Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kurtz79 | Hacker News Reader

Funny. In Spain (and I'm sure other countries) you are owed severance pay and can claim unemployment benefits in case your employer fires you/laids you off, but not in case you resign on your own.

Few employers would "fire" an employee resigning (also, "asking" to be fired is highly illegal), unless he/she were a very recent hire for which severance pay would be low.

View on HN

In Europe, we don't really have the concept of at-will employment so an employer can't legally terminate your employment without a good reason. And resigning isn't usually classed as a good reason.

I'm not sure about Spain, but in the UK there is a difference between being fired i.e. terminated with cause and laid off i.e. made redundant.

In the former, I don't believe there's any requirement for severance. In the latter there is a statutory minimum severance.

Also, if you're actually fired, your rights to unemployment benefits change. Usually some form of delay and/or reduction.

Isn't it a bit more complicated in England? An employee who's been working for the company for less than two years is fired for anything but reasons connected to protected characteristics doesn't have any recourse if they're fired. The employer doesn't need to give a reason.

Citation please? I was under the impression that UK employers always need to give a (valid) reason. The only change at two years of which I'm aware is that this is the point at which redundancy payments (US: severence pay) starts to become due in case of redundancy.

Qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal at tribunal is 2 years: https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed

That doesn't necessarily legalise unfair dismissal for the employer though, does it?

In the US fired means for cause. When you are fired they are legally saying you are a bad employee and they can/will tell others not to hire you. This implies they can not give your severance because the time you "worked" for them without doing your job is your severance. You don't get unemployment because you were not actually working. Contrast this with laid off which means you were a good employee, they just don't need you anymore: you can get severance (if there is any, it is not required).

If/when you employer is going to fire you ask if you can resign on the spot instead. Most will say yes: because you resigned of your own violation you cannot sue them, but in turn when someone checks references they will carefully say "yes s/he worked here, s/he left in good report, we have nothing more to say", which doesn't look bad.

In my country (Netherlands) there's some strict laws around firing; the situation you described (being a bad employee and getting fired on the spot) only applies for a few cases; refusal to work (without good reason, probably the most up for debate reason), theft, fraud, or severe incompetence. The other cases though require a more formal release procedure and compensation.

However, to work around that some companies get up to some really scummy practices. Multinationals especially, they can just let a company go bankrupt so there's no way for employees to get anything.

You are typically not fired on the spot in the US. The law allows it, but generally it only happens for the good reasons you listed. Most cases you are doing useful work, just "not enough", and the company will try to help you produce enough. If those attempts fail to work out they will fire you, but you should have seen it coming for months.

> You don't get unemployment because you were not actually working

Nope. You have to get fired (with or without cause, doesn’t matter) to collect unemployment in most US jurisdictions.

Nope, you have to get terminated "without cause" (i.e., laid off) to collect unemployment in most of the US.

If you are terminated with case (i.e., fired), you are generally not eligible for unemployment, though there are a few exceptions.

In California it is misconduct which disqualifies you, which doesn’t include more common “with cause” cases. I don’t know about other jurisdictions.

Laymen, especially techies, often assume that termination for "poor performance" or "bad fit" is a "for cause" termination because there is a "cause" behind the termination, but that is an incorrect understanding of employment law.

Businesses always have a "cause" for letting someone go (usually financial or performative), so the inartfully term "for cause" actually means a cause for something other than business considerations. Generally, today "for cause" means misconduct. Each state enumerates a different set of activities constituting misconduct, but there is always some sort of misconduct involved.

(Unfortunately I no longer have the employment law book where they cover the history behind the origination of this term and I don't have the time to google an alternative history, but in a nutshell it's shorthand for a somewhat longer phrase.)

Not always. “With Cause” is defined in employment contracts quite a bit more broadly than just misconduct in all its forms. For example, my most recent contract had terms about the company hypothetically requiring relocation and I refusing as being “With Cause,” as well as things like not complying with internal rules, procedures, or org charts. Basically any reason for letting me go due to a choice I made. “Misconduct” on the other hand requires material detriment, aka me screwing over the company financially.

“With Cause” is about you being qualified for severance pay. “Misconduct” is about you causing trouble through intent or severe negligence.

That might be different for the legal term "With Cause" though. It is common for legal documents to define terms, many laws in fact start with a definition section that apply just to that law. Thus legally your state may have several different definitions for "with cause" that apply to different parts of the law.

That's cool but that's not legally for cause in the US whatever the company wants to claim. I'd go even further and say they may be violating labor law but including such a provision.

This just isn't true, at least in New Jersey. For NJ Unemployment, being fired only renders you ineligible if you are fired for misconduct, which is further defined as requiring intent or sufficient negligence to imply a disregard for the job. Meanwhile, employers aren't limited to firing you for misconduct or layoffs. You can be fired because you're just not a good fit for the team/position. In that case, you are eligible for unemployment because you didn't quit but didn't commit misconduct. If you asked to resign instead of being fired, you'd be giving up your right to collect NJUI.

I can't speak for other states, but I'd be surprised if NJ is entirely unique.

No, what he said is true in NJ and generally all over the US.

While being "fired" is commonly used by laymen as a shorthand for being laid off, the two have very different meanings in practice (and very different legal consequences).

Being "fired" in the US means a termination "for cause", where cause generally means commission of a felony, morally reprehensible acts, deception in the hiring process, or violation of rules set forth in the employee handbook.

Being "laid off" means a termination for any reason other than for cause. For example, if you are terminated because you are a "Bad fit", you have been laid off, not fired.

If you asked to resign instead of being fired, it would have not affect on your right to collect NJUI, because you wouldn't be eligible either way. No one in their right mind would choose to resign over being laid off unless the company was offering a termination bonus that exceeded the foregone UI.

I've never heard of a termination based on individual performance being called a layoff. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's defined as a termination due to factors outside the employee's control. A layoff is when the position itself no longer exists due to downsizing, restructuring, etc.

Being terminated due to poor performance or a bad fit is not a layoff, by any standard I've heard of, and some brief googling seems to support that. Terminating an employee for being a bad fit and calling it a layoff would almost certainly invite legal action.

But I'm no lawyer, so if you've got a source backing up the claim, I'd love to see it and be enlightened.

You admit that you're not a lawyer, and then continue to argue about the meaning of terms which have defined legal consequences?

Your colloquial understanding of what "layoff" means is just that--a colloquial but not correct understanding. A layoff is legally just a not-for-cause termination of an employee by the employer. Down-sizing is a type of termination (and a type of layoff) which usually has additional legal requirements and consequences (mostly for the company).

Being terminated due to poor performance or a bad fit is not a layoff, by any standard I've heard of, and some brief googling seems to support that.

Cites needed. HR and legal sites only. You might be confusing the Canadian and EU sites that pop up as the first results as authorities on US law, which is very different. (Note: Canada does define "layoff" and "termination" to mean different things. The US does not.)

Terminating an employee for being a bad fit and calling it a layoff would almost certainly invite legal action.

Literally anything can invite legal action in the US. But terminating an employee for being a bad fit is precisely within the meaning of "layoff" and would not result in a successful legal action by the terminated employee.

But I'm no lawyer, so if you've got a source backing up the claim, I'd love to see it and be enlightened.

I charge $600/hour, if you want cites, however, Google is free if you remember to limit yourself to US sites. This ADP article (https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2018/09/firing-employees-...) confusingly notes the difference between the two from a non-legal/non-HR perspective intended for layman employers.

I don't think that would help you in most circumstances. I know when I worked for HP, they had a policy of only confirming the dates of employment. Beyond that, I think some employers will indicate if an employee is rehirable, which I'd guess your not if you were getting fired.

In France (and I belive everywhere in Europe) your employer is not allowed to comment on your employment at all.

The only thing they can confirm is that you were employed, from when to when, and the position you had. Full stop.

Not your salary, not whether you were "good" or not, nothing. They can of course tell w great your were if you explicitly allow them.

It’s common in the US to be asked to leave when you give notice. One place I worked had security escort people out of the building by the end of the day they gave notice.

I also worked in restaurants through college and while you weren’t asked to leave, you were taken off the schedule and not given any shifts.

(edit) The security walking out wasn't this big show of force, it was mostly to turn in laptop, badge, etc. Security was nice about it, but it was still security (end edit)

I don’t get the whole being walked out by security thing. It seems just an unnecessary show of force or humiliation without any benefit. If a person had wanted to do danger then they could have done that easily before putting in notice. It makes no sense.

Before the notice, they had a job with a company that paid them money that allowed them to pay the rent, food, hospital costs, etc.

After it, they may worry want to pay next week’s groceries from.

So a person is fine until the moment they give notice and immediately become a risk after handing it in? When I saw someone walked out it felt like a show of power by a police state that signaled “we can take anybody anytime and the only thing you can do is watch helplessly”. The procedure seems designed for humiliation and intimidation.

In the cases I've seen it happen the person walked out was given their final two weeks pay. They just were not allowed back in the office.

i would guess that if the employee handbook calls for two weeks notice of resigning, there would be some sort of case for getting paid if they were walked out right away. I'm probably wrong though.

It sounds like a dumb policy that some hack in HR would come up with, but couldn't really explain why. Probably not malicious, just stupid.

I've never seen it happen myself. When an employee leaves us, the only thing I like to do is immediately suspend access to all the equipment. I tell them before I do it, and it isn't to deny them the ability to damage anything. It's to give us two weeks of opportunity to catch anything that they were responsible for which was sliding under the radar, so we can correct the process while they are still around to explain it.

Sorry, completely missed the context of “person quits” because, for me as for you, that is extremely incompatible with “must be escorted out of the office ASAP”.

And, by the way, “leaves angrily, and may steal or destroy company property“ isn’t the only, and sometimes not even a reason for getting people out of the office as soon as possible after firing them. Certainly during mass firings, it also is about morale for those who are allowed to stay.

It’s no fun hearing that, from now on, you’ll have to do with 20% less head count for the same amount of work, but it’s even less fun when there are people sitting around for a few weeks who say “it’s not my problem. I’m fired”.

Indeed, the only time I have seen this is when someone was being investigated for gross misconduct, or a 'surprise' redundancy. I assumed that the company just didn't want anything untoward happening.

For the same reason it is polite to declare war before invading a country.

I've seen more than once employees try to argue loudly for their job back, threaten violence, leave bomb threats, stalker exes, etc. all at a single company. Security walking people out is a precaution and based on my experience there a sound one.

For people getting fired, I can see that occasionally happening. But someone giving notice is leaving of their own free will, why would they make any sort of scene on the day they give notice?

"I've seen more than once employees try to argue loudly for their job back, threaten violence, leave bomb threats, stalker exes, etc. all at a single company. "

What kind of place was this? I have never seen such a thing.

Really depends on the individuals, it's not so common in our industry because we're well paid and have plenty of opportunity, others aren't so lucky.

The worst of seen in software specifically was a guy that had some visa requirements for permanent citizenship coming up and probably wasn't dealing with pressure well already, he had a mental breakdown and cat5 was being ripped out of the walls during the meeting.

The second is an older guy in tears because he'd been struggling with long term unemployment due to ageism (I can vouch for his code at least) before that gig.

If you're not in a region and industry with a lot of opportunity it's a much bigger deal and even reasonable people won't necessarily act rationally.

It usually happens when employees are fired/laid off, not when they leave voluntarily.

>It’s common in the US to be asked to leave when you give notice. One place I worked had security escort people out of the building by the end of the day they gave notice.

Yes, but they usually pay you for the two weeks. Not summarily fire you and report that you were fired to future employers. (At least in IT)

Similar in Denmark. I've had a co-workers that wanted to quit do to personal reasons. Our boss opted to fire him instead, so he be able to collect a severance pay (I think three month of pay).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com