kinds of private information. No wonder his boss was a little 'stunned'. What's wrong with talking it over beforehand instead of presenting your boss with a fait-accompli ?

I worked for a company as a co-founder/shareholder in the mid 80's and was in the situation that I too wanted to quit, I talked it over with the owner ('DGA' in dutch, mine was a minority share), suggested that I would talk to a friend of mine, he said, fine, go ahead.

That's the correct sequence.

Incidentally, my friend still works there today!

"If you work for bigcorp x" being the operative term here. If you work in a small business, you know the owner personally, and you know this would be appreciated, knock yourself out. That's a lot of "if's", so the post could've used a lot more context, but in a certain situation I can see doing this.

Even in a smaller corporation I'd be very careful. I try to put myself in the place of the boss there and to have some sysadmin walk up to me and say hey Jacques, I'm leaving today, here is the guy that I trained while you weren't looking, he already has all the passwords and would very much like my job, I can promise you I'd be less than thrilled about it.

There are two things wrong with it, it presumes that it is his right to make these decisions and presents his boss with an impossible situation, either accept and you might have continuity, or don't accept and have an immediate problem.

Master salesmanship to get away with it but not everybody is quite as timid as his boss was there.

I can't find a better term than blackmail, but that isn't quite it because he doesn't expect any payout, maybe someone else has a better term for this, but something really isn't right here.

That decision was simply not his to make.

I call it 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Some of the worst behaviours I have seen have been from people who believed they were being helpful or protective of someone.

This is why all of those conditions need to be true. If you know that your employer will appreciate you doing this, then why not? Of course, it's highly unlikely that you know this to a reasonable certainty unless you ask.

Exactly, you don't know unless you ask. Don't assume, ask.

Do you really want to trust the opinion of someone who has decided you aren't that great to work for anymore? Derek is a special case, but generally speaking that's not a gamble I'd want to make.

Not everyone leaves because they "decide you aren't that great to work for anymore." While it is the overwhelmingly most common reason, something like 20% of departures (that statistic is from memory, so don't take it too seriously) are for reasons that have nothing to do with the employer. Changing priorities, physical moves, interesting opportunities elsewhere, and starting one's own business all play a part.

You make good points. In a company I worked for previously I got more than one of my friends hired, but I did it when the company was actively recruiting and I spoke with my boss extensively at every step.

In the end, I gave my recommendations and scheduled the interviews, but it was my boss that worked out salary and other details with them.

Unless you are the hiring manager and have direct authority to make offers on behalf of the company, never offer anyone a job. Providing a reference and hand carrying the resume to the appropriate hiring manager is as far as you would be wise to go.

He made the mistake of assuming all jobs were like his, so now you are going to respond by assuming all companies are like yours? I don't think mirroring the original logical fallacy helps anything. In some places, what he did is appropriate. In others, it isn't. Observing that different places are different seems a little pointless. It seemed pretty obvious to me that his suggestion was not meant for BigCorps where you're Worker #L24781124 and you have to file in triplicate in order for your quitting to be recognized.

I think that nowhere in the US or any country with similar labour laws would this be appropriate without careful consultation with management.

As pointed out in other posts, the fact he brought in a non-employee and trained her opens up some very nasty legal questions: What if she got hurt during this unofficial nonemployed training? Does the company need to pay her for that training time? I am not a lawyer so I don't have those answers, but I am a manager and know I don't ever want to ask them. I believe it is safe to say that applies to virtually all companies of any size in the US.

Now, what he could have done is, much as Jacquesm described, recommended her the same day he turned in notice and offered to train her. This would have let management make the final decision and get all the papework in order while he still gets to help out a friend by helping her get a job and help out the company by saving them the trouble of finding a replacement on two weeks notice (if they choose to avail themselves of it by hiring her.)

I have taken that second route, and that effort, in full consultation with senior management, has always been appreciated. Actually bringing someone into my workplace and training them would not have been appreciated anywhere I worked (in a couple of them, I would have been criminally prosecuted) and I suspect it would be appreciated by very few if any employers in the US.

Interns and apprenticeships don't exist anywhere in the US? It's essentially the same thing.

There are 2 key differences:

1. Internships and apprenticeships are known about and approved of by management.

2. Internships and apprenticeships are formal working relationships. This means that, depending on circumstances, they often involve the interns being covered under the companies insurance like employees and where appropriate involves NDAs and all other appropriate documents or procedures to protect sensitive information when needed.

Surely some employers may prefer to use the event of an employee quitting to readjust things / change salary levels / bring in a good candidate they had no room for? It just seems a bit presumptuous to offer someone your job at your salary without the employer's prior approval.

That's probably true. But, still, the point of the post stands and is a good one to be reminded of from time to time.

Yeah reading it I was thinking the employer is probably going to say "great, but we'll find our own person".

Depends on the role, if it's a service roles that anyone can be trained up for in a week or 2 it's a great idea.

I think for super entry-level or for very high-level, something like this is appropriate. Established, successful CEO's usually have a long, planned succession plan. I left a company like this once -- told my boss who should be promoted to replace me and spent time with them to make sure they could do the job. Didn't just do it and then leave though, so not really the same.

The idea of planning a succession is a good one, but not just on your own.

I think the most polite thing to do, as an employee, is to say "I'd like to leave my position within [some time period], let's figure out an exit strategy".

PS - maybe add "I have a friend who I'm certain is capable of doing this job, I highly recommend her as a replacement if you need one."

I agree. I think the guy has a good character, but still, his situation was very special, here where I work I can't bring non-employee and show him what I do, that would violate a lot of internal rules.

I think you're right - especially when you're in programming. So much knowledge is lost every time someone moves on it's so much better when there is a handover period.

I just quit my job, and the first part is what I did, pretty much. Though, I came in with a reasonable offer (and in line with the employment laws here in Belgium). We then negotiated a bit and now I'm just redrafting my official letter to take that all into account. In my area (academia research) there can be a lot of training required (it took me about 6 months to get everything under my belt, but I think for the new person it should be at least half that since I've refined a lot of the material). I just hope that they can find someone sooner rather than later!! :)

I agree, and this is what happened when I last resigned from a job. I wanted to move abroad, so sat down with my boss and had a nice conversation about it. We set a rough timeline for five months, and then went about hiring my replacement and getting him trained up. I walked away with everything nicely in place, and I think it's been the best way I've left a job ever, no worries, bitterness, just things being the way they should be.

As someone who's about to do the same thing, and is kinda nervous about it, thanks for the boost of confidence :)

I used to be employee #3 at a small startup. When I left, I gave 30 days notice so that I could help hire and train my replacement. In response, they told me to go home and refused to pay the 2 weeks pay they owed me.

Good thing you left.

Here you could bring them to court over it. The most they can do is send you home for the 30 days (but they must still pay you for them).

At my last job, I was certain they'd tell me to go home for the two weeks (that was their usual practice). But I didn't want my projects to suffer. So I had my closest work friend and his family over for dinner and gave him a quick brain dump of the projects. Over the next few days, we'd find a few spare moments to make sure he knew all the ins and outs.

Now, finally, I could give notice. As it turns out, they "let" me stay pretty much the whole two weeks.

Agreed. I have been in the position as a hiring manager, and if one of my employees had done this, I would have been furious. This would have put me in the awkward position of telling the person that thought they had a job lined up that they needed to interview, may or may not get the salary they thought they had locked in, and that they would have to wait at least a week (likely longer) while I considered all other candidates, especially possible internal candidates.

And that is before talking about the fact they trained someone who had not yet signed an NDA in our processes and internal workings. I know in some areas this is not a problem, but in some industries I worked with this could have caused major issues. In fact, if working with any kind of sensitive data, this could involve actual crimes being comitted.

And that is not to mention the fact I would have to then have a long talk with legal about whether or not we needed to pay her for the week of training already done. And, again I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this could have opened up horrible liability situations if she had actually been injured in an employees only area while being trained without an employment contract.

The only saving grace is that most managers generally (I certainly did) have a good enough idea of what is going on in their areas that this would have been caught and corrected within hours instead of an entire week.

[Edited for minor grammar and spelling fix]

I've never had an employer offer to find me my next job, why would an employee offer to find their next employee?

It's interesting to see the contrast in comments here vs. the comments on Derek's blog.

Sycophants and praise in the comments on the blog itself, rational discussion elsewhere. It's not that surprising or interesting. :-)

68 comments and not a single one pointing out the obvious flaw with the article? If that was my blog, I'd be worried.

(Of course my blog is happy to have 3 comments on a post, but that is another matter entirely)

Indeed. Like the first one:

Derek - what a remarkable guy you are. More individuals like you, sharing viewpoints that make the world a more productive place, is what helps shape a culture and push things in a more positive direction. Thanks for taking the time to do so.

If people started posting comments like that on my blog I think I'd be too embarrassed to ever post again.

Continuing on with Derek's theme of naivety though (no, I'm not going to track down the correct key combination for the double-dotted i) I feel privileged to have no idea who Derek Sivers is, and hence no need to praise his rather ordinary and somewhat flawed blog posts. Hooray, beginner's mind!

I don't get all the articles on HN about quitting.. having recently quit a job I've worked in for 1 year and 9 months, and never having quit a serious job before that, all I can say is its not that hard. Give them whatever length of advance notice as your contract says (I hear its typically 2 weeks in the US? Where I am, a month is the standard length), tell them in person. Be polite. Make sure you pass on any information that they may need for someone to take over your job. Thats it.

Employers should be used to people leaving - and if not, they should get used to it. It may not be the employers fault you want to leave (or maybe it is?), but its still not your job to find replacements - thats their HR departments job. Also, I keep hearing things on HN about people feeling bad for leaving - don't. The employer doesn't feel bad when they make money off your hard work without giving you a reward or bonus, they don't feel bad when they downsize the company to save money. They don't feel bad when they replace you for someone better/cheaper. (Ok, they might and you might feel bad for leaving, but its normal and it happens. Loyalty shouldn't get in the way of fulfilling your career goals or your happiness).

I got stressed over quitting my job, but then I decided screw it, I'll tell them this morning. I IM'ed my boss to ask him when would be a good time for a chat and then I went to him in person and told him straight out that I want to leave to work on personal projects and possibly travel for a few months. We then briefly talked about exactly when I'll be leaving and then we chatted about about how I found my time working there and my future plans. He then wished me well and offered to contact him if I ever needed advice or help with anything. That was it. I worked for the month and then on my last day everyone went for a few drinks. I'm still in contact with some of my former workmates.

It depends on so many circumstances whether quitting is a big deal or not that it is probably not possible to say which without knowing a lot more about a person. Obligations matter a lot, savings obviously figure in there, the local economy and the job market.

What's a non-issue for one can cause many sleepless nights for someone else.

This is believable, if you assume this guy has never seen a television, listened to the radio or read a newspaper for the last 25 years.

Many of Derek's posts are a vehicle used to illustrate a point. I thought that was generally well accepted.

You mean, made up? Like, a fable? Didn't read like that.

Perhaps embellished or selective memory driven. For example, I'm sure he is aware of how people elsewhere quit, and I'm sure at CDBaby he had someone quit over his tenure of running it. But by leaving that out, the story is so much better and the point is made crystal clear.

Thanks David. You're right on and said it better than I could. :-)

I want to quit my job to go for MS this fall, but there is a service agreement binding (2 years) that makes me work for them until Jan 2011, otherwise I need to pay a huge compensation for the bond breakage.

curious to know, is it only in India that I see such binding agreements, or are they prevalent worldwide?

UPDATE:

they reason because we invested money to train you, we expect you to serve us for 1 year after the training.

after a generic training, you need to get trained in any specific technology (which you don't get to choose). I was forced into mainframe; I have a web app development background from college, and due to lack of interest in mainframe and eventually realizing how tantalizing it could be to do something you don't want to do, I decided to apply for MS, and got decent admissions, and now I am not able to go.

I have worked in America all my life, never had such an agreement.

In America it would be banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Really?

I know a number of people who got advanced degrees (eg MDs) paid for by the military. The terms say that if you work for the military for a certain period after graduation, your tuition is paid in full. If you don't, then you owe your tuition. Either way you have an MD. (I know people who have gone both ways on that.)

That sounds very similar to this situation. And I've never heard of any legal objections to the arrangement.

But that tuition is unrelated to your military work, and it's a contract you enter beforehand where the tuition costs is essentially a bonus.

In the grandparent case the company decided to train him in whatever, and after the fact used that training to guilt him into staying.

But that tuition is unrelated to your military work...

Not so! When the military does this with MDs, they expect them to work, for the military, as that kind of MD. Therefore the tuition is being paid so that you can do the job you were hired for.

The parallel is very good. The military wants to hire you. They want you to do a job you don't have skills to do. While employed by the military you undergo training that is approved by the military. If you serve the military long enough, they will pay off that training, else you are liable for the cost of the training.

The important differences are that in the military case the training is received at an organization that is clearly separate from the military, the degree received is generally recognized as being very valuable, and the candidate has input into what kind of training they wish (within limits) to receive.

For a similar example, lots of private companies provide employer tuition reimbursement as a benefit. For instance they may pay for an employee's MBA, with the condition that the employee work for the employer for a fixed period of time. And typically companies that do this try to use the employees in ways that match the skills the employee is gaining. This is both legal and common in the USA.

I agree that the situations are similar, but like you said, the fact that the training you are receiving has a market-value outside the company and is worthwhile elsewhere does make a difference. The biggest difference, though, seems to be the clarity. In the military, the terms are very clearly spelled out up-front. If his situation is the same, I can't say I feel terribly bad for him, but if they were "fuzzy", which is how it sounds, its definitely shady behavior.

Never heard of anything like that in the US, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear of someone trying to pull something like this. Is it both ways? Do they have to pay you if they break the bond?

nope, even if they break the bond and terminate you, you still pay!

Then I have a great business model for Indian entrepreneurs.

The closest I've seen is a minimum term for sign-on bonus, school reimbursement, or moving bonus. Work less than X months and you owe the company back either. But just minimum employment term for start-up training? Training new employees is just part of the cost of doing business and the risk of them jumping is just part of doing business.

I'm sure there are US companies that try it, though.

You're an employee or a contractor? Quite unusual for an employment contract I think.

I am an employee.

This is not legally enforceable. This is akin to bonded labour. Talk to some one with a legal background before accepting strong arm tactics from HR departments.

/Indian.

I don't know anything about labour laws in India, better go read up on that stuff, but on the face of it I'd say it is a non-enforceable scare tactic.

It's like voodoo, it works if you believe in it.

I see from your profile that you work for Infy. I have heard this "we have incurred training costs on you, so you have to work for us for one year" argument before.

AFAIK, this was put in place to deter people who fit your profile to a T (newly minted grad, wanting to go abroad to study).

It will be interesting to see the parts of the employment document which talks about this "expectation" to repay their training.

IANAL, but training a new employee is part of the cost borne by the employer. So, they are not doing any favours to you by giving you that.

These "agreements" are mostly verbal threats ("we will not give you release docs", "we will not provide you with a experience certificate" and of course "you have to pay US" etc.,).

If you want any/all of this for your resume, you have no other way than to tough it out for another few months. Hey, we all know what probationers do in the first year in Infy :D

Or, if you really want to study, forget that you ever worked for Infy and don't bother to mention it on your resume. Of course, this is not palatable for anybody who wants a "clean" resume in India. And, if you have joined Infy, you might be one of them.

Good luck.

is it only in India that I see such binding agreements, or are they prevalent worldwide?

Holy crap, no.

In Sweden, you start out with one month notice on both parties. The time increases for the employer based on how long you've worked, but generally doesn't for the employee. The only exemption is for "critical" employees where it's hard to find a replacement and losing the person would endanger the company. In such cases I think the notice time for the employee can increase to three months or maybe six months.

Labour laws in the rest of the EU are pretty similar, what you describe is completely unheard of. If a company wishes to train new hires, they take the full cost, and they take the gamble of it working out or not.

In America there are some similar things. For instance, my current company is paying the tuition for my masters. I am expected to work for them for at least a year after I receive the last payment or I must repay that money.

In America, I know that there are limits to the types of contracts that can be written, but I am quite comfortable with this one. They didn't have to pay for my masters, and I didn't have to let them. Even the day I graduate I can quit and start another job, I just have to repay the tuition that they gave me.

I have heard from a friend that has done some minor work in film that the film industry also tends to do something similar. If a key actor tries to walk away with the film half finished there are often very large fines involved, at least according to her.

I know nothing about the film industry, but that kind of clause seems to make a lot of sense. Major actors aren't really replacable in the middle of a movie... you'd either need to find a dead-on look-a-like/sound-a-like, cancel the project, re-write the script somehow to limit that characters involvement to what has been shot so far (not always possible), or re-shoot all his/her scenes, none of which sound terribly appealing and all of which sound expensive.

I'm sure you thought of those issues while writing your post, but sometimes I like to think outloud :)

While this isn't exactly the same as modern slavery (aka indentured servitude), there are enough parallels to make me very angry at this contract. I will personally be avoiding your employer (infosys according to another comment) in the future, and would encourage others to do the same.

A friend pointed out a similar circumstance which is pretty common in the UK and the US, where a company pays for your formal education (perhaps a PhD), and as a result you work for the for some set length afterwards. This is much more acceptable - if you didn't work for them you would be paying back a modest sum which was used for your own education, not the "huge compensation" you describe.

So, if he has to fire someone does he find him another job first?

Fire for cause, certainly not. But layoff in a restructuring or downsizing? Many of the better companies will offer some form of support in finding the next job in that situation. What form that support comes in and whether it is really useful or not is another topic, of course.

If that's what the employer expects, shouldn't he put in a longer notice period in the contract and also reciprocate the courtesy while firing someone's ass off?

This article isn't about the fact that he quit his job or how he went about it, it's about challenging the norms of society and not just accepting them.

I think it's this naivety that let's many entrepreneurs, young and old, think that they can tackle established players or entire industries head on and win. It's this naivety that helps them identify the right way to do something rather than the established way.

Social, economic and technological innovation is disproportionately made by the supposedly naive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com