h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
2 Week Firing Notice
Employers are required to give a two week "notice" before actually firing the employee | |
This may already be practice for some companies, but it's my understanding that a lot simply give out those "please have your desk clear by the end of the day" remarks. I think that if employees are required to give a two-week notice before quitting, then companies should have to do the same. This would
give the employee time to find another job, make living adjustments, etc. It would have to be done carefully, however, so the employee wouldn't do things he/she wasn't supposed to because they new they were getting fired. Perhaps the "notice" would say that they have been chosen as part of a group, and that someone in the group will get fired. That way everyone in the group will work just as hard (if not more) so that they can try and keep their job.
(?) At-will employment
http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm
[Klaatu, Oct 04 2004]
(?) Right to work states, map
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
forHorus, are you in a RTW state? [dentworth, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Actually what you get is "You are fired, please leave the building immediately, we will send you the personal stuff from your desk." |
|
| |
This is done primarily for security reasons...you do not want a disgruntaled DBA alone at thier desk. |
|
| |
I am sure that the employee is paid for the two weeks, so Technically, the employer *is* giving a two week notice, and two weeks extra paid vacation. |
|
| |
Um... what's wrong with normal
severance pay? Why bother keeping
a "lame duck" employee around?
It's a lot easier to "find another
job, make living adjustments, etc"
when you don't have to pretend to
be working at your old job. |
|
| |
Am I missing something, or isn't there an enormous difference between being laid off (where they have to give you notice, and possibly redundancy pay) and being fired (where you get told to leave, for rather more seriuos and immediate reasons)? |
|
| |
Two weeks firing notice? That's enough time to get cleared for automatic weapons, have all the militia gear mailed to my house, plan and plot the demise of co-workers. Umm, a two week firing notice may not be a good idea. |
|
| |
I'm leaving and the bastards are making me work as much
as they can.
I'd love to have left the day I handed in my notice with
four week's pay… |
|
| |
In fact, why should employees ever give notice? They don't GET notice, so... yeah. The most fun, of course, is purposely getting fired. This, at certain companies, ensures severance pay, whereas quitting wouldn't. This is exactly what makes notice so dangerous to the company. |
|
| |
Besides, today's market moves too fast to give two weeks. Come on -- in some industries, three years at a company is tree-hugging. |
|
| |
That's the main problem - at the moment, isn't getting fired the only way to get out of a job instantly? |
|
| |
Company I'm working in at the moment has a three month notice period for workers resigning, one week for workers being made redundant (though they do get three months wages as pay-off). Bit of a discrepancy that. |
|
| |
No it isn't.
Think of it as getting three months notice, but being told your duties during this time will be to sit at home doing bugger all. Since the usual reason for laying you off is that the work you normally do is ceasing to exist, this seems eminently reasonable enough to me. |
|
| |
Spider: Just spend the time burning cds and stuff. You dont have to do any work. Get a bad reference? Sue them for libel - they wont be able to prove anything. |
|
| |
Most states in the US are "right to work" states. Usually, this translates to a "right to fire" state. That means that, unless there is a written contract of employment (and an application doesn't constitute a contract), the employment relationship can be terminated by either party, at any time, without any notice, for any reason whatsoever (or no reason at all-which is the safest thing to do-if an employer gives a reason, then the employee has grounds for wrongful termination lawsuit).
This works both ways. Unless you signed a specific contract, you are not required to give 2 weeks notice. That's just a courtesy. If you don't need that bridge, go ahead and burn it. |
|
| |
// Most states in the US are "right to work" states. Usually, this translates to a "right to fire" state.// |
|
| |
While such a policy may seem harsh, it offers two advantages to employers which in turn benefit workers: |
|
| |
-1- An employer can hire someone without being out two weeks' salary if the person turns out to be a total bozo. While an employer still will have significant expenses associated with such hiring, reducing such expenses will make employers more willing to hire people who have not yet earned impeccable credentials. |
|
| |
-2- It avoids encouraging scamsters to apply for jobs for which they are obviously not qualified. Unfortunately, because of the way the unemployment system works it's not entirely effective in this regard (as a favor to a client, I interviewed a job applicant who submitted what he claimed to be samples of his work, but who was unable to explain any of it; if such a person gets 'lucky' 1% of the time, he can claim to the unemployment office that he's "seeking work".) |
|
| |
Of course, the extent to which the employer's risk is reduced depends on the type of job. For some jobs, a poor employee could cost a company far more than his salary. For many jobs, however, the ability to get rid of someone who turns out to be a real bozo may make the employer more willing to hire an unknown. |
|
| |
For security reason, I don't like this idea. But I do think it's fair to require at leat 2 weeks' severance pay in most cases, i.e., except for gross malfeasance or workplace crime. |
|
| |
I would also support the notion that executives should get no better deal than rank-and-file employees when it comes to firing. |
|
| |
Where I work, the letter of acceptance "forms part of the conditions of employment". This is true in most of the UK in my experience. If your employer just says "you're hired", write THEM a letter (registered delivery) giving your terms and, when you turn up, if they accept you, they have accepted YOUR terms. Bob's your uncle: legally you have them over a barrel. I guess American lawyers are wise to this!
Mind you, where I work is so easy-going that you would have to shoot the MD to get fired. At my age (46) this is definitely a "good thing" (unless you are the employer, in which case, caveat emptor). |
|
| |
grob i have a job for you invoving an MD |
|
| |
"RIGHT TO WORK"
In the US, as read on the Federal Department Of Labor website under the Federal Labor Statues Act (FLSA) "Right To Work" applies exclusively to the right of a person to work in a "unionized" shop (or environment) without having to join said union. |
|
| |
My employer is in for a treat when I finish using my FMLA time and return to work and begin forcing them to either follow federal statute or face lawsuits, both of which will work in my favor! |
|
| |
By The Way - There's only two reasons for any right-thinking person to turn in a two-week notice, either one's pay is 1 or 2 weeks "in-the-hole" or one needs a good reference to gain new employment. |
|
| |
At my workplace its 30 days |
|
| |
There seems to be confusion with "right to work" and "at-will" employment <link>. |
|
| |