7 ms·
Giving Four Months’ Notice or Paying to Quit Has These Workers Feeling Trapped
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoThis is a bad deal, so why agree to it in the first place?
- looseyesterday 4y agoDoesn't always mean you have to serve your full notice. If you're extremely demotivated and do everything half heartedly what are they going to do? Any decent manager knows these are not enforceable in most cases
- cableshaft 4y agoPer the article: It told the doctor that it would enforce a contract clause requiring employees to give 120 days’ notice when quitting or pay a hefty fee, equivalent to his salary for the remainder of that four-month window. Management said, “We will make you pay” and “The contract will be enforced.” If you mean show up but not do all the work, there might be something in the contract for that too, if they're putting this bullshit into it.
- groffee 4y agoThat just sounds like slavery with extra steps. Why would anyone stand for it? Just stay home 'sick', or roll in late, take an actual hour for your lunch (scandalous!), take your legally required breaks, do the bare minimum, what are they gonna do, fire you? Stuff like this continues because workers don't seem to realize they CAN just leave.
- nasmorn 4y agoThis. I always jokingly say if the company is not fair to me I will simply only do the tasks they actually assign to me as punishment. Which is probably gonna half my work. I understand not every profession is as self directed but you can certainly work to rule. In Europe eg your lunch break is not optional. So just go for 30min. Leave the building. If getting fired is no longer a concern I don’t understand what the employer has on you
- ck2 4y agoIt would be somewhere in the top ten after seizing worker passports. Dystopia. Who wants to be a customer or patient being helped by a worker feeling that dire? Somewhere between massive weekly turnover vs "paying to quit" has to be some sanity but individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments.
- groffee 4y ago> individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments That's true, but only if you play their game. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8
- choeger 4y ago>That just sounds like slavery with extra steps. No it's not. It's absolutely normal in Germany. > Why would anyone stand for it? Because it goes both ways. The employer has to adhere to the same period. This gives some safety for both parties. The employee can search for a new job if they are let go and the employer can plan for at least a quarter. That said, a one-sided clause would not even be legal here.
- olliej 4y agoDoes the article say the employer has to adhere to this? Because my US employment contracts try very hard to make arbitrary, cause less, and notice-free dismissal built in. You have to realize that the US governments have repeatedly taken then position that non executives do not have rights. There’s the concept of a “right to work” law in the US, and what that means is that a company can fire you at any time for any or no reason. Historically the government would use the policy to break strikes by having the police kill the strikes en mass, and as we see with the recent rail strike, the government will just make strike action illegal if you ever actually attempt it.
- wawayanda 4y agoThe guy in the article is a doctor, so it's not as easy just saying "so slack off for four months." Also incredibly ugly that a company would put doctors in this position. Basic healthcare and profit motives don't mix.
- luckylion 4y agoThey mix pretty well (e.g. Germany's private health care system is doing fine, it's the public one that struggles). It's more that profit-seeking, few laws around labor contracts and zero morals don't mix well. That's not as much of a problem in Germany because there's lots of labor law regulating all kinds of things keeping the zero-morals-people in check, and voila, you don't see that kind of exploitation outside of criminal enterprises. That said, at least 4 weeks notice are required in Germany, and you can sign a contract to increase the period, but the employee can never have a longer notice period than the employer.
- unity1001 4y ago> They mix pretty well (e.g. Germany's private health care system is doing fine, it's the public one that struggles) The public one in Germany is struggling precisely why every public one everywhere is struggling: They defund the public healthcare to cripple it to justify privatizing it by saying 'it doesnt work'. Works every time as public believe it like idiots. And no, the one that you have is not a mixed system 'that works'. Its a system in the middle of its privatization phase. When the transition is complete, youll see how things change.
- PoignardAzur 4y agoEvery time anything goes wrong in any public administration, people rush to assume it's a "starve the beast" tactic even when there's no evidence whatsoever it's the case. You're making a lot of very confident assertions in that post without bothering to back them up.
- unity1001 4y ago
- xivzgrev 4y agoDid he not read their contract to him before he started working there?
- refurb 4y agoI have a friend who works in Singapore and the contract is the same. She had to give 3 months notice and if she left early, the penalty was the salary she would have earned over that period (i.e. leave after 2 months, you owe the company 1 month of salary). It's more typically 1 month notice unless you're in a more senior role. I guess it was carried over from the UK.
- diordiderot 4y agoThis seems fair if it goes both ways. You can't fire me without notice, I can't quit without notice. Gives everyone time to get their affairs in order. If that's the situation, don't be a petulant unethical crybaby about not getting what you want when you want it and do the job you're being paid to do. Rights come with responsibilities.
- acdha 4y agoIs this the job they signed up for, though? The working conditions sound bad and unless that was very clearly communicated before signing it sounds like the company isn’t keeping their side of the deal. There’s an enormous power differential here since they can easily make their employees’ lives bad but it’s ruinously expensive for an employee to get any sort of consequences for the company.
- JediWing 4y agoNo, it doesn't seem fair at all. The employer should provide severance. Their act of removing a person's livelihood can have devastating consequences for the individual. The employee shouldn't have to give notice, and forcing someone to PAY a fee to NOT work is forcing them to choose between wage theft and indentured servitude. By and large, losing one employee won't make or break a company (and if it does, it should have given them more equity and/or autonomy to have a stake and sense of power to change some of the reasons they're leaving).
- jonp888 4y agoLosing an employee from one day to the next without any possibility to do knowledge transfer or implement a transition plan is far more disruptive than having then continue to work for a minimum period. The idea that if you just pay people enough money they will work a single job their entire career and never quit is absurd.
- aardvarkr 4y agoThe article specifically talks about doctors and nurses. There is no knowledge transfer going on. Even if I were to be generous to your argument, if the company trained a person to do that special job then they can train someone else. Giving two weeks is a courtesy, nothing more. Forcing someone to work against their will ant great financial penalty is indentured servitude and the article cites court cases that are proceeding under human trafficking claims.
- sandworm101 4y ago>> Legal experts say Concentra could have a tough time getting courts to uphold the 120-day rule, given how one-sided it is. “I think it would be really hard to enforce this in front of any reasonable judge,” says Jonathan Harris, a professor at Loyola Marymount University’s law school. A "reasonable" judge would probably side with a little employee facing a massive penalty for quitting, but a doctor isn't the average employee. I'd bet good money that this doctor wasn't even an actual employee. I bet he was operating as a contactor business, with separate insurance/accounting and such. A judge will not look so kindly on a subcontractor business, one probably turning over six or even seven figures and perfectly capable of taking proper legal advice before signing anything.
- acdha 4y agoThe story very consistently refers to them as employees, and discusses things which would not apply to a contractor. The non-compete, for example, is something which would often lead to the contractor being reclassified as an employee.
- lupire 4y agoIs that true? If I hire someone to build a website for me, am I forbidden from getting a non-compete to protect against them launching another website for the same business?
- Retric 4y agoIndependent contractors are treated differently than small consulting firms here: https://www.weisbergcummings.com/are-non-compete-agreements-enforceable-against-independent-contractors/ https://www.weisbergcummings.com/are-non-compete-agreements-... Is a Non-Compete Clause Enforceable? For an independent contractor, non-compete clauses could reclassify you as an employee. A non-compete for contractors can actually be an important factor in determining whether a worker is truly an employee rather than a contractor. If an independent contractor is reclassified as an employee, the company could be subjected to penalties, workers compensation insurance and overtime pay. Even if you remain classified as a contractor, a non-compete clause may not be enforceable. Independent contractors are expected to be experts in their chosen field and are likely working for multiple companies at once. If one company attempts to enforce a non-compete clause, your ability to find work may be affected. If a non-compete clause unreasonably restrains your ability to work, most courts in the U.S. will not enforce it. Non competes between firms are possible, but given extreme scrutiny due to antitrust and other issues.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y agoThey could fight it in court. They might not have a super strong case and might not win, but by fighting it they add additional costs for the corpos and between that and bad publicity it might be enough to convince them that letting them go is the better option despite the contract.
- aardvarkr 4y agoThe legal analysts cited in the article make the claim that no reasonable judge would uphold the contract, and they cite several such lawsuits. It’s likely unenforceable. Most workers would just cave immediately though. Deploying corporate lawyers costs the company very little. Hitting a lawyer as individual is prohibitively expensive and time consuming and emotionally taxing affair so very few people ever fight it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y agoYeah, but that's what they're counting on. I guess I possess an above average capacity for spite.
- lupire 4y agoThe equivalent law in rental real estate, in US, is that if you terminate the contract before term, you pay for all the lost revenue until the landlord finds a replacement, which they are obligated to search for in good faith. The rule for employment contract should be the same, perhaps with a discount for expenses not incurred.
- maxerickson 4y agoI don't think that analogy is obvious. For example, the renter is paying the landlord for use of their property, while the occupational health employer is paying the employee for their time. If the doctor was paying the facility for use of equipment and access to patients it wouldn't be unreasonable for that contract to have some term where some minimum payment was expected.
- globalise83 4y agoThree months notice has been standard in every contract I’ve ever had (UK and Germany) - but equally I have always been able to get my employer to shorten it when I wanted to take month off between jobs.
- nixgeek 4y agoThat’s unusual, in UK it’s more normal to see one month notice periods except for jobs which are “Key Person” risks to a company and where they need or want more notice to start a search, or to transfer knowledge and responsibilities. What this has meant in my experience is most people employed as Software Engineers need to give a month, and senior leaders will potentially be on 3 months (notably, this often extends to individual contributors who are i.e. a Distinguished Engineer at a larger firm). In the US the prevalent practice seems to be 2 weeks notice and this employer seems very predatory to me.
- valdiorn 4y agoUK based software engineer - never seen anything other than 3 month notices. My wife was on 1 month when she was a junior data scientist but moved to 3 months 6 months later as she was promoted. It was the same in Iceland where I'm originally from. 3 months by far the most common for engineers. The one anomaly I've come across was Jump Trading. Their offer to me included a 12 month notice and a 36 month non compete. I told them to shove it and took another offer.
- nixgeek 4y agoWow, I worked for over a decade in UK prior to emigrating and I was never subject to >1 month notice.
- bunnyfoofoo 4y agohttps://archive.is/2023.01.27-073232/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-26/concentra-health-employees-feel-trapped-at-work https://archive.is/2023.01.27-073232/https://www.bloomberg.c...
- exabrial 4y agoI think the best system is the non compete bonus. On signing: $2k for the worker and in return there’s a year or whatever noncompete, plus a required notice period. The worker can choose to accept or not, or return the bonus if they need to jump quickly. This works out for everyone: employers can pay for what it’s worth to them, smart employees can invest that money and pocket interest income.
- AnEro 4y agoHow is that still not predatory in the sense that you're then locking your skills related to that industry away for the rest of your/company's life? For what 2000? Personally the skills I have in my industry easily add 10k to 30k to my worth in my late 20's. I don't think any company can afford to make a fair compensation at scale to lock an employee out of working with any competitors aka being in the same industry again.
- olliej 4y agoNo. If a company wants a non compete for X amount of time, the company can pay me for X amount of time. The reason companies are able to be so abusive towards their employees is that they can mandate no compete for any level of employee despite the _vast_ majority of employees having no magical knowledge that company. The result is that an employee can’t move to a higher paying job, and so their current employer can pay them even less.
- kwhitefoot 4y agoEverywhere I have worked I have had a three month notice period and the employer could only give me notice for a valid reason such as down sizing or misconduct. This is in the UK and Norway, I think it is probably similar in other European countries. Generally the period can be negotiated when you give notice and employers will often simply pay you you some part or all of the salary that would be due and let you leave earlier unless they need you to finish some work or train someone else.
- Invictus0 4y agoTake it to the extreme: suppose the contract demanded 1000 days notice. I hope no one would find this reasonable. I also can't think of any situation where paying to quit is reasonable. The court should strike this down.
- ahtihn 4y agoIf it's symmetrical I'm sure lots of people would be fine with a work contract that guarantees them income for almost 3 years even if it means they can't easily quit. I know people in upper management roles in Switzerland that have 6 months notice. It's not a big deal.
- nunez 4y agoThis is indentured servitude!
- alkonaut 4y agoFour sounds excessive. I think I have 1-2 while my employer has 3 from their side. That’s key, that the employer has the longer notice. As an employee I could probably transfer any knowledge required in a month or two, but if I’m laid off it’s good to know I’m paid for (at least) 3 months.
- olliej 4y agoI expect good odds that the contract allows the company to fire the doctor with no notice or severence, but can’t read the article to confirm my suspicion.