EDIT: To clarify that a bit, I am interested in what the upsides are except for possibly saving some money. An orderly shutdown usually seems preferable to me over quickly killing the process, for both sides.
- week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years
This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify his employeer on same basis that he or she quits. This introduces amount of games to recruitment process, where company frequently not only has to make bet by deciding to hire somebody, but also make sure that they'll wont be outbid during the three months that have to pass for person to change employeer
In the US, it's just assumed that the ex-employee will be as malicious as possible and so it's best to get rid of them fast as possible.
Think of it more like a severance package and it makes more sense.
The employee to give him some time to find a new job (he is entitled to some days off during these 3 months to interview).
The employer to (at least theoretically) force the employee to still work to prepare a handover, docs, etc.
What happens in practice depends on the case : these 3 months may be shortened via a mutual agreement, the employer may force the employee not to come to work (but still pay him) and other arrangements are possible.
Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.
The term "right to work" has nothing to do with employment status. It's political branding for laws that forbid mandatory union membership. It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force.
I think you're confusing it with "at will" employment.
I think it's fair to say teachers have the right to be teachers without joining a teachers' union. I don't think enforcing that right "contributes to the decline" of unions. Organizational models should be able to handle that sort of freedom to choose.
To me, the question is why unions don't innovate in their organizational models and policies so that giving employees freedom to choose is moot?
I don't think it's part of an American social contract that you would be forced to tangibly support candidates who have (by some accounts) immoral positions on abortion or immigration (to pick to polarizing issues).
Often times, especially in IT, when people are let go, it's often important for security reasons just to have them stop working immediately, and that worker is still going to get his salary.
When employees quit, it's not 3 months mandated, that's just the limit. You just work out your transition with your employer. Most job changes usually happen within just a few weeks.
Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.
Responsibilities go both ways.
No one can "force" you to continue working somewhere, of course, but you may lose compensation for extra vacation time and could be liable for financial damage you cause for your employer. But I've never actually heard about that being an issue.
It's very common to just mutually agree to part ways right away.
And of course there are provisions both ways that allow immediate termination, like gross negligence from the employee or the employer not paying out your salary.
Of course many companies find that it's not flexible enough for them, so they abuse the system and illegally hire low qualified workforce as "independent contractors" on civil contracts instead of work contracts. Search for "zero hour contracts" for UK, but it's rampant also in Poland, Italy and other countries where unions are not strong and employees' rights guaranteed by law are not enforced.
If you look closely at US startups you'll usually find the founders and senior staff are on "notice required" contracts of several months.
Modern slavery is things like confiscating the passports of your immigrant workers so they can't escape.
- You can do it in mutual agreement (see below).
- You can quit directly but you generally forgo any company benefits (like build up bonuses) and you might/most likely not have rights to state-supported unemployment benefits (70% of your last paycheck).
As an employer:
- You can either in mutual agreement (in which case the employee usually also keeps his/her rights since the contract does not end abruptly).
- By court order but this usually requires extensive documentation on malpractice of the employee.
Notice time usually is at least 1 full month in most cases, can be shorter if the employment is not time-fixed or by agreement. All notices are for both employer and employee.
I do not know exactly but if you have build up "vacation days" you usually cannot use those in your last month and forgo those, unless you agree with your employer in some sort of scheme. "Going in sick" will get you reported in which case a investigator will check you out and you most likely will forgo your sickness benefits. (I've had this once already, but not for contract finalization but reporting it really late. The guy was very surprised to see someone actually sick when he checked it out so I guess abuse happens often.)
There are some contract termination clauses (money mostly) in some contracts I've seen but as far as I know they are not enforceable in any way (since that equals servitude by power). Thinks like immediately handing back lease-cars and laptops under force of fine are though.
Yes, but at least California courts have found these "garden leave" provisions in contracts are not enforceable. [1]
As for the rest of the United States, I'm not sure, but it seems like somewhat unsettled law as such notice requirements are quite rare in the US.
1. " And it turns out that companies also cannot require their employees to provide any specific length of notice, even when they offer to compensate them at 100% of their salary and benefits for the duration of the notice period. California courts have found these mandatory provisions to be an unenforceable restraint, as well." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/understanding-californi...
Most worker rights, in the end, become a matter of how much money they'll pay you to leave if they want you to leave.
Yes, one could--theoretically--fight back and not accept the money, but that only means you'd be a pariah in the company. What's the point of staying if the company wants you to leave and offers you a package? Take the money and get a new job in a couple weeks...
Besides, I doubt Poland has arbitration clauses, so the workers would be free to sue. It would not be pleasant to stay in that job either way as you correctly pointed out though.
That said, I'm not sure if it's true or effective, but having worked at Stack Overflow for years I'm pretty sure this was done to spare overall misery.
While the employer can take legal action and sue them, proving that someone is sick is rather difficult (and frowned upon by most judges). There are many cases where my mother's employer could have easily proven that (because witnesses same him partying or there are even pictures online where he partied on that day) but it is generally not worth it because a trail is more expensive then paying one month's pay and also not worth the time and overhead.
Not everyone takes work very seriously, unfortunately, which makes the process suck for everybody. When my mother's boss has an opportunity to fire them eithout notice (because they are late or caught steeling), he generally does that, which is super unfair for the employees who would have worked until their very last.
We know nothing about severance, job assistance, etc. You can't really infer anything about this subject from that tweet.
From the https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/stack-overflow, the first round was from 2010 - 7 years ago. USV will like to get their exit soon.
For larger companies with layoffs beyond a threshold, they employer must give 60 days notice. I think they can instead give 60 days severance.
The Stack Overflow layoffs are 60 people and 20% of their workforce, and so wouldn't (even at a single site) be subject to the WARN Act’s 60-day notice requirement.
Does that kind of situation still confer protections in Germany? If so, how do German manufacturing companies manage to not go bankrupt? Do all the companies subscribe to huge insurance pools?
If there are ten employees you need to cut, shouldn't they be cut based on either their recent performance, or a completely random method?
Maybe it's putting lipstick on a pig, maybe it's fairness.
Layoffs (mass dismissal) are very hard, because usually it means the whole region has economic problems, and those that get laid off are especially vulnerable - because they almost by definition work in a sort of dying industry/trade.
No, because layoffs are position-based. If it's a performance related cull then that's not the same as redundancies. If you want to get rid of people like that then you need ironclad documentation and/or to provide generous packages.
When I was made redundant a decade ago in the UK I got:
- week's "consultation period" during which the ranking process for who would be made redundant was explained
- pay in lieu of month's notice
- (optional on behalf of the employer) three month's pay for signing away my right to sue for wrongful dismissal
The only situation in which employees can really lose out is if the company goes bankrupt in which case they are at risk of losing their last paycheque.
> Per Chapter 4, Part 4, Sections 1400-1408 of the Labor Code, WARN protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring that employers give a 60-day notice to the affected employees and both state and local representatives prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. Advance
The layoff that I was part of in '09 in California (Netapp, ~500 employees let go, about 6% of staff) had two different groups in the IT side of the house:
A. Out the door now. B. Pick your brain for some time.
The out the door now were let go immediately, though they were on payroll for 60 days. They weren't allowed in the building, but they were technically still employees. Severance package followed the 60 days.
The pick your brain group which I was part of were still allowed in and we worked. We had 30 days to sign a "increase pay and pick brain from Feb until July" or out the door with 30 days left on the WARN (if I remember it correctly). Come July, the 60 day window kicked in and then the severance package.
I am of the understanding that this approach isn't unusual with tech companies.
Labor seeks regulations that makes it difficult to be suddenly terminated. The primary downside is that companies are reluctant to hire employees.
The general counter argument is that if you make it difficult for companies to terminate employees, then companies will search for alternate mechanisms to sustain profitability. For example, instead of terminating an employee, the company might reduce executive pay, or pass the increased expenses on to customers.
Again, I agree with you.
Well that won't happen.
Apart from a few cases where executives agree to take all their compensation in equity to rescue a failing business, they tend to pay themselves first, sometimes at the cost of the long term health of the business. Philip Green / BHS is the example that comes to mind.
I think you’d have to show examples where a company:
1. Was not allowed to fire employees,
2. Executives did not take a pay cut,
3. The company continued to do well.> it had found that “the main purpose of the sale of BHS was to postpone BHS’s insolvency to prevent a liability to the schemes falling due while it was part of the Taveta group of companies ultimately owned by the Green family, and/or that the effect of the sale was materially detrimental to the schemes.”
IE, Green underfunded the pension scheme in order to pay himself several hundred million pounds, and then sold the company off to escape liability for it. He "voluntarily" paid back £363 million in order to end an investigation that might have resulted in him being jailed.
Correct. Remember ROLES are made redundant, not people. If the role no longer exists then by definition there's nothing to handover.
If there is a handover then there better also be a big chunk of cash to the departing worker in return for waiving the right to sue, because if there isn't, it's tribunal time.
My point is that we don't know the details, a tweet is way too short.
That's how it's done in sane countries because notice periods are proscribed by law. And no, it does not lead to people vandalizing their workplace.
In "sane countries" you can have people stop working immediately as long as you pay them. That's really all the notice period is for, it has nothing to do with continued responsibilities.
Tech company severance packages are usually pretty ok, I would bet stack overflow is giving packages that would be just fine in other countries.