5 ms·

I worked at a Microsoft affiliate a few years back, and it was common knowledge that if you put in your two weeks notice, a couple of days later armed security

I worked at a Microsoft affiliate a few years back, and it was common knowledge that if you put in your two weeks notice, a couple of days later armed security would come and escort you out.

justin66 8y ago
> a Microsoft affiliate What is that?
- Simulacra 8y ago
  Telemarketing for O365, etc.
manigandham 8y ago
Other than armed security, this is common in many sectors where you will be walked out the same day. You'll get paid as expected but won't have access. It's not worth the potential data and customer risk to companies once you've stated your intent to leave.
- scarface74 8y ago
  How are you any more of a risk after you let them know of your intent to leave than before you let them know? You had an intent to leave the minute you started looking for a job. If you wanted to harm the company, you wouldn’t have given them notice.
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    Probably comes down to HR and Corp security not taking the chance. Obviously, if you had malicious intent, you would have ample opportunity to act before giving notice. They just want to make sure they did what they could in case you should in fact have malicious intent. 'Oh, we escorted him off the premises within the hour; this one is not on us...'
    - Simulacra 8y ago
      This company was more about humiliation, they took people leaving personally, as if it was an act of betrayal. Not a good place.
  - beobab 8y ago
    Yes, but now you are a "known risk". IN theory, if a company does not have a policy for a "known risk", they could be liable if a data breach occurred, whereas an "unknown risk" there is nothing they could have done, and therefore less penalty under the law.
  - jsty 8y ago
    As with most bureaucratic procedures, there was probably one person, one time, who went absolutely nuts and tried to wipe all corporate data / attack every coworker they never liked / ... after giving notice. Many very serious meetings were then held to ensure this could never ever happen again, regardless of the cost-benefit tradeoff, because inconvenient procedures don't make headlines.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Because now the company knows, and people aren't perfectly rational. It's not about stopping targeted harm (which is covered by other security procedures) but to limit the time where the employee is at increased risk of leaking data or doing things that they normally wouldn't because the main consequence of losing their job is removed. Someone knowing they'll be gone soon can also have a negative impact on team productivity and morale.
  - afiori 8y ago
    Because before they knew you wanted to leave they did not knew you wanted to leave. If employee A is plotting to opportunistically jump boat the company can only (preventively) act after it knows that A wants to leave. The same usual problems with false positives and false negatives. (also 99.9% of employees are not leaving, considering them all a risk can be expensive)
- avinium 8y ago
  Which just proves that BigCo policies are written by bozos. All this means is that people take all the customer data before you submit your notice. Different story if someone's fired for cause, of course.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    > Which just proves that BigCo policies are written by bozos. I know it feels good to say that, but isn't it more likely they are just rational human beings making decisions by weighing a wide array of facts - most of which we aren't even aware exist?
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Or perhaps policies are written by smart people who have lots of experience and data that shows that it's a time of increased risk that's not worth it when your company has valuable trade-secrets, customer relationships, and other confidential data. Sometimes it's as simple as protecting team productivity and morale. I guess if it's a small startup with 5 people it doesn't matter, but please don't assume that everyone at all these major companies is a "bozo".
    - asark 8y ago
      Probably it's mostly "we did something!" box-ticking. Having policies matters more than their being effective or sensible, generally.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        What are you basing this on? Seems like the same assumptions as the other comment. I've explained several reasons why it makes a difference.
        asark 8y ago
        The vast majority of business decisions I've seen around security have boiled down to "we need to be able to put something on this sheet/slide, and it needs to be something that will raise the fewest questions—so, exactly what everyone else does". Effectiveness or actual purpose isn't on the radar, and improving security through these processes does happen but is basically a side-effect or an accident. Some of these things probably are based in some real need (at whichever business started the ball rolling) and tend to be useful for that reason, but I guarantee a lot are just doing things for the sake of being able to say something was done after an incident, get that in place at a couple bigcos and pretty soon it's a standard industry practice, even if it's not sensible at many places implementing it. This smells very much like one of those.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pnutjam 8y ago
I believe an employer sending you home after you give notice still has to pay you for your notice period, as long as it is a notice period they asked for in their company policies. This is why I won't give extended notice.

I worked at a Microsoft affiliate a few years back, and it was common knowledge that if you put in your two weeks notice, a couple of days later armed security would come and escort you out.

justin66 8y ago

> a Microsoft affiliate What is that?

Simulacra 8y ago
Telemarketing for O365, etc.

manigandham 8y ago

Other than armed security, this is common in many sectors where you will be walked out the same day. You'll get paid as expected but won't have access. It's not worth the potential data and customer risk to companies once you've stated your intent to leave.

scarface74 8y ago
How are you any more of a risk after you let them know of your intent to leave than before you let them know? You had an intent to leave the minute you started looking for a job. If you wanted to harm the company, you wouldn’t have given them notice.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  Probably comes down to HR and Corp security not taking the chance. Obviously, if you had malicious intent, you would have ample opportunity to act before giving notice. They just want to make sure they did what they could in case you should in fact have malicious intent. 'Oh, we escorted him off the premises within the hour; this one is not on us...'
  - Simulacra 8y ago
    This company was more about humiliation, they took people leaving personally, as if it was an act of betrayal. Not a good place.
- beobab 8y ago
  Yes, but now you are a "known risk". IN theory, if a company does not have a policy for a "known risk", they could be liable if a data breach occurred, whereas an "unknown risk" there is nothing they could have done, and therefore less penalty under the law.
- jsty 8y ago
  As with most bureaucratic procedures, there was probably one person, one time, who went absolutely nuts and tried to wipe all corporate data / attack every coworker they never liked / ... after giving notice. Many very serious meetings were then held to ensure this could never ever happen again, regardless of the cost-benefit tradeoff, because inconvenient procedures don't make headlines.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Because now the company knows, and people aren't perfectly rational. It's not about stopping targeted harm (which is covered by other security procedures) but to limit the time where the employee is at increased risk of leaking data or doing things that they normally wouldn't because the main consequence of losing their job is removed. Someone knowing they'll be gone soon can also have a negative impact on team productivity and morale.
- afiori 8y ago
  Because before they knew you wanted to leave they did not knew you wanted to leave. If employee A is plotting to opportunistically jump boat the company can only (preventively) act after it knows that A wants to leave. The same usual problems with false positives and false negatives. (also 99.9% of employees are not leaving, considering them all a risk can be expensive)
avinium 8y ago
Which just proves that BigCo policies are written by bozos. All this means is that people take all the customer data before you submit your notice. Different story if someone's fired for cause, of course.
- dahdum 8y ago
  > Which just proves that BigCo policies are written by bozos. I know it feels good to say that, but isn't it more likely they are just rational human beings making decisions by weighing a wide array of facts - most of which we aren't even aware exist?
- manigandham 8y ago
  Or perhaps policies are written by smart people who have lots of experience and data that shows that it's a time of increased risk that's not worth it when your company has valuable trade-secrets, customer relationships, and other confidential data. Sometimes it's as simple as protecting team productivity and morale. I guess if it's a small startup with 5 people it doesn't matter, but please don't assume that everyone at all these major companies is a "bozo".
  - asark 8y ago
    Probably it's mostly "we did something!" box-ticking. Having policies matters more than their being effective or sensible, generally.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      What are you basing this on? Seems like the same assumptions as the other comment. I've explained several reasons why it makes a difference.
      - asark 8y ago
        The vast majority of business decisions I've seen around security have boiled down to "we need to be able to put something on this sheet/slide, and it needs to be something that will raise the fewest questions—so, exactly what everyone else does". Effectiveness or actual purpose isn't on the radar, and improving security through these processes does happen but is basically a side-effect or an accident. Some of these things probably are based in some real need (at whichever business started the ball rolling) and tend to be useful for that reason, but I guarantee a lot are just doing things for the sake of being able to say something was done after an incident, get that in place at a couple bigcos and pretty soon it's a standard industry practice, even if it's not sensible at many places implementing it. This smells very much like one of those.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pnutjam 8y ago

I believe an employer sending you home after you give notice still has to pay you for your notice period, as long as it is a notice period they asked for in their company policies. This is why I won't give extended notice.