2 Weeks Notice Checklist | Hacker News Reader

2 Weeks Notice Checklist

notice.fyi

79 points_l0wh79 comments

In Ken Burns' "history of country music" series, there's a part when Roger Miller (King of the Road, Dang Me, etc.) is working as a clerk in a hotel. Someone offers him a job going on the road as one of the musical acts in a show, and he says, "Hang on, I've got to go and give my two minutes' notice."

I’d love to see a checklist but the other side of the table. When a developer is going to leave and you have two weeks. What’s the checklist for handoff on a granular prioritized level. Do you start from front end and work backwards or from db model and go forward?

The use case is I run an agency and we tend to get hired when an internal resource is leaving and we need to take over a big fat codebase we have never seen. The guy running is is leaving in 2 weeks. Where do we start… a checklist like this could be awesome

I know you can't do much about it from the side coming in to replace someone, but waiting until someone is on the way out is fundamentally a flawed way to do it. As an employer you need to be focused on seamless onboarding _before_ the people who know how to do things have decided to leave. "Knowledge transfer" is just new-hire onboarding done by someone who no longer has a stake in seeing it succeed.

I'm not sure how the agency is structured - but what I can vouch for (and seen work) is continuous communication amongst coworkers in the form of tech talks and documentation. That way, knowledge is distributed within the team and a situation like this is avoided upfront.

I'm reminded of the Bus Factor concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor

Most companies I've worked in had an onboarding checklist or guide for new devs. You should also have an offboarding checklist. Whenever you add something the onboarding checklist, add it to the offboarding checklist as well ("grant Jira access to project X" => "revoke Jira access to project X" etc)

I'm assuming this is focused on the USA specifically?

In Australia and New Zealand most engineering jobs are 4 weeks notice if you've worked there at least a year or two.

I've heard that non-compete clauses don't really hold up here either (not that I've even seen one either).

Not sure what an "ESSP" is?

Yes, it’s US centric, but the US does not require two weeks notice. It is a voluntary courtesy. Some people give more or less depending on the circumstances. Employment in the US is largely at-will, and can be terminated by either party at any time.

How did we end up with a two weeks honor system that is only expected from one side?

Because voluntarily departures are generally cordial.

There is effectively no overlap between severely disgruntled employees and those who give their employer a courteous heads up about their departure. Whereas involuntary termination is never a happy circumstance.

Simple power dynamics. The employee has a lot more to loose than the employer a when a person’s employment ends.

Yes when you’re one person individually up against a highly organized institution - easy to see why employers prefer the organizing to be one sided

Severance packages are common in tech for layoffs. That is effectively many weeks notice, you just don’t have to work during them which is nicer.

If you’re being fired for underperforming, that’s usually many weeks in the making and you’re given many written notices (HR departments like really clear paper trails).

The only times I hear of where termination is sudden without notice or compensation is when people get fired for something egregious or the company literally ran out of money (startups can be rough).

Caveat: all of the above applies to the tech industry. I understand it can be much worse for employees in other industries.

One of my previous companies (in the US) had a policy of escorting you to the door immediately if you told them you were leaving for a competitor. In practice, we usually took them out to lunch, had a laugh about it, and all but one of us came back to the office.

Yea sorry wasn’t only talking about our industry’s extremely cushy dev & pmc jobs

I think the minimum term I've had in the last maybe 20 years (in the UK) was 90 days.

By convention or by contract? Do new employers generally accept that new hires won't be available to start for 90 days, or does one only start the job search after giving notice to your current employer?

By contract. The law requires one week after one month employment, convention is probably about four weeks, although varies by sector and role. I think it is legally required to be symmetrical (ie they can't say you must give six months notice but we can fire you in a week), certainly I've never seen an asymmetrical notice period.

I've never looked for serious work other than as a programmer, so it may just be this sector, but yes, it's completely normal that hires can't start immediately. Ninety days is longer than most, but it's not extraordinary. People we've hired into our team typically needed maybe six weeks ? Sometimes they want an actual physical break, like four weeks notice to their previous employer, spend a week on a beach somewhere, then come to the new job.

Particularly if you're poaching people you know the term because you presumably asked them.

It is legal for both employee and employer to offer other terms when leaving, but neither has a right to force the other. One thing that often happens when this is amicable is both agree to shuffle vacation time around, so e.g. say I have 8 days paid leave left, and I'm on 90 day terms, we look at the calendar, maybe the employer agrees we can shove all that paid leave at the end, round a bit and my last working day is here, 75 days, not 90 days. They could force that not to happen, but we're leaving on friendly terms. Of course now I don't have any real leave, but if a new employer wants me ASAP that might be a reasonable trade to start a couple of weeks sooner (note in this scenario I'm getting paid for 90 days still, but money is poor compensation for being tired).

Thanks.

An ESPP is a stock purchasing program that allows employees to buy company stock at a discount

“ESPP” is an Employee Stock Purchase Plan and is a program that allows employees to purchase company stock, usually at a guaranteed discount

ESPP is an employee share purchasing plan, which is a way to commit to buying shares in the company at a discounted rate over time. My employer has an attractive plan that is pretty much free money with extremely limited downside risk; there's a federally-imposed $25k/year cap, which also limits the upside, but it's well worth a couple clicks.

In New Zealand an employee is usually contractually required to give notice, and there is a default of “fair and reasonable” notice. However I would guess it is very unusual for an employee to be significantly penalised if they do not work their notice period. Even though an employer may legally be able to seek damages (not exceeding employee replacement costs), that doesn’t look common to me. Employment in New Zealand is mostly a moral, reputation, and trust based system.

A company cannot withhold an employees pay or holiday pay. An employee contract can override that default so that a company can withhold pay. However the employee can override the contract by simply writing a letter to the employer.

https://www.findlaw.co.nz/articles/4336/what-happens-if-i-do... https://communitytoolkit.org.nz/staff-and-volunteers/termina...

Disclaimer: I have no special knowledge of this area, it is just a summary from a quick googling.

I have never heard of an employee being penalised for giving zero notice in New Zealand unless they weren't an employee, but a contractor with a business partnership relationship.

May be worth being aware of this sort of thing in advance, specifically in case a speedy exit happens, triggered by either party, when you don't have spare time to learn what COBRA is.

example: "Can I cash in my unused vacation days?" If you're in a minority of states like California or Colorado, the answer is "yes, by law." For many other states it may depend on your employer. Knowing you lose all accrued vacation on exit with no compensation is nice to know months in advance.

There's also more considerations, for example, medical FSA plans.

Can you replace the check marks with empty boxes so I can, you know, check the list?

That's a good idea. Thanks for the feedback!

I updated the site with checkboxes. Check it out :)

I like that it persists the state when I refresh the page. Thanks!

Feels like 90% of this is only necessary if you live in a country with horrible insurance practices. If you life in a civilized country with sane health insurance coverage you wouldn't need to worry about almost any of this.

Yes, totally.

I was expecting to find a solid list about "hand over accounts" or "change mail address" but it was all about being able to see a dentist if necessary.

Can you go line by line for these and show how "sane health insurance coverage" obviates them?

Or if you don't want to do that, just do it for these random selections:

>When is my next bonus paid out?

>Can I keep a copy of my performance reviews?

>What is current official title and level?

>When is my next equity vest?

Thanks!

The only item for equity is “When is my next equity vest?”, but there are a lot more issues to worry about, which are highly dependent on your circumstances and the specifics for the type of equity.

For example, for the typical 3 month limit on exercising options after quitting there can be heinous issues associated with decisions on converting the options to shares (cash payment, taxation, valuation, finding purchaser, illiquidity).

(In jurisdictions where permitted; If you signed a non-compete upon joining or anytime during service) Keep a copy of your Non-compete agreement (and be aware of any restrictions around companies, clients, industries that are barred and the duration for which they are barred)

True, but you should have probably sorted out you plan with your non-compete even before you lined up your next job.

Are non-competes even enforceable? In my country, these have no legal bearing, but companies still put them in employment contracts, probably just to scare workers not versed in employment law.

In the US, it varies by state. They are not enforceable in California, apparently they are in Texas.

This is strictly about things a person needs to do for their own financial and employment future after leaving. There's nothing here about handing off the job responsibilities and knowledge to colleagues, for example.

Interesting! Handing off job responsibilities is definitely an important aspect, especially for more tenured employees.

Unless there’s additional pay for doing so, quite literally not my problem. A good manager from day one of a new hire should be ensuring a smooth hand-off is already prepared in the event of separation for any reason.

Arguably, during your last two weeks that is your job - the entirety of your job. So not additional pay, but your final pay check is for doing just that.

The entire point of giving two weeks notice is a courtesy to your employer to facilitate a smooth transition period.

If you DGAF about that, you might as well give no notice.

Employers rarely give notice when terminating an employee.

Of course not. Voluntary notice periods never have been made out of fairness, it is and always was about self-interest.

Employees give two weeks to be nice and not burn bridges with people on their team.

Employees who are angry at their employers may often give no notice at all.

Employers don’t give notice in layoffs because disgruntled employees are not productive and are a liability.

Employers don’t give notice in terminations because they don’t want them working for two more weeks.

Every tech company I know of gives plenty of notice. If it's performance issues then you've got months of notice via a PIP. If it's a layoff then you get severance which is effectively notice.

You owe your employer nothing. Your co-workers, and others who will come after you, however, are humans with aspirations and problems just like you.

It's called a transition plan and your manager should work that out with you during your notice period. Who will pick up your responsibilities? Accept no new work. Don't attend regular meetings. Don't do overtime. Disengage from instant message such as Teams or Slack. Do everything via email CC'ing your manager. Start to work from home during your notice period. Your single focus is hand off and get out ASAP.

2 weeks? I have to give 3 months notice to my job

Two weeks is typical for most jobs in North America.

And it's not required, it's a courtesy. In most cases you can quit on the spot if you really feel like it.

How much notice do they have to give you when they're letting you go?

None. Some walk you out and lock the door immediately.

In my case, they have to give 3 months notice as well. That's what is in the contract. I'm not sure how that would work in practise. I guess they can fire effective immediately but I can't quit effective immediately

I said "two weeks" on Quora, and some Europeans (Dutch, I think) corrected me and said that 3 months was standard there.

The Dutch don’t have to worry about being fired on a whim

Are "awesome checklists" a thing the same way "awesome lists" are a thing on github? If not, it should be.

Losing your health care if you quit a job is pretty dystopian.

There are lots of things wrong with Europe, but this isn't one of them .

That’s IF your job gave you healthcare, and if it was any good, and you have to pay anyway a lot of the time. (And most jobs don’t pay for dental or healthcare)

Yep. It’s a big “if.” I took my first full time job at age 16 and I’ll be 41 in December.

During that time I’ve had over a dozen employers and only one offered health insurance. And it was so expensive that almost no one, myself included, signed up for it.

The only reason my wife works is because of the healthcare and benefits given to her by being a state employee. The money she earns is fairly insignificant relative to our other income, but the benefits make it worth it.

Private health insurance employer benefit plans exist in Europe.

Which is often supplemental insurance (akin to Medicare Advantage in the US). If you lose that your cancer or fertility treatment doesn't suddenly stop, or you won't go bankrupt due to an unexpected medical problem.

People, even in the US, often forget that the US has European style healthcare coverage it is just restricted to those above the age of 65. People over the age of 65 also make up the largest voting block, and politicians in the US often hurt younger demographics to benefit the retirees as a direct result.

It ain’t just Medicare. There’s dozens of social health benefit programs in the US, for people of varying needs.

The issue in the US isn’t a lack of social health insurance. The issue is that it’s insanely fragmented. US voters are reluctant to approve social programs unless they believe the recipient “deserves” it.

Yeah it sucks. But I guess in Europe we compensate with irrational house prices that'll pretty much keep a generation from ever owning their own home, always at the mercy of a landlord

We’re heading that direction in the US

Something Americans forget when talking about “Europe” is that it consists of different countries with different rules. Outside big ones like the UK and Germany a LOT of them also link your employment and membership in the social insurance fund.

In Estonia, for instance, your 20% social tax pays for the healthcare system. If you get laid off of course there are provisions along with your unemployment to include you, but otherwise no job = no insurance.

Regarding Estonia, this is pretty misleading. Firstly, if you get laid off and register as unemployed, you have free healthcare so long as you're actively looking for a new job (there's more nuance to this, but simplified). Secondly, people who don't have a job but are not expected to hold one are covered for free (kids, university students, military service, etc). Even if you voluntarily quit and don't want to get a new job, you're still covered for two months after the fact. In general, the only people who don't have healthcare are people who have personally opted to not have a job and not seek one either.

I specifically mentioned unemployment, and you are absolutely misleading when you say that you are covered as long as you’re looking for work. Yes, you are covered for a period of time. This time period changed during Covid.

Of course the other groups you mentioned are excluded, that’s just dumbassary.

If you voluntarily quit you are only covered in the probationary period

If you lose your job you're covered for three quarters of a year which is more than plenty to find a new job if you want one. If you voluntarily quit you're covered for two months. You can easily confirm both of these online, it's unclear why you're trying to claim otherwise.

Also not every European healthcare system is equal. For instance, here in the UK sure if you are in an accident you'll likely get help, but if you have complex health issues you can't really count on the national health service. If not for private healthcare I am not sure if I would be alive today. So you spend a fortune in taxes on a system that you can barely make use of and then you have to spend money again on private healthcare that is actually useful. It works out being more expensive than in the US. Oh and this year I had to call for an ambulance a couple of times and each time they had no ambulances available and said it's best if I take an Uber to hospital. Then at hospital 3-5 hours of waiting, while person you are with is losing their mind out of pain and you can't do anything. It's rubbish.

Something Europeans forget about America is that individual states have their own healthcare plans like MA, NJ, NY, CA, etc. Others that don't default to ACA (aka ObamaCare) if you don't have health coverage. These are generally means tested insurance schemes but if you have no income then you generally have some form of free coverage.

Absolutely. I’ve been insured by Blue Cross under the South Carolina Health Insurance Program

well... I don't want to get downvoted, but it's worth reading about COBRA and the extensions offered by California, New York and other states. And of course, the ACA.

It all costs money, but it's not like you "lose your health care" the day you're laid off. Notably, COBRA is retroactive precisely to avoid gaps in coverage.

COBRA is also incredibly expensive. The few times I've been laid off, I was thankful to have been young and healthy because there was no way I could have afforded COBRA.

In my experience across three companies, COBRA just costs 102% of the total cost that was already being paid previously.

This just means that your employer was paying a lot on your behalf previously.

It just gets more expensive if you have a gap in work and have to pay for COBRA

Meh, come to Canada if you want to see really bad healthcare. It's "free" (except for all the extra tax) and it has all the characteristics you'd expect from a government administered program. (Private healthcare is illegal so there are no options, that's more the issue than the existence of public system) I get that the explicit link of employment to healthcare can be bad, just want to point out there are worse systems.

*Edit to also note Canadian healthcare has lot of insane adherents who will never admit that there is anything wrong with it.

shrug 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the us border. If you want to go private take a drive. I’ve lived in both countries and will take the security of the Canadian system any day.

Correct that's what people do - so our much vaunted "egalitarian" healthcare system means in practice that only those wealthy enough to go to a neighboring country and pay for healthcare out of pocket (because we don't have employer insurance for that) are able to get good healthcare, and none of the money stays in the country.

Canada has a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, and lower death rates overall than the U.S with its supposedly inferior health care system.. something is working, maybe just not the way that you would prefer.

> Meh, come to Canada if you want to see really bad healthcare.

While I'm sure it has its warts, I'm guessing your frame of reference is fairly limited if you consider the Canadian healthcare system to be "really bad". As I understand it, the Canadian system provides (with no bills to you, and regardless of your insurance status or age) for things such as:

- If you need emergency surgery in the middle of the night, and the hospital you're at can't provide it, they'll helicopter you to the nearest capable hospital -- even if that happens to be across the border in the US.

- If you're already admitted to the hospital, and need specialized surgery that can only be done in one place, they'll charter a flight, fly you over with a couple of nurses, get the surgery done, and fly you home again.

- If you have a chronic illness that requires $100,000/year specialized care for the rest of your life, that's not a problem.

- If you have treatment-resistant cancer for which the only remaining option costs $500,000, also no problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com