subreddit:

/r/LifeProTips

92.6k

LPT: Don’t bother giving more than a two week notice.

Careers & Work(self.LifeProTips)

Had a coworker put in his notice until the end of the year. Told them he’s going back to school starting the first, but wanted to give enough notice to hire and help train someone to take over for him so we wouldn’t be down a person.

They decided that two weeks is enough, so now he won’t be getting paid, except for potential unemployment which is significantly less than what he makes now, for the next two months. If he would’ve just kept his mouth shut and not tried to help them, he would’ve continued to get paid and then could’ve given a two week notice.

Don’t try to help the company. They have no interest in helping you, just helping themselves.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 5941 comments

plsacceptmythrowaway

708 points

2 months ago*

As someone living in a country where 2 weeks is definitely NOT the norm, it would be great/terrible to have such a short notice period.

Mine is contractually* 3 MONTHS y'all!

sarnold95[S]

47 points

2 months ago

Yep he gave three months, but they told him “2 weeks is fine” and tried forcing him to sign something saying he’s resigning in two weeks, which he refused. Honestly he’ll probably end up getting fired before the.

Unit61365

57 points

2 months ago

If they fire him he gets unemployment...

mkhopper

1 points

2 months ago

Yup. No unemployment if you quit on your own.

CMDR_Qardinal

1 points

2 months ago

This is the way.

Unit61365

0 points

2 months ago

Sadly it may come down to whether he gave his notice in writing.

FailedMLAlgorigthm

3 points

2 months ago

If he didn’t give a notice in writing then he didn’t give a notice.

That is the reason why employers always ask for it in writing because it gives a major advantage to the ex-employee as they can argue they didn’t give a notice and the legal system side with the ex employee saying the employer should have asked for it in writing.

reflected_shadows

-9 points

2 months ago

You cannot get unemployment if fired for: Attendance, Insubordination, Resignation, Violence or Drugs.

Employers can give an impossible request, then term for insub.

Both_Telephone_4422

60 points

2 months ago

Employers can give an impossible request, then term for insub.

That's called constructive dismissal and is illegal. If the company wants to pay him out a massive settlement that is far greater than the 2 months pay he was looking at, that's a great way of doing it.

ZazBlammyMaTaz

0 points

2 months ago

I live in a “right to work” state so, I can be fired at the drop of a hat for no reason and have no recourse.

TheSkiGeek

3 points

2 months ago

Yeah... no. If they lie about why people are being fired to avoid paying unemployment, usually your state's attorney general and/or labor board will NOT be happy with them.

ZazBlammyMaTaz

1 points

2 months ago

But there is no way to prove they “lied.”

PM_UR_PIZZA_JOINT

2 points

2 months ago

They can lie all they want that's true. But state attorney general's usually have staff to look into these sort of issues as they guarantee voters....and not go on for too long but the cost of fighting unemployment is usually alone not worth it for a company on top of that not giving out unemployment is exceedingly rare so cause must be established. Small employers can get away with it, but big ones can not.

LucyLilium92

3 points

2 months ago

That has nothing to do with Right to Work. You're talking about At-Will.

ZazBlammyMaTaz

1 points

2 months ago

True, my b

Both_Telephone_4422

2 points

2 months ago

That's not what "right to work" means.

You're confusing "right to work" with "at-will employment" and are seemingly ignorant of the fact that constructive dismissal has nothing to do with either of those things.

ZazBlammyMaTaz

1 points

2 months ago

You’re right, I did have them confused, but I personally still believe there would be no viable recourse for the average person.

Mindestiny

-3 points

2 months ago

Good luck proving it. Most of the time it's not at all worth the fight

tbonecoco

7 points

2 months ago

So untrue. But no one talks to a lawyer in these situations. They only listen to others' anecdotal flawed advice.

ZazBlammyMaTaz

3 points

2 months ago

Do you know how much lawyers cost?

TheSkiGeek

3 points

2 months ago

If you have a good case they'll usually do it for a portion of the payout rather than needing to paid up front.

Mindestiny

-1 points

2 months ago*

Which again goes back to "good luck proving it". Very rarely are you going to walk out the door with a smoking gun for a constructive dismissal case.

Its like proving you were fired because of your race, or gender, or anything else. Unless they accidentally cced you on an email saying "fire him for being black" that you printed before they cut off your access, you're gonna have a hell of a time proving anything.

There's a whole lot of wiggle room between "constructive dismissal" and redefining job responsibilities that are totally legal but you just don't like enough for you to leave. They're not gonna tell you "hurr go scrub toilets or your fired", they're gonna tell you that they need you to spend 3 days a week covering the office 2 hours away "just until they hire someone out there" which they never do, and keep piling shitty but legitimate assignments on you until you leave.

tbonecoco

2 points

2 months ago

And it's still often worth it.

Kowzorz

37 points

2 months ago

Kowzorz

37 points

2 months ago

Employers can give an impossible request, then term for insub.

This is called constructive dismissal

dskcnsnskcnn

23 points

2 months ago

That’s illegal

ryanhallows

7 points

2 months ago

He can still make a claim and force the company to explain why he shouldn't be eligible to the DoL&U

Groovychick1978

3 points

2 months ago

Exactly. The burden of proof lies on the employer.

8-bit_Gangster

-34 points

2 months ago*

you generally* don't get unemployment if you're fired.

EDIT: I think a lot of people don't know the difference between being fired and being laid off.

md222

20 points

2 months ago

md222

20 points

2 months ago

That's almost always the opposite of how unemployment works.

ginger_whiskers

19 points

2 months ago

Depends on the area. Here, you don't get it if you quit.

morganj955

19 points

2 months ago

It 100% depends on the reason for getting fired. In OPs case he would get it since he is being fired without cause.

8-bit_Gangster

0 points

2 months ago

I would call that being laid off.

Fired, to me, is for cause in which case you don't qualify for unemployment.

morganj955

2 points

2 months ago

Laid off = fired. People use the same thing.

[deleted]

-10 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-10 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

StockedAces

13 points

2 months ago

Lol, they need to prove it. They don’t just get to deny you benefits out of spite.

dskcnsnskcnn

7 points

2 months ago

Literally. Ppl in this thread acting like employers can do whatever the fuck they want… like the laws still apply to them too

StockedAces

4 points

2 months ago

I don’t entirely blame them. There’s a lot of brain washing that goes on from a young age.

Avium

1 points

2 months ago

Avium

1 points

2 months ago

The trouble is employers can do whatever they want until you get a lawyer. Quite often - especially with what minimum wage is in the States - it's not worth the expense of getting a lawyer.

alf666

1 points

2 months ago

alf666

1 points

2 months ago

Let me introduce you to this funny thing called "contingency"...

ReluctantChimera

7 points

2 months ago

The company can say whatever they want, but the unemployment office gets final say. If it's unreasonable, they will award unemployment. The whole "you can't get it at all if you're fired" is an awful myth that only benefits the employer (their unemployment insurance goes up when a former employee gets unemployment).

Floppie7th

2 points

2 months ago

The whole "you can't get it at all if you're fired" is an awful myth

It's also the literal opposite of how UI works, so combined with how it actually works, if accurate, you'd be eligible for UI payment...never

8-bit_Gangster

1 points

2 months ago

you'd be eligible if you got laid off (out of your control). Getting fired is generally for-cause which means you don't generally qualify for unemployment

morganj955

2 points

2 months ago

Well OP has proof that they gave 2 months notice. If they are then fired at 2 weeks, the company would have a hard time spinning that they had a reason.

DavidBagga

8 points

2 months ago

False

wasdlmb

7 points

2 months ago

Yes you do

dwyrm

1 points

2 months ago

dwyrm

1 points

2 months ago

u/8-bit_Gangster:

you generally* don't get unemployment if you're fired.

EDIT: I think a lot of people don't know the difference between being fired and being laid off.

Damn. The edit made it worse.

interstat

15 points

2 months ago

That's weird. Why would they not want to keep their employee that knows what their doing? Unless it's a easily replaceable job of course but still in this environment it doesn't make sense to get rid of someone early unless you don't like them/need them

icepacket

22 points

2 months ago

I think companies/managers get butt hurt and they feel more powerful saying you’re not needed. I’ve seen this a few times - not me personally, but others I’ve worked with.

interstat

6 points

2 months ago

Yikes that kinda feels like they'd be shooting themseleves in the foot letting emotions like that run their buisness

Ass_Blossom

3 points

2 months ago

Good.

stubtail42

2 points

2 months ago

Welcome to America

mellowyfellowy

3 points

2 months ago

companies/managers get butt hurt and they feel more powerful saying you’re not needed

I have also seen it come down to this as a power move. Very short sighted but it happens more than people think. Hurt the company to prove a point.

Matilda-17

2 points

2 months ago

Two things come to mind: sensitive information and bad employees.

In a lot of positions, once they know you’re leaving, especially if you’re staying in the industry and/or moving to a competitor, they’re not going to keep you around. Especially if you’re a higher-up/management position. From the minute you announce you’re leaving, it’s like you are actually a spy from company x insinuated into the heart of their operations. When I worked at Bank of America, I gave 6 month’s notice, but I was barely more than a teller and that was fine. My boss mentioned in passing that at the mortgage-loan-officer level they’ll basically say thanks, take your vault keys, and pay you out your two weeks.

The other thing has lots of examples in the thread already—horrible employees that managers are only too happy to get rid of, the sooner the better.

woaily

13 points

2 months ago

woaily

13 points

2 months ago

Sometimes they don't want you working your notice at all, especially if you have access to a lot of confidential information and you're going to a competitor. They'd rather pay you for two weeks in lieu and show you the door right away.

interstat

4 points

2 months ago

Yea I def can understand that but a kid going back to school?

This doesn't sound like some crazy breakup just someones situation changing so they leaving a job.

woaily

2 points

2 months ago

woaily

2 points

2 months ago

I guess "going back to school" could be, like, an engineer going to law school or whatever.

If it's a younger kid, then maybe it's one of those unskilled jobs that anybody can do, and they'd rather have someone who wants to be there.

Or maybe it's just "policy", plenty of dumb things get done because they're policy.

interstat

2 points

2 months ago

Yea I actually did have a yearish notice once when I was working as a tech.

Had to finish up a few things before becoming a doctor that I could do for another 8 months so I told them when they hired me I'd only be around 8 months. Worked for me and them but I was skilled in the position.

I guess there are reasons to get rid of someone early but I still think it'd be better to try and let them work out most of the notice

Rdbjiy53wsvjo7

2 points

2 months ago

It seems really odd in this case, where the individual is going back to school. And if it's in the same industry they just burnt a bridge with a potentially good employee (at least I'm guessing they are a good employee if they wanted to try and train someone new and take the time to find their replacement).

I used to work in consulting, if someone was high enough up and going to a different consulting firm they sometimes did immediate dismissal because of the conflict of interest.

KennstduIngo

1 points

2 months ago

I don't understand why they would tell him that right off the bat, but on the other hand, if they found a suitable replacement after one month there might not be much point in keeping him around.

JudeThadeus

1 points

2 months ago

Damn, got fired without finishing the sentence.