Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and technically if I eat out for dinner that costs me a couple hours of wages, I'm "losing" out on those wages that could have been saved.
If you're accounting for it in a pure gains/losses sense, then you're right; you're losing out on those wages by not working.
However, my point is that you can balance the loss of pay with the PTO payout. Yes, technically a loss by foregoing hours you could have worked, but the PTO payout can help fill the hole in your budget from the hours you didn't work. So if you have 10 days of PTO but you didn't work the last two weeks or they let you go without pay, it'd be a wash as far as your budget goes.
Bottom line, no matter how you slice it, the person who works out the last two weeks will be two week's pay better off than the person who is shown the door and not paid for those two weeks. The statement to which I responded claimed you haven't lost anything if you are shown the door. And the response I gave is two week's pay. That is factually correct no matter what flavor of salad dressing you pour over it.
Bottom line, no matter how you slice it, the person who works out the last two weeks will be two week's pay better off than the person who is shown the door and not paid for those two weeks. The statement to which I responded claimed you haven't lost anything if you are shown the door. And the response I gave is two week's pay. That is factually correct no matter what flavor of salad dressing you pour over it.
You're right. And to your point, every hour of the day you don't work is a lost wage. Most of us budget for these things though. Once I put in my notice, all bets are off. I plan as if that day, the day I actually quit, might be my last day.
Of course. But there's only so much due diligence one can apply.
That employee has likely been a liability since the day they decided to move on. But the organization has no idea until they give notice - so you can accept that risk for two more weeks, or you can eliminate that risk.
All that said - most employees that give notice are likely not going to do anything malicious. So the liability is likely very low the begin with. But you still don't want to have something happen and have to explain to the BoD or executive management why a mistake by a short-timer cost you a good client or monetary loss.
In the end - the risk to both sides is small. But the mitigation is also very easy. So why not.
Best case scenario - you did a good job, but time to move on. You do the right thing and give two weeks. And in return, you get a paid two weeks vacation. Everyone's happy.
First, are you suggesting that anyone who ever gives notice and leaves the company was a liability risk all along? That a person who is leaving is a lower quality employee than a person who is staying (for now)?
Second, such companies risk that the word gets out that they will show you the door if you give notice and then face the problems of people not bothering to give notice or assuming they will be walked and give notice but with no means or intent to honor it. So instead you get to explain to the BOD why employees are walking out without notice leaving projects in a state of turmoil and rough transition.
First, are you suggesting that anyone who ever gives notice and leaves the company was a liability risk all along? That a person who is leaving is a lower quality employee than a person who is staying (for now)?
Second, such companies risk that the word gets out that they will show you the door if you give notice and then face the problems of people not bothering to give notice or assuming they will be walked and give notice but with no means or intent to honor it. So instead you get to explain to the BOD why employees are walking out without notice leaving projects in a state of turmoil and rough transition.
Most of the time, I think it depends on A) the company's umbrella policy, and B) how much risk you pose to the company by leaving. For instance, if you're in sales, a lot of times they'll let you go because they don't want you trying to take their clients along with you. Or maybe if you're working on some top secret project, they will let you go so that you're aren't even more exposed to their IP and proprietary work.
Over two decades and many jobs, I've never been showed the door when giving a notice. However, I have asked to leave early if they have no plans to train a replacement.
My rule of thumb is that you should plan as if the day you put in your notice is your last. I also always make my future employer aware that I may be able to start sooner if things are to change with the employer I'm leaving. Usually they are receptive to this.
My rule of thumb is that you should plan as if the day you put in your notice is your last. I also always make my future employer aware that I may be able to start sooner if things are to change with the employer I'm leaving. Usually they are receptive to this.
In that case, my plan would be to start the new job the next day.
I don't really care what companies do but the hens will come home to roost. We have had three members on my current team leave in the past year and all have worked out their full two weeks' notice and we even had a farewell team lunch for one of them. I would give notice and expect to finish it out. But if instead those three had been immediately removed from the team then I might "give notice" but would not have any intention of serving it.
First, are you suggesting that anyone who ever gives notice and leaves the company was a liability risk all along? That a person who is leaving is a lower quality employee than a person who is staying (for now)?
Once you have decided that you are moving on (and thus starting your job search) you are absolutely a liability. Even if your productivity has only dropped .5%. But as I mentioned, it may not be enough to matter.
This may be anecdotal - but I've not know anyone who has decided to move on, and still was AS dedicated as they were before they decided. I think it's just human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
Second, such companies risk that the word gets out that they will show you the door if you give notice and then face the problems of people not bothering to give notice or assuming they will be walked and give notice but with no means or intent to honor it. So instead you get to explain to the BOD why employees are walking out without notice leaving projects in a state of turmoil and rough transition.
Many are aware that they are in a position where they will be walked out. Particularly in areas like critical IT roles that required privileged access. And most of my friends who work in the financial services where they deal with clients are also like that. It's just part of the policy. They even joke about how it becomes a race to call clients as they walk out the door.
I think the exception here is when someone not in such a role gives notice and is walked out.. that's where there may be an issue. But I suspect if they were doing that - there's likely a valid reason.
None of this should really be a shock to the individual. And again, I've never heard of a place where they walked you out after you gave notice and they didn't give you that two weeks pay. I'm sure they exist and it happens. Just as there are people who don't give notice. But in both cases, I'd say they are more the exceptions.
Many are aware that they are in a position where they will be walked out. Particularly in areas like critical IT roles that required privileged access. And most of my friends who work in the financial services where they deal with clients are also like that. It's just part of the policy. They even joke about how it becomes a race to call clients as they walk out the door.
That's fine. But if they are aware of this why is it a race? They control the timeline. They can start notifying contacts before they even give official notice.
In that case, my plan would be to start the new job the next day.
I don't really care what companies do but the hens will come home to roost. We have had three members on my current team leave in the past year and all have worked out their full two weeks' notice and we even had a farewell team lunch for one of them. I would give notice and expect to finish it out. But if instead those three had been immediately removed from the team then I might "give notice" but would not have any intention of serving it.
I don't think anyone should blame you for that. I know I wouldn't, and would probably do the same.
That's fine. But if they are aware of this why is it a race? They control the timeline. They can start notifying contacts before they even give official notice.
I believe that's against their fiduciary obligations or broker regulations.
I believe that's against their fiduciary obligations or broker regulations.
Why? And if so, why is not if they do it after giving notice?
Besides, you can create the email drafts and have ready to send at the press of a button.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
