2 weeks is the standard? I am amazed.
In Switzerland where I live, it is 3 full calendar months. And I thought Switzerland is very similar to the USA...
My god 2 weeks lol, someone quits and he is gone the next day. How is this legal?
In Switzerland where I live, it is 3 full calendar months. And I thought Switzerland is very similar to the USA...
My god 2 weeks lol, someone quits and he is gone the next day. How is this legal?
In general, because workers can pretty much leave whenever they want, employers need to make sure there's good financial incentives and good working conditions. Some employers will provide things like retention bonuses, stock plans tied to staying employed for a certain length, or other incentives that employees give up when they quit.
As far as a mandatory 3 month notice period: As an American, the few times I've been in a "bad" job, I've just wanted to leave. A 3 month period would just make me miserable. I'd rather have some kind of financial incentive to stay to a certain date.
Why ?
Is this like some "Oh no you're not deciding to quit, I decided first you're fired, I call dibs !" ?
The dude said they will leave anyway. And doing the layoff will just allow him to leave without extensively teaching someone else.
This should be illegal as well.
I had one person who gave a full year's notice, so that we could hire, train, and integrate the new worker before she left. It was glorious and resulted in zero down time.
I have had another who gave one month's notice, and spent the entire time being toxic. Digging out from under that took the better part of three years. The overlap for technical knowledge was just simply not worth the headaches in the team.
It's highly subjective, but it really does depend on the person, in absence of a clear "they're out immediately policy". But as a manager, my preference is to select a date roughly one week out from the notice and use that as the exit day. That way the worker can close any relationships they have, positively, but if they go sour there isn't really enough time to screw up the rest of the team.
In the context of your statement, we only hear one side of the argument. Remember that there is always a second perspective. I know that I have had folks who I have told to just go the same day they gave notice who tell their friends that I'm an uncaring asshat. The reality is that I fully expected them to be toxic in their remaining time.
I don't understand how anyone could do this with exception of retirement. Who will hire you with one year long advance?
They probably hired them ahead of time and had both working for a time. It can also take a long time to find someone.
We hired the replacement and they worked side by side for ~ 10 months. It was amazing.
Could also be an in demand skillset. If you get interest every week, you're probably not worried about being able to find work in 10 months or whatever.
Which carries some risk. If you've had a dream to sail around the world, hike the Appalachian Trail, etc. and you have some decent money in the bank, it may be the right call. But you can also return to a more challenging employment environment.
I was just suggesting plausible scenarios where someone might have decided the risk/reward was right for them.
I worked for a systems integrator that developed a turnkey software system for a client. It was a massive project (a systems migration) and ran for 3 years until handover. I was the lead on the project.
A couple of years later, I left my employer and joined a startup. 10-11 months later, the startup was looking to cut its burn rate and the CEO asked me to look for a job outside as revenues were not coming in as planned. He did promise me one thing. I could come back and join them after they became cash positive. He expected this to happen in 12-18 months. I trusted the CEO.
By pure coincidence, the client I worked several years ago was completely exiting operations from one of their operating locations (employees were offered to move to another city or leave with severance pay). The entire team that we had handed over the new turnkey system was being let go and none of the opted to move to a different city.
I applied for the job and got it. I told the management (they were from the other city) that I will de-risk the transition for them completely since I knew the system like the back of my hand and laid out one condition. I will stay for 2 years and will need a replacement to join in the 2nd year (there were some intricacies in the system that had daily, weekly, monthly and yearly processes) and I wanted my replacement to be trained on all steps. So, a year of overlap was justified. The hiring manager and the division VP, both interviewed me and agreed to this.
I did my job true to my conscience. As planned, I let them know at the end of the first year that a replacement needs to be brought in. A lateral hire came in as my replacement and I trained him and completed the knowledge transfer.
I quit after the second year as originally planned. My startup CEO rehired me back into their company which was now revenue-generating and cash positive. I joined in a senior leadership position.
That was one of the most intricate knowledge transfer of my career and I have been very happy. It wouldn't have been possible without the various parties trusting each other.
In many jurisdictions you can start collecting unemployment a lot faster if you're laid off rather than quitting.
You're not even required to give two weeks, though that's widely considered to be a courteous thing to do. If it's employment at will (as most jobs are in the United States), you can put down your tools and walk out the door with no notice of any kind. The other side of that coin is that the employer can fire you/lay you off, also with no notice.
Not if you've signed a contract which says otherwise, which of course would make it not "at-will" employment.
"At-will" applies to both the employer and the employee. Either can terminate it without notice.
"At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences."
https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment...
For example the difficulty in firing someone in France was a plot device in "Emily in Paris". In most states in the US you can be fired with immediate effect from a non-government job at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all.
Also it's symmetrical. Switzerland is "at will" (in the sense that they can lay you off at any time for any reason), but they have to follow the same notice period. In essence this is mandatory minimum severance.
Edit: although I’m not sure how it would play out if I decided to just do nothing for those 3 months if I were to leave
In Romania you give 2 weeks notice as an IC and 4 weeks as a manager. It can be shorter if the company agrees, but it cannot be longer by law: you can tell them in advance if you want, they cannot force you to stay if you don't.
What?
I suggest you come and visit.
How is it legal for this not to be the case? We have constitutional laws against enslavement or indentured servitude here. Nobody can force you to work if you don’t want to. You can quit right now if you want to.
What happens if you stop showing up to work in Switzerland? Do you go to prison?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisc...
- you stop getting paid. - you probably will have a hard time dealing with your former employers if you need something from them. - they think you're a dick, and tell other people, if asked, what an asshole you are. - potentially if they have nothing better to do, they get a lawyer to write you a threatening letter, then do nothing.
Nobody cares enough to go tell other people. Just try to picture the super awkward conversation between executives about and IC who resigned and then did noting during the notice period. In fact, they'd probably do the same.
It's like if you're a freelance and you accept a project. They can't force you to work on the project until completed, but they can certainly levy financial penalties against you if you don't.
There are very few circumstances in the US in which an employer can do that. It is considered wage theft, which in many states is a criminal offense that pierces the corporate veil. If you worked hours you get paid for those hours and the company can't avoid paying you (with fees or whatnot).
If you are forced to work because if you don't then you will be fined for breach of contract, then that is indentured servitude with extra steps. That is illegal everywhere in the US after the 13th amendment. That's why in the US employment contracts are generally enforced with rewards (aka golden handcuffs) rather than punishments.
I was most likely confusing with "financial penalties", mostly it means not paying you after you stop working, and in some specific circumstances you can sue for damages. They can't fine you.