Hacker News Reader

Comment by caboteria | Hacker News Reader

I think that this is people finally getting fed up with corporate hypocrisy. When you quit, for example, it's expected that you give at least two week's notice, and anything less would be "unprofessional". When there's a layoff, though, people are shown the door immediately (or sometimes even fired over the phone). Why should I be held to rules that don't apply to the company that I'm working for?

View on HN

What's the primary thing the employee gives the employer? Work.

What's the primary thing the employer gives the employee? Money.

I think it's reasonable when one party decides to end the relationship, that they keep providing that primary thing for a period of time to make the transition more orderly.

That makes notice periods and severance periods logically equivalent in my book. The company can show you the door immediately (if they want), but as long as they pay you severance for a period of time, they've held up their end. (I've never seen zero severance in the tech industry unless a company is literally out of money or in the case the employee is being fired "for cause" (typically meaning sexual harassment, or theft/embezzlement, etc, not mere incompetence or laziness.)

My company pays zero severance. It's clearly stated in the handbook. I've worked at over a dozen places in the bay area and only two provided actual severance and in both of those cases, they were trying to avoid lawsuits / publicity over not having promised health insurance / other workers getting drunk and assaulting their coworkers. So those two places were highly motivated to shut me up or else I'm certain there would have been no severance.

So yeah, I'll give my employers the same consideration they give me: NONE.

Are companies not paying severance to laid off employees? The old norm, which seemed pretty reasonable to me, was that employees gave notice and companies paid severance. The walking out the door part is unpleasant, but it's the pay that's more important IMO.

Severance is a rarity. It’s also probably not enough. I’ve seen people get 1 or 2 weeks pay as severance.

I agree that from the employees' standpoint more is better, but should there be a connection between expected length of notice and expected amount of severance? I believe in Europe the expected notice periods are significantly longer.

In France on a CDI (permanent contract) above a certain level the usual notice period is 3 months.

In Sweden it's 3 months, in the UK it's usually 1 month (although my last UK contract was 3months notice).

But it swings both ways in these countries; you can't terminate someone on the spot. The employer must fulfil the notice period too (or, at least pay you for it)

In many US companies, severance increases with years of service. In the case of my former employer, as the company's balance sheet got worse, successive downsizings provided fewer benefits. There were legal protections that slowed the rate of those decreases.

What size companies? Most large companies pay out severance based on tenure.

Severance always depends on the length of your stay at that company. Typically it's 1 week for a year of service. So yeah, good luck with that if you are anything less than 5 years into the job.

I'm not sure that there is a 'typical' for severance. I've seen people get everything from a flat 1 month, to 2 months + 2 weeks/year.

Tech companies sometimes demand signing a non-disparagement or other legal agreement in exchange for severance. Companies with the fake "unlimited vacation" policy give you nothing for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com