That's a really rough thing in terms of a human relationship, but there's a lot of reasons why that is the case in practice.
It's rather strange that employees are expected to give advanced notice when quitting, but employers are not expected to give advanced notice when firing people.
Coinbase offered 3.5 months' severance pay minimum, plus additional severance pay based on employee tenure. If that's a poorly done layoff, what's a well-done one?
Just went through this on a move to Austin from Chicago. I was legitimately scared for my life until the end of my first day at the new job. I have savings, of course, but the pressure is still there.
It's almost universal that layoffs include (at minimum) a few weeks of full pay. Sometimes months.
It's effectively the same as getting advanced notice, you just aren't expected to do any work after you get notice.
<Insert land of freedom here>
Well on the flip side I know many people who've received severance pay after being let go, but I don't know anyone who's provided labor to a company for months after leaving.
Someone who replaced you but you don't know reaches out asking for help on their work? Or you're being asked questions you'd need to dig in to? "Sorry, I don't work there anymore".
But answering a text message from someone you had a good relationship with, who is asking a question in good faith, the answer to which you can recall without effort? Wouldn't agree with calling that consulting.
If the latter, how do you justify that as "exploitation"?
In many places and industries, you become a risk when you give notice, and are cut off from company resources immediately.
This is most visible in the financial industry, but I've seen it elsewhere too.
It's not really a big deal. Everyone understands it, and you just adjust your communication choices accordingly.
which sounds like to me a carte blanche permission to not do any more work after giving notice if that happens.
Sounds harsh if you're not used to it. But it makes a lot of sense within the industry, and no one's feelings get hurt in practice.
Somehow, regulators are fine here with interpersonal discussion — including through electronic channels — still happening up to the last day of employment.
Not all EU countries have negotiations and not for all industries, only the unionized ones, otherwise there's nothing to negociate with individuals and you can just let them go whenever you want to (most of the time).
Bitpanda in Austria instantly cut employees off once the layoffs were announced and escorted them out on the same day. It's legal and standard M.O. for most big tech companies when they let people go. You still get your legally required notice period, but you'll have to take it at home, not in the office.
It depends on the company, how vulnerable it considers its IP against potential sabotage from disgruntled employees, and since tech workers tend to be pretty skilled at the company's internal tech, most companies aren't taking their chances and immediately lock all your accounts and escort you out. All legal.
Those weeks of negotiations you're talking about mostly apply to old-school, factory style, unionized jobs at established conglomerates where employees don't have so much leverage for sabotage, and can't just be let go without heavy union pushback, but that rarely applies to tech workers who don't enjoy such protections because they've mostly seen a bull market where they didn't need/want it.
>Somehow, regulators are fine here with interpersonal discussion — including through electronic channels — still happening up to the last day of employment.
For most tech jobs, those communications once you've been let go, will have to happen outside of the company's internal network, i.e. using your personal email from home.
If you count tech companies in the German sense, like BOSCH, Siemens, VW, etc. then yes, most are IG Metall.
This stuff is very country dependent and it seems that many countries in western Europe require a bunch of time before escorting you off the premises.
But most EU countries have pretty strict rules around firing people. This ties into the social well-fare system which does not like people entering it for frivolous reasons. Especially people close to retirement age who are effectively unemployable because they are so expensive to get rid off. Which is an interesting dynamic where people close to retirement have to constantly fear layoffs not because they are useless but because they are a liability for their employer.
Mostly companies not following the rules end up engaged in expensive court cases where the judge typically rules against them unless they followed the rules. Court mediated settlements tend to be governed by simple formulas based on years of service, age, etc. So, mostly companies do the right thing and you typically get a fair offer in line with that as they prefer for things not to escalate that way.
I've been through this process once when Nokia started laying off masses of people. I got caught up in one of those waves and they gave me a generous deal and even some startup funding.
Usually, they can fire you and then make you work the notice period, which really sucks. I was lucky and they gave me gardening leave instead. So, I literally dropped everything and never did a minute of work for them again. Out of the building five minutes after they gave me my notice. They did not kick me out but just told me that I did not have to do anything anymore. Going cold turkey like that is not fun. In the period after that I bootstrapped my first startup and managed to get my former employer to fund it. Great experience overall.
But still, getting layed off was a shock. I had to do the walk of shame to the unemployment agency. That really sucked and they treat you like you are useless scum. You are just a number in the system. I literally went from being a principal engineer that just got a raise because to a great performance review to being out on the street dealing with crap like that. The good news was that it wasn't personal. They needed to cut some percentage and my team got squeezed in the middle. Corporate politics basically.
Nope, in Austria employers can fire most people without any reason. Restrictions may apply to vulnerable people like close to retiring age and mass layoffs, but firing one Average Joe who isn't considered vulnerable has no rules or restrictions.
So I think the UK has better job security than some EU countries.
I'm not an employment lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge this is incorrect - mass redundancies of 20+ people need to be notified to the government in advance, and failure to do so carries criminal penalties.
P&O seems to have escaped this requirement (at least for now) owing to maritime employment being a special case and jurisdictional issues
https://www.rsmuk.com/ideas-and-insights/legal/mass-redundan...
For >=100 redundancies, notice to the Secretary of State is required and not giving notice is a criminal offence, by both the company, and also any officer/director/similar who is involved in not giving notice: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/194
A level five fine on the standard scale is (since 2015) technically unlimited, so it's not a toothless law. Not sure if anyone has even been prosecuted though.
In Germany if you are unemployed and the unemployment agency sends you to a course, like to learn German, you are no longer part of the unemployment statistic even though you're still receiving welfare.
It's true that sometimes it's needed to prevent further damage and agree it's a rough thing in human relationship.
There are people in their 50s and 60s who are learning the hard way (particularly in 2020-2021) how much their company doesn't actually care about them.
Either because they're shitting their pants (irrationally believing that these people are both willing to commit, and capable of committing great acts of sabotage on their way out). Or they rationally understand that their internal security measures are a total shitshow (and so the potential for sabotage is real), or that some of these people are rigthfully disgruntled (hence, the motive for sabotage is real).
Or (as I suspect) because it helps them emotionally distance themselves from the people whose lives will be (at the very least) dinged by being on the receiving end of these events. "Why did we let you find out about the layoff by having your account locked? Because we knew you were unstable and vindictive, and basically a walking liability to the company all along."
> That's a really rough thing in terms of a human relationship
The security policies didn’t come down from the mountain etched on a stone tablet. Humans thought them up and put them in place.
It’s important to remember and acknowledge that everything we do is the result of a human’s choice.
Then why isn' it the case in eg Germany. Whats different.
Seems crazy to hire people in the first place that you don't trust!
Isn’t the US model of severance pay better because you can take a new job while in your severance period.
What’s the thinking behind this one? These rules are insane.
They are. Its the result of shallow thinking, socialism and pure graft. People don't consider there are considerable downsides to these regulations, and simply think "protecting the workers" is good.
No, not really. Companies have that option but it's almost never used, only in extreme cases (e.g. when the company has a real reason to assume the employee would misuse their continued access).
Almost one month of free time. Spent that time learning new stack and landed a job that paid me twice as much as the old one.
In Europe its not so bad to get some spare time while still getting paid.
Friend was in similar situation, but he had 3 months of paid free time.
some might cut you off from work and you will end up getting payed for nothing but thats on business to decide on.
Coworkers just disappear and show as deactivated, and out of privacy nobody will tell you what happened. They just vanish.