This is absolutely untrue. In Europe we work several days/weeks after the layoff notice. You can fire people from the night to the morning only in US
You can definitely be paid laid off employee for a period of time, while having your access revoked. They're completely orthogonal. Depends on role, company, situation. It's an assessment and tradeoff - is it worth / do I need the next two weeks of work and KT from this person, vs the risk of having access.
The notion of revoking security access to limit risk is definitely not a US thing.
In France, this is a breach of contract as you are not providing your employees with the means to work, and you can be sued for it if it is not done as a disciplinary measure (which you can also be sued for if not done in good faith)
EDIT: my dudes stop trying to link legifrance articles to me, I have literally been in this situation twice, gone to prud'hommes twice and helped multiple friends with such a situation. I'm starting to know our work code a little bit.
EDIT 2: alright, more context for all the nonbelievers and people who never had to face an actual work code:
In the very best case for the employer (in such a way that doesn't expose them to being sued), firing a single employee takes two weeks.
* Initial notification of the firing, with at least 5 days between this notification and the meeting before firing to explain the reasons
* Meeting before firing, a mandatory 48 hours waiting period before taking any decision.
* Notification has to be mailed in as a recommandé, which can only be sent after those 48 hours, and takes a day or two to arrive.
It gets infinitely more complicated for Coinbase sized companies trying to lay off more than 10 people for economical reasons, the company is obligated to have meetings with the employee representatives, at the very least twice spaced by 15 days. For a company the size of Coinbase, the CSE has 2-4 months to answer and can ask for proof that the company is, indeed in financial troubles, having them open their books. https://entreprendre.service-public.fr/vosdroits/F24648
https://knowledge.leglobal.org/restrictive-covenants-in-fran...
However, any firing must be notified of an entretien préalable de licenciement by letter (can be given directly). This is usually a week after, to grant the employee time to prepare (and to eventually be helped by employee representatives). Then, after this, the employer has to give at least 48 hours before doing anything. This gets even worse in the case of a massive layoff like Coinbase's for economical reasons, the company is obligated to have meetings with the employee representatives, at the very least twice spaced by 15 days. For a company the size of Coinbase, the CSE has 2-4 months to answer and can ask for proof that the company is, indeed in financial troubles, having them open their books. https://entreprendre.service-public.fr/vosdroits/F24648
So, in practice, while quick firings are possible for individual cases, massive layoffs like that do not happen over a single day.
Logic would dictate that providing the exact same pay/benefits as one would get for the work ought to be sufficient. But, <insert joke about logic and French labour laws here>...
Also consider that software developer is an incredibly privileged position and that, while you may not give a shit because you get 100k and can find another job in two weeks, many people have a salary that barely covers their living expenses and take much longer to find a new job. In effect, that would be subsidizing employers through unemployment benefits and therefore, cost society as a whole.
<insert joke about american laws having no foresight or absolutely fuck all experience in fighting for workers>
* as an employee, you sign a contract that exchanges your time for both a salary and a job. Refusing to provide either of those is a breach of contract. It's one thing to say "things are a bit slow right now, so do whatever". It is an entirely other one to not give your employee tools, access to things they'd need to do their job, or even leave them wondering if they even have a job still. Doubly worse if you require them to come to the office to not know what to do. Hence, the common solution to that is to change their job to something that just puts them in the corner on mostly useless tasks. They're technically working, but you can't fire them unless you have a good reason to. It's then hoped that the boredom makes you leave. However, that goes in to point two:
* Putting people in such a position is alienating and potentially damaging mentally. You are seen as the guy who does fuck all by your colleagues, you are not allowed to take another job in the mean time, itb is mentally unfulfilling and morally discouraging. Do so at your own risks, because there have been plenty of instances where the employer has had to pay damages.
Basically, if you want to fire someone, either do it and pay the (quite expensive if the employee has been here for a while) indemnities, or don't. The halfway solution of boring them until they quit is illegal.
It is when somebody is explicitly fired and laid off (as is the case in Coinbase, and all the examples I believe we've been discussing in this thread).
They DO know what their status is, it's not ambiguous. Essentially it is: "Hi; You've been laid off; your services are no longer required; we will continue paying you for the remainder of your contractual notice period / two weeks; you'll get whatever package is due to you; please go home and ensure you take all of your materials with you."
This is completely unrelated to any notion of effectively dis-empowering an active employee or keeping them in the dark.
Article L1234-5 [1] of French Labor Code looks like it is possible.
* [1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006195622...
L1234-5 (which is a very nice number) merely says that you have to pay the employee a compensation if the préavis is not respected, equal to the amount of days the employee would have worked, in addition to everything else (severance package, etc). It gets more complicated in the case of massive layoffs, because the CSE/lawyers get involved, and for a 50+ employee company firing over 10 employees, a plan de sauvegarde de l'emploi is put into place, which lasts multiple months.
On leave, you are trusted as an employee to not do any work. Anything you do will be your own responsibility, or eventually the employer's responsibility to refuse any work you hand over. You are also not covered by the company's insurance on your leave. Your company cutting off access is a clear breach of contract.
This does sound non-sensical to me. If someone is not working, there should not be any entitlement to access.
To give you an example: let’s say a factory is temporarily closed due to lack of supply materials or modernization and workers are put on paid leave. Are those workers allowed to visit their workplace to access their tools? If not, why digital workers should have this privilege when they are on paid leave?
That sounds awful.
you may however send the employee home with his full salary and no obligation to work. I know, worker protection is a crazy concept.
>> You can definitely be paid laid off employee for a period of time, while having your access revoked.
and replying
> In France, this is a breach of contract
And now you write
> you may however send the employee home with his full salary and no obligation to work
Which was exactly the original claim!
I'm not sure if you misread or misunderstood, but you have been arguing incorrectly in most of your subsequent replies, and the sarcastic jibes at other countries don't help.
France is a more trusting society than the USA, so I won't be surprised if gardening leave is less common, but you can be sure it's sometimes used when employees of investment banks, defence contractors, the government, military etc are made redundant or resign.
Send people home with their severence after the necessary period to inform the employee that they're getting fired, sure. But telling them out of the blue "Fuck off, don't come to work today, your access is revoked" is a breach of contract and is illegal.
So, no, you cannot be a paid laid off employee with no access. You're either employee, paid a salary and with access, or not an employee with your severance package and no access. There is no inbetween, and your lack of reading comprehension doesn't mean i misunderstood.
>>You're either employee, paid a salary and with access, or not an employee with your severance package and no access.
The latter. It's the latter. We've all been discussing the latter (or at least that's my impression, as that's what the original article is about, and certainly what my post was about :).
See here: https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation
Revoking access and not allowing users to complete their jobs would often be seen as a failure to consult (see, for instance, the recent P&O ferries dismissals where they immediately removed ship access from the crew, replaced them with oversees workers, and then began consultation. This was a failure to consult and was found to be illegal).
People tend not to do rash things anyway during this period, as gross misconduct during that time would mean the employee is instantly fired regardless with zero redundancy pay. Treat people fairly and as adults and they tend to behave fairly and respond as adults. Treat people as untrustworthy and rash, and they tend to respond with the same.
You mentioned that "they are entitled to learn why and what has been done to try to keep them", but actually it's much further than that - they are entitled to be part of the conversation and to propose alternatives to the dismissal which the company is legally obligated to consider.
As an example, if the redundancy proposes to make a team redundant and split that teams responsibilities across other teams, the consultation might raise that the team being made redundant could take on additional responsibilities and down-size as an alternative which could result in fewer redundancies. Similarly, employees could suggest an initial round of voluntary redundancies first to reduce the people impact (particularly if there are employees nearing retirement age). The employer is legally obligated to genuinely consider these alternatives, however if the action was taken immediately to disband the team and place employees on gardening leave it is much more difficult for them to argue that the consultation was 'genuine'.
If a genuine consultation is not held, where alternatives are listened to and genuinely considered, this could then be brought to an employment tribunal and could open them to unfair dismissal claims.
Garden leave is not a necessity (particularly if you have structured your company so a single employee cannot go too rogue regardless - if a single bad-apple employee can take down coinbase then they have bigger systemic risks!).
There are some protections, but yes, they are much more limited (in particular, anything that would generally be classified as automatic unfair dismissal is still protected, for instance for whistleblowing, joining a trade union, firing someone for raising a health and safety concern or for going on maternity leave).
You will likely still want to capture and document the genuine reason under either performance, absence or conduct grounds in order to protect against any invalid claim that the dismissal was because of a protected reason if it was brought to tribunal (when in reality it wasn't).
Although it may still be better to go through formal redundancy so you can make the redundancy on the basis of performance rather than just length of service.
I'm Canadian, it's our national pastime to diss our neighbours to the South, but the notion that a laid off employee can be a high risk to the company knows no borders. Are we making a claim that those working on Rafale or Gripen get to keep messing with classified files after being fired, because "we don't DO that in Europe"? :)
I have heard of one more person fired that way - it was by American company and pretty much everyone else treated it as great injustice. Team members met with him in nearby pub pretty much right after.
My last position was three months.
https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
If you want to do that you need to prove they have (already) committed a fault of such gravity that allowing them to stay would harm the company irremediably -- it's a high bar to cross.
If I get fired from my company I get like a year's wage to go (and government assistance after that) so I wouldn't be that upset. Hence no need for a disorderly exit.
I think it's more in the US when people are let go with nothing, I think it's pretty obvious that they'd be pissed about it.
This is rare but depends on your manager, if they don't want you around. You will still be paid for the remaining of your "employment" but will not be working.
The one I remember most is how our coworkers coffee was still there for like a week. She had made it literally right before getting called in for the layoff!
Apparently main thing is they don’t want them to start a scene, talk shit about things, and cause issues with their computer access
And in most of the Europe and I'd guess also world during probation period (typically in Europe 1-3 months).
But yeah, you can't do that once probation period pass, then it's usually at least 1-3 months PAID resignation period. You can tell people not to come to work and still get salary though, but if they would still wanna come it could get very messy legally.
I had actually only fixed contracts during my EU jobs and either company told me they won't extend the contract or I told them I won't extend it, but they were happy to keep me working until very end.
Only in China during Microsoft layoff I was told I don't need to come to work, while getting compensation, but that was understandable considering me and other Israeli girl were only two people fighting against company trying to cheat us for our legal compensation and it came to me telling them whether they wanna leak certain data and me contact labor bureau about their illegal procedures.
I suspect the fact that some people in this thread read it the way I do, and others (I guess including you?) read 'firing' to include redundancy, is causing a fair amount of confusion / people talking past each other.
(I'm not claiming I'm right and you're wrong, btw, just observing a linguistic disconnect)
In Austria it's super easy to fire jobs like white collar tech workers and sales people without any reason as the employee protection laws are very weak (you just have to give them their notice period). At every company I've worked here I've seen people get fired after not meeting their performance goals(PIPs), or even having too slow velocity in Jira's charts, or just some manager having an axe to grind.
There's no magic protection aura from the government to save you from getting fired here.
Note, whether you get walked out the door right away or later, in these types of job you get a severance package.
In my case where it was two weeks it was work 2 weeks, go home keep getting paid for another 30 days, then start your paid 60 day WARN period, then actually separate and receive severance of ~9 months pay plus heath insurance for 1 year.
Flexible labor laws are also a major reason Americans are paid considerably more than euros.
I've known quite a few senior developers with a 3 months' notice period baked into their contract.
The fired person is just sent on paid time off.
Canada two weeks: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/servi...
China, 30 days: https://china.acclime.com/guides/china-labour-law-hiring-fir...
Russia, two weeks: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-503-4083?transi...
(Did you really think ex-communist countries would be good examples?)