5 ms·

>It's rather strange that employees are expected to give advanced notice when quitting, but employers are not expected to give advanced notice when firing peopl

>It's rather strange that employees are expected to give advanced notice when quitting, but employers are not expected to give advanced notice when firing people. Well on the flip side I know many people who've received severance pay after being let go, but I don't know anyone who's provided labor to a company for months after leaving.

andrewingram 4y ago
If a former colleague asks me a question about how something works, I usually answer and don't charge them. I should probably charge them...
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  If it's someone I had a good relationship with and they ask me a question, I'd probably answer too. But I do consider this different than what I meant e.g. completing actual tasks for the company.
  - eindiran 4y ago
    That is completing actual tasks for the company. You are effectively acting as a consultant for them. And I have heard of a number of cases of people actually coming back to fix something briefly, which is even further in that direction.
    - oarabbus_ 4y ago
      Sure, coming back to fix something is absolutely completing actual tasks for the company. But I certainly disagree you can generalize answering a question as "effectively acting as a consultant for [the company]". Someone who replaced you but you don't know reaches out asking for help on their work? Or you're being asked questions you'd need to dig in to? "Sorry, I don't work there anymore". But answering a text message from someone you had a good relationship with, who is asking a question in good faith, the answer to which you can recall without effort? Wouldn't agree with calling that consulting.
willcipriano 4y ago
If I were king the norm would be traditional notice period = severance period in the contract. Provide no guarantee of severance, get no notice.
piva00 4y ago
Well, the power relationship is a bit unbalanced... The employee is providing labour, the company is exploiting it, think it's not a 1:1 comparison to be made.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  How are companies "exploiting" labor? Was the employee forced to sign the employment contract against their will? Was the employment contract not consented to by both parties upon a set of agreed-upon terms? If the latter, how do you justify that as "exploitation"?

andrewingram 4y ago

If a former colleague asks me a question about how something works, I usually answer and don't charge them. I should probably charge them...

oarabbus_ 4y ago
If it's someone I had a good relationship with and they ask me a question, I'd probably answer too. But I do consider this different than what I meant e.g. completing actual tasks for the company.
- eindiran 4y ago
  That is completing actual tasks for the company. You are effectively acting as a consultant for them. And I have heard of a number of cases of people actually coming back to fix something briefly, which is even further in that direction.
  - oarabbus_ 4y ago
    Sure, coming back to fix something is absolutely completing actual tasks for the company. But I certainly disagree you can generalize answering a question as "effectively acting as a consultant for [the company]". Someone who replaced you but you don't know reaches out asking for help on their work? Or you're being asked questions you'd need to dig in to? "Sorry, I don't work there anymore". But answering a text message from someone you had a good relationship with, who is asking a question in good faith, the answer to which you can recall without effort? Wouldn't agree with calling that consulting.

willcipriano 4y ago

If I were king the norm would be traditional notice period = severance period in the contract. Provide no guarantee of severance, get no notice.

piva00 4y ago

Well, the power relationship is a bit unbalanced... The employee is providing labour, the company is exploiting it, think it's not a 1:1 comparison to be made.

oarabbus_ 4y ago
How are companies "exploiting" labor? Was the employee forced to sign the employment contract against their will? Was the employment contract not consented to by both parties upon a set of agreed-upon terms? If the latter, how do you justify that as "exploitation"?