8 ms·

Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about terminat

by Ralfp 9y ago

Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about termination: - week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify his employeer on same basis that he or she quits. This introduces amount of games to recruitment process, where company frequently not only has to make bet by deciding to hire somebody, but also make sure that they'll wont be outbid during the three months that have to pass for person to change employeer

antiphase 9y ago
This only applies to permanent workers though. Contractors or temporary staff may be employed on much shorter terms.
- majidazimi 9y ago
  I'm a student assistant at SAP in Germany. Even I (as a part time hourly-paid employee) have a one month notice period.
  - flanbiscuit 9y ago
    And you have to do it on the first of the month right? Because the one month doesn't become affective until the first of the month so if you quit mid-month then you actually have a month and a half left at the company. At least this is what I was told by a friend who lives and works in Berlin as a tech recruiter.
BrandoElFollito 9y ago
Same in France and the majority of EU countries.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Three months seems like way too long to know you're being laid off but I guess maybe the purpose is that it gives you time to find new work? In the US, it's just assumed that the ex-employee will be as malicious as possible and so it's best to get rid of them fast as possible.
  - edp 9y ago
    If the employer is worried for security reasons, they can send the employee home but must pay his salary for 3 months (in France at least, I don't know for other EU countries).
    - Veen 9y ago
      It’s called gardening leave in the UK
  - rando444 9y ago
    The same assumptions are made in the EU, the only difference is that the employee is let go, but still continues to receive his salary for some months. Think of it more like a severance package and it makes more sense.
  - BrandoElFollito 9y ago
    This is supposed to protect both the employee and the employer. The employee to give him some time to find a new job (he is entitled to some days off during these 3 months to interview). The employer to (at least theoretically) force the employee to still work to prepare a handover, docs, etc. What happens in practice depends on the case : these 3 months may be shortened via a mutual agreement, the employer may force the employee not to come to work (but still pay him) and other arrangements are possible.
colejohnson66 9y ago
A three months notice before quitting seems pretty excessive IMHO. I can kindof understand it from the perspective of the company that would need to find a replacement, but for the worker, it seems ridiculous. Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.
- lstyls 9y ago
  > most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice The term "right to work" has nothing to do with employment status. It's political branding for laws that forbid mandatory union membership. It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force. I think you're confusing it with "at will" employment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force. I think it's fair to say teachers have the right to be teachers without joining a teachers' union. I don't think enforcing that right "contributes to the decline" of unions. Organizational models should be able to handle that sort of freedom to choose. To me, the question is why unions don't innovate in their organizational models and policies so that giving employees freedom to choose is moot?
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      Same reason that people who live in the US don't have the freedom to choose whether they want to be governed by the US government. Social contract
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        But on a more concrete level, union fees go to campaigning, lobbying, and donations to candidates the union members may not support. I don't think it's part of an American social contract that you would be forced to tangibly support candidates who have (by some accounts) immoral positions on abortion or immigration (to pick to polarizing issues).
jaredklewis 9y ago
I’m quite surprised to hear one must give their employer notice. Doesn’t Poland or the EU have laws against forced labor? In the US, for example, all employment by private corporations is “at will.” Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.
- the_duke 9y ago
  It's very similar in most EU countries I know. Responsibilities go both ways. No one can "force" you to continue working somewhere, of course, but you may lose compensation for extra vacation time and could be liable for financial damage you cause for your employer. But I've never actually heard about that being an issue. It's very common to just mutually agree to part ways right away. And of course there are provisions both ways that allow immediate termination, like gross negligence from the employee or the employer not paying out your salary.
- vacri 9y ago
  > forced labor You're breaking a signed contract, not escaping slavery. The notice period is usually in the contract, too (or at least it is here in Australia)
- lin_lin 9y ago
  Living in the UK, my last job required three months notice to leave on paper. In reality they accepted a month which is standard enough.
- jakub_g 9y ago
  All Europe operates in a similar way, the difference is only the notice period, which is shorter (few weeks) in some countries like UK or Netherlands, and longer (~3 months+ once you've worked for a while) in other countries like France. Of course many companies find that it's not flexible enough for them, so they abuse the system and illegally hire low qualified workforce as "independent contractors" on civil contracts instead of work contracts. Search for "zero hour contracts" for UK, but it's rampant also in Poland, Italy and other countries where unions are not strong and employees' rights guaranteed by law are not enforced.
sklivvz1971 9y ago
All that stuff doesn't really matter... If you have 3 months notice, it only means they'll come up to you and offer you to pay you those three months and you don't have to show up at all. And you sign a contract that prevents you from suing. Most worker rights, in the end, become a matter of how much money they'll pay you to leave if they want you to leave. Yes, one could--theoretically--fight back and not accept the money, but that only means you'd be a pariah in the company. What's the point of staying if the company wants you to leave and offers you a package? Take the money and get a new job in a couple weeks...
- ATsch 9y ago
  Well, where is the disadvantage here? As far as I can tell, instant layoffs are bad because you without any income at short notice. If you have three months where you still receive pay to search for a new job, you have gained a lot of security. Besides, I doubt Poland has arbitration clauses, so the workers would be free to sue. It would not be pleasant to stay in that job either way as you correctly pointed out though.
  - sklivvz1971 9y ago
    The disadvantage is morale. It's much easier for the company to regain momentum if the chord is cut cleanly and swiftly. That said, I'm not sure if it's true or effective, but having worked at Stack Overflow for years I'm pretty sure this was done to spare overall misery.

by Ralfp 9y ago

antiphase 9y ago

This only applies to permanent workers though. Contractors or temporary staff may be employed on much shorter terms.

majidazimi 9y ago
I'm a student assistant at SAP in Germany. Even I (as a part time hourly-paid employee) have a one month notice period.
- flanbiscuit 9y ago
  And you have to do it on the first of the month right? Because the one month doesn't become affective until the first of the month so if you quit mid-month then you actually have a month and a half left at the company. At least this is what I was told by a friend who lives and works in Berlin as a tech recruiter.

BrandoElFollito 9y ago

Same in France and the majority of EU countries.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JBlue42 9y ago
Three months seems like way too long to know you're being laid off but I guess maybe the purpose is that it gives you time to find new work? In the US, it's just assumed that the ex-employee will be as malicious as possible and so it's best to get rid of them fast as possible.
- edp 9y ago
  If the employer is worried for security reasons, they can send the employee home but must pay his salary for 3 months (in France at least, I don't know for other EU countries).
  - Veen 9y ago
    It’s called gardening leave in the UK
- rando444 9y ago
  The same assumptions are made in the EU, the only difference is that the employee is let go, but still continues to receive his salary for some months. Think of it more like a severance package and it makes more sense.
- BrandoElFollito 9y ago
  This is supposed to protect both the employee and the employer. The employee to give him some time to find a new job (he is entitled to some days off during these 3 months to interview). The employer to (at least theoretically) force the employee to still work to prepare a handover, docs, etc. What happens in practice depends on the case : these 3 months may be shortened via a mutual agreement, the employer may force the employee not to come to work (but still pay him) and other arrangements are possible.

colejohnson66 9y ago

A three months notice before quitting seems pretty excessive IMHO. I can kindof understand it from the perspective of the company that would need to find a replacement, but for the worker, it seems ridiculous. Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.

lstyls 9y ago
> most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice The term "right to work" has nothing to do with employment status. It's political branding for laws that forbid mandatory union membership. It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force. I think you're confusing it with "at will" employment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force. I think it's fair to say teachers have the right to be teachers without joining a teachers' union. I don't think enforcing that right "contributes to the decline" of unions. Organizational models should be able to handle that sort of freedom to choose. To me, the question is why unions don't innovate in their organizational models and policies so that giving employees freedom to choose is moot?
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Same reason that people who live in the US don't have the freedom to choose whether they want to be governed by the US government. Social contract
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      But on a more concrete level, union fees go to campaigning, lobbying, and donations to candidates the union members may not support. I don't think it's part of an American social contract that you would be forced to tangibly support candidates who have (by some accounts) immoral positions on abortion or immigration (to pick to polarizing issues).

jaredklewis 9y ago

I’m quite surprised to hear one must give their employer notice. Doesn’t Poland or the EU have laws against forced labor? In the US, for example, all employment by private corporations is “at will.” Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.

the_duke 9y ago
It's very similar in most EU countries I know. Responsibilities go both ways. No one can "force" you to continue working somewhere, of course, but you may lose compensation for extra vacation time and could be liable for financial damage you cause for your employer. But I've never actually heard about that being an issue. It's very common to just mutually agree to part ways right away. And of course there are provisions both ways that allow immediate termination, like gross negligence from the employee or the employer not paying out your salary.
vacri 9y ago
> forced labor You're breaking a signed contract, not escaping slavery. The notice period is usually in the contract, too (or at least it is here in Australia)
lin_lin 9y ago
Living in the UK, my last job required three months notice to leave on paper. In reality they accepted a month which is standard enough.
jakub_g 9y ago
All Europe operates in a similar way, the difference is only the notice period, which is shorter (few weeks) in some countries like UK or Netherlands, and longer (~3 months+ once you've worked for a while) in other countries like France. Of course many companies find that it's not flexible enough for them, so they abuse the system and illegally hire low qualified workforce as "independent contractors" on civil contracts instead of work contracts. Search for "zero hour contracts" for UK, but it's rampant also in Poland, Italy and other countries where unions are not strong and employees' rights guaranteed by law are not enforced.

sklivvz1971 9y ago

All that stuff doesn't really matter... If you have 3 months notice, it only means they'll come up to you and offer you to pay you those three months and you don't have to show up at all. And you sign a contract that prevents you from suing. Most worker rights, in the end, become a matter of how much money they'll pay you to leave if they want you to leave. Yes, one could--theoretically--fight back and not accept the money, but that only means you'd be a pariah in the company. What's the point of staying if the company wants you to leave and offers you a package? Take the money and get a new job in a couple weeks...

ATsch 9y ago
Well, where is the disadvantage here? As far as I can tell, instant layoffs are bad because you without any income at short notice. If you have three months where you still receive pay to search for a new job, you have gained a lot of security. Besides, I doubt Poland has arbitration clauses, so the workers would be free to sue. It would not be pleasant to stay in that job either way as you correctly pointed out though.
- sklivvz1971 9y ago
  The disadvantage is morale. It's much easier for the company to regain momentum if the chord is cut cleanly and swiftly. That said, I'm not sure if it's true or effective, but having worked at Stack Overflow for years I'm pretty sure this was done to spare overall misery.