5 ms·

At my company, there is no 2 weeks. The day you give your two weeks notice is your last day. We might pay you for those two weeks, depending on circumstances, b

At my company, there is no 2 weeks. The day you give your two weeks notice is your last day. We might pay you for those two weeks, depending on circumstances, but your building and network access is cut off within the hour. So, I personally would not give my notice until the day I actually want to be my last day.

AlwaysRock 4y ago
This is pretty common. Even more so outside of tech. I did sales for a while and this was normal.
ghaff 4y ago
That has never been the case at any company I have ever worked for. My impression is that two weeks notice with continued access is pretty standard so long as you're leaving on good terms.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > That has never been the case at any company I have ever worked for. Many companies are essentially antagonistic with all IT resources. It's very common where positions are not well paid or the company is not tech-centric, eg Mike Ferry Organization
- grayhatter 4y ago
  his username is literally irrational... kinda makes sense
- chihuahua 4y ago
  At Microsoft, the standard practice is that if you say you're leaving to take a job a company they consider a competitor, they cut off all your access at the end of the day, even if your manager wants you to stick around for knowledge transfer. If it's not a competitor, it's up to you how much notice you want to give. If you say you're leaving but don't say who your next employer is, they assume it's a competitor. Facebook was classified as a competitor, Amazon was not.
  - efitz 4y ago
    I can confirm based on my experience that at Microsoft, depending on a lot of factors like your level, role, information you have access to, and where you’re going, that they may terminate immediately as soon as you give them notice. Amazon has rapid termination processes as well but I’m not as clear on their criteria. If you work for a big technology company and are jumping to a perceived competitor, and/or if you have access to sensitive information, then you should expect that the day you give notice will be your last day.
    - alanfranz 4y ago
      > that they may terminate immediately as soon as you give them notice. Which is nonsense, because it’s the employee that chooses when to tell the employer. If I want to exfiltrate confidential data, I’ll do it first, then I resign. It’s different on layoffs, where disgruntled employees could break havoc.
      - taylodl 4y ago
        That's not how Corporate Accountability works. If you tender your resignation and I continue to provide you access to the systems then I'm accountable for having continued your access to those systems. If you exfiltrated confidential data prior to tendering your resignation then no one remaining in the organization is responsible for your actions. It may trigger a policy review to minimize the exfiltration of confidential data, but no one remaining is accountable. Moreover, the exfiltration of confidential data will put you in felony land and your employer will prosecute. You're guaranteed to lose your new job too, and likely never work again. No, what most employees do instead - for those who do these kinds of things, which is exceedingly rare - is destroy data. That is extremely damaging to an enterprise. There are plenty of motivations to get your rear end away from the keyboard! Some are legally mandated, depending upon which industry you're working in.
        alanfranz 4y ago
        > No, what most employees do instead - for those who do these kinds of things, which is exceedingly rare - is destroy data. So the employee could destroy data first, then resign. > If you tender your resignation and I continue to provide you access to the systems then I'm accountable for having continued your access to those systems. Well, if the employee is still an employee, and they need access to the systems to do their work… what would the alternative be? How could you honour the pre-resignation time otherwise? I’m perplexed by the sudden drop in trust at resignation time. If an employee is trustworthy, why should their attitude change just because they resigned? And if they aren’t trustworthy, you have a problem even before their resigning.
- taylodl 4y ago
  Many companies require staff to leave immediately upon tendering their resignation - including non-IT companies like mine. You tender your resignation and all your access is removed within 24 hours. I work for a utility company that manages what the Department of Homeland Security classifies as 'National Critical Infrastructure', i.e. generation plants, transmission, distribution, metering, and FERC mandates your access is cut off ASAP. You'll get paid for your last two weeks, but you can't do anything. My friends in health and finance have said they have similar mandates. Us folks in IT can mess up too many things to be granted continued access. We need to be cut off. Even prior to working for a utility I've worked at places where people were escorted off the property by security when they tendered their resignation. Their personal items in their office would be packed up and shipped to them. This has been going on for decades. There was one job I had where I was so well-liked and we had considerable mutual respect that I was still granted visitor access to the facilities, meaning I required an escort. I no longer had access to any of the systems, but I could guide those who did. That worked out really well, too. Heck, they negotiated an extra six weeks instead of two and paid me 50% more to boot! That made a helluva impression at my new company! Then I got a great sign-on bonus at my new company! Boy, those were the days!
  - wkimeria 4y ago
    Wow! I have almost 30 years in tech and thankfully have never run across that. But I can see how that could be a thing for other companies/industries. Every place I have worked I have given 3 week notice, and every potential employer has been ok with me starting in 3 weeks (except one). The one exception was a company that balked at my request to start in 3 weeks in order to give my current employer time. They countered with "Well, take it now and start immediately, or leave it. You must not be serious about working here." I countered with "You are probably looking to hire people with no sense of responsibility to their current employer". Bullet dodged. I have quit before I have started. I accepted an offer from a company (after being jobless) but my interaction with their HR the day before I was to start was so rude and combative that after I left, called my future boss there (who I really liked) and told him I was rescinding my acceptance. I then grovelled back to another job whose offer I had turned down (and they re-made the offer). It all worked out.
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
I worked at one company that was like that, but it was a result of the CEO being pretty awkward about people leaving the company, something he wasn't used to until huge growth hit. That's a red flag IMO.
saagarjha 4y ago
Your company is doing the something that is legal but still a jerk move.
- conductr 4y ago
  Not really, they could be exposed to risk and it's typical to just pay you for the 2 weeks and cut off access so the risk is mitigated
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Not paying out the 2 weeks would be sort of a jerk move. But simply cutting a check and saying "It's been good having you" as they show you the door is perfectly reasonable in some circumstances.
    - yebyen 4y ago
      The risk isn't that you'll call them a jerk, it is that when your new job falls through, your old job can no longer credibly claim that you left voluntarily because they moved your quit date. You were fired. So you'll be able to claim unemployment and the business' unemployment insurance premiums could rise. It's bound to be cheaper to pay the two weeks than to pay the increase in unemployment insurance premiums for every remaining employee in perpetuity. In that sense, it's short-sighted to not pay you through your notice period.
      - conductr 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure they can accept your resignation effective immediately and it not be a firing. Post dating it is a nicety you offered and they declined.
        yebyen 4y ago
        Of course you can be terminated at any time, but that would not be your resignation anymore. You are an at-will employee at all times. You can be fired, or you can quit. But let's not conflate the two. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fired-after-giving-notice-am-i-entitled-to-unemployment-benefits-37253 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fired-after-giving-notice-... I'm pretty sure this lawyer knows a thing or two. And anyway, nothing is open-and-shut. Giving notice isn't "cause for termination" by any reasonable standard. We were talking about risks. You can be pretty sure, and then a judge rules against you. Are you willing to take that risk? (Sure, maybe you know a judge. Or you live in a state with fewer worker protections. IDK, but I'm not making this up, and laws vary from state to state.)
conductr 4y ago
One of my employer's had that policy too; until I quit. They made an exception and wanted me to stay to help transition. I did help where I could (because I liked them and knew they needed it, I know I didn't have to)
epage 4y ago
I quit a place that had the opposite, you were required to work your last two weeks, no vacation. It was frustrating because I had mapped out using up my vacation before the job change, unaware of the policy.
- lotsoweiners 4y ago
  What are they going to do? Fire you?
  - modderation 4y ago
    Even worse, they might even try to _hire_ you!
- icedchai 4y ago
  Sounds like you should've been "sick" during those last 2 weeks.
- ghaff 4y ago
  If I quit and gave two weeks notice (and expected to be paid for that time), I would absolutely expect to be working for those two weeks doing the whole handoff thing which is why notice is often the custom. Past that, I'd expect vacation to be either paid out where those are the rules or taken after "last day of work" (which has some benefits for the employee). In this case, you probably weren't actually required so if you really wanted to take the full vacation, you should probably be have been "I won't be here on Monday."

AlwaysRock 4y ago

This is pretty common. Even more so outside of tech. I did sales for a while and this was normal.

ghaff 4y ago

That has never been the case at any company I have ever worked for. My impression is that two weeks notice with continued access is pretty standard so long as you're leaving on good terms.

Supermancho 4y ago
> That has never been the case at any company I have ever worked for. Many companies are essentially antagonistic with all IT resources. It's very common where positions are not well paid or the company is not tech-centric, eg Mike Ferry Organization
grayhatter 4y ago
his username is literally irrational... kinda makes sense
chihuahua 4y ago
At Microsoft, the standard practice is that if you say you're leaving to take a job a company they consider a competitor, they cut off all your access at the end of the day, even if your manager wants you to stick around for knowledge transfer. If it's not a competitor, it's up to you how much notice you want to give. If you say you're leaving but don't say who your next employer is, they assume it's a competitor. Facebook was classified as a competitor, Amazon was not.
- efitz 4y ago
  I can confirm based on my experience that at Microsoft, depending on a lot of factors like your level, role, information you have access to, and where you’re going, that they may terminate immediately as soon as you give them notice. Amazon has rapid termination processes as well but I’m not as clear on their criteria. If you work for a big technology company and are jumping to a perceived competitor, and/or if you have access to sensitive information, then you should expect that the day you give notice will be your last day.
  - alanfranz 4y ago
    > that they may terminate immediately as soon as you give them notice. Which is nonsense, because it’s the employee that chooses when to tell the employer. If I want to exfiltrate confidential data, I’ll do it first, then I resign. It’s different on layoffs, where disgruntled employees could break havoc.
    - taylodl 4y ago
      That's not how Corporate Accountability works. If you tender your resignation and I continue to provide you access to the systems then I'm accountable for having continued your access to those systems. If you exfiltrated confidential data prior to tendering your resignation then no one remaining in the organization is responsible for your actions. It may trigger a policy review to minimize the exfiltration of confidential data, but no one remaining is accountable. Moreover, the exfiltration of confidential data will put you in felony land and your employer will prosecute. You're guaranteed to lose your new job too, and likely never work again. No, what most employees do instead - for those who do these kinds of things, which is exceedingly rare - is destroy data. That is extremely damaging to an enterprise. There are plenty of motivations to get your rear end away from the keyboard! Some are legally mandated, depending upon which industry you're working in.
      - alanfranz 4y ago
        > No, what most employees do instead - for those who do these kinds of things, which is exceedingly rare - is destroy data. So the employee could destroy data first, then resign. > If you tender your resignation and I continue to provide you access to the systems then I'm accountable for having continued your access to those systems. Well, if the employee is still an employee, and they need access to the systems to do their work… what would the alternative be? How could you honour the pre-resignation time otherwise? I’m perplexed by the sudden drop in trust at resignation time. If an employee is trustworthy, why should their attitude change just because they resigned? And if they aren’t trustworthy, you have a problem even before their resigning.
taylodl 4y ago
Many companies require staff to leave immediately upon tendering their resignation - including non-IT companies like mine. You tender your resignation and all your access is removed within 24 hours. I work for a utility company that manages what the Department of Homeland Security classifies as 'National Critical Infrastructure', i.e. generation plants, transmission, distribution, metering, and FERC mandates your access is cut off ASAP. You'll get paid for your last two weeks, but you can't do anything. My friends in health and finance have said they have similar mandates. Us folks in IT can mess up too many things to be granted continued access. We need to be cut off. Even prior to working for a utility I've worked at places where people were escorted off the property by security when they tendered their resignation. Their personal items in their office would be packed up and shipped to them. This has been going on for decades. There was one job I had where I was so well-liked and we had considerable mutual respect that I was still granted visitor access to the facilities, meaning I required an escort. I no longer had access to any of the systems, but I could guide those who did. That worked out really well, too. Heck, they negotiated an extra six weeks instead of two and paid me 50% more to boot! That made a helluva impression at my new company! Then I got a great sign-on bonus at my new company! Boy, those were the days!
- wkimeria 4y ago
  Wow! I have almost 30 years in tech and thankfully have never run across that. But I can see how that could be a thing for other companies/industries. Every place I have worked I have given 3 week notice, and every potential employer has been ok with me starting in 3 weeks (except one). The one exception was a company that balked at my request to start in 3 weeks in order to give my current employer time. They countered with "Well, take it now and start immediately, or leave it. You must not be serious about working here." I countered with "You are probably looking to hire people with no sense of responsibility to their current employer". Bullet dodged. I have quit before I have started. I accepted an offer from a company (after being jobless) but my interaction with their HR the day before I was to start was so rude and combative that after I left, called my future boss there (who I really liked) and told him I was rescinding my acceptance. I then grovelled back to another job whose offer I had turned down (and they re-made the offer). It all worked out.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

I worked at one company that was like that, but it was a result of the CEO being pretty awkward about people leaving the company, something he wasn't used to until huge growth hit. That's a red flag IMO.

saagarjha 4y ago

Your company is doing the something that is legal but still a jerk move.

conductr 4y ago
Not really, they could be exposed to risk and it's typical to just pay you for the 2 weeks and cut off access so the risk is mitigated
- ghaff 4y ago
  Not paying out the 2 weeks would be sort of a jerk move. But simply cutting a check and saying "It's been good having you" as they show you the door is perfectly reasonable in some circumstances.
  - yebyen 4y ago
    The risk isn't that you'll call them a jerk, it is that when your new job falls through, your old job can no longer credibly claim that you left voluntarily because they moved your quit date. You were fired. So you'll be able to claim unemployment and the business' unemployment insurance premiums could rise. It's bound to be cheaper to pay the two weeks than to pay the increase in unemployment insurance premiums for every remaining employee in perpetuity. In that sense, it's short-sighted to not pay you through your notice period.
    - conductr 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure they can accept your resignation effective immediately and it not be a firing. Post dating it is a nicety you offered and they declined.
      - yebyen 4y ago
        Of course you can be terminated at any time, but that would not be your resignation anymore. You are an at-will employee at all times. You can be fired, or you can quit. But let's not conflate the two. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fired-after-giving-notice-am-i-entitled-to-unemployment-benefits-37253 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fired-after-giving-notice-... I'm pretty sure this lawyer knows a thing or two. And anyway, nothing is open-and-shut. Giving notice isn't "cause for termination" by any reasonable standard. We were talking about risks. You can be pretty sure, and then a judge rules against you. Are you willing to take that risk? (Sure, maybe you know a judge. Or you live in a state with fewer worker protections. IDK, but I'm not making this up, and laws vary from state to state.)

conductr 4y ago

One of my employer's had that policy too; until I quit. They made an exception and wanted me to stay to help transition. I did help where I could (because I liked them and knew they needed it, I know I didn't have to)

epage 4y ago

I quit a place that had the opposite, you were required to work your last two weeks, no vacation. It was frustrating because I had mapped out using up my vacation before the job change, unaware of the policy.

lotsoweiners 4y ago
What are they going to do? Fire you?
- modderation 4y ago
  Even worse, they might even try to _hire_ you!
icedchai 4y ago
Sounds like you should've been "sick" during those last 2 weeks.
ghaff 4y ago
If I quit and gave two weeks notice (and expected to be paid for that time), I would absolutely expect to be working for those two weeks doing the whole handoff thing which is why notice is often the custom. Past that, I'd expect vacation to be either paid out where those are the rules or taken after "last day of work" (which has some benefits for the employee). In this case, you probably weren't actually required so if you really wanted to take the full vacation, you should probably be have been "I won't be here on Monday."