4 ms·

While giving notice is polite, it's important to note that it is just a courtesy in most places, and you're providing that courtesy to something that will happi

by olliej 4y ago

While giving notice is polite, it's important to note that it is just a courtesy in most places, and you're providing that courtesy to something that will happily fire you with no notice if it benefits them. If you're somewhere an employer can treat you as having quit the day you provide notice, then you should give minimal notice to maximize stock vesting, benefits, etc. So you don't need to provide "more notice (a lot more notice)" as the benefits listed just aren't real. I've replaced bullet points with numbers for ease of reference: 1. Do only the parts of your job you enjoy the most 2. Eliminate ~all stress from your job 3. Get paid the same 4. Extend your benefits for longer 5. Take unused vacation time 6. Vest more stock 7. Get your bonus 8. Leave on a positive note 9. Be thanked and appreciated by everyone Of these the only a few are unequivocally true, and most are just false or unnecessary, or even contradictory. The true ones are (3), (4), and (6), and only if you live in a place where an employer is not permitted to terminate your employment upon notice. Your primary goal in providing this courtesy is (8) leaving on a positive note, but if you're trying to do that then (1) and (2) are out. You're employed, you have to do your job, and if you shirk that then you're not leaving on a positive note. At the same time if you've announced you're leaving the company has no reason to continue being nice/trying to keep you. So we're down to (5), (7), and (9). In most countries (5) is some variation of "earned income", that is you've earned that money and they have to pay you out when your employment class. In many countries sick leave is also earned income and must also be paid out. Hence (5) is unnecessary. If you aren't in such a state or country, then you're beholden to "can I be terminated immediately upon notice", in which case you're better off going on vacation, and then handing in notice. (7) isn't going to happen once you hand in your notice. Either you've already been awarded your bonus, in which case they can't claw it back, or there's no reason for them to give you one - you've given notice so giving you a bonus isn't going to benefit them. Finally for (9), you don't need more than 2 weeks notice. You don't really even need a week for that. This particular point feels like it's part of the "your job is your family" nonsense that is routinely exploited by employers. There is no benefit to extended notice unless you're trying to ensure that (8) will leave you the option to return or work for the same group of people elsewhere in future.

olliej 4y ago
Another point, this person has what to me is inverted priorities: they say give more notice to a bigger company than a small one. If you are leaving a company, the impact of missing an employee is inversely proportional to the size of the company. If you quit a company, which company will find the missing employee harder: the one with 10 thousand employees, or the one with 10? Who will be more impacted by losing and engineer or artist, EA or some indie gamedev?
ghaff 4y ago
>In most countries (5) is some variation of "earned income", that is you've earned that money and they have to pay you out when your employment ceases. In many countries sick leave is also earned income and must also be paid out. Hence (5) is unnecessary. Yes, but if they let you have a "last working day" and then take vacation, you're getting both your salary and your benefits (like healthcare) for that time. Depending on the circumstances--i.e. retiring or taking time off between jobs anyway--this may be the better deal. Even if they say no, you still get the money.
- olliej 4y ago
  That's (4) I think -- extending benefits, rather than being needed to get your vacation time. It falls into where I said "you're better off going on vacation, and then handing in notice". Handing in notice pre-vacation gives them the opportunity to say "well you're resigning anyway so today is your last day" in many jurisdictions, or simply inviting pettiness: a boss just refuses to approve your vacation request after you hand in notice - it doesn't save them money to refuse it, it's just being petty. The whole point of the article is that you benefit from giving lots of notice, but that's just not true. Say you want to quit in 8 weeks, you could give 8 weeks notice today, or you could give 2 weeks notice in 6 weeks. In both cases you get employee benefits for the same amount of time, you have the same opportunity to use vacation time, etc. But in the former case you also have the option in many places for them to just say "ok, today is your last day" - I _think_ in less anti-worker areas such a dismissal would not be valid (e.g. the company can stop you entering the premises, but would have to consider you still employed, _or_ they would have to report you as being terminated rather than resigning which has legal implications for them), but even then you aren't getting any real benefit from the early notice. Honestly the only people who gain anything from you giving advanced notice is your employer, and these are the same employers who can (and do) fire you essentially without notice.

by olliej 4y ago

olliej 4y ago

Another point, this person has what to me is inverted priorities: they say give more notice to a bigger company than a small one. If you are leaving a company, the impact of missing an employee is inversely proportional to the size of the company. If you quit a company, which company will find the missing employee harder: the one with 10 thousand employees, or the one with 10? Who will be more impacted by losing and engineer or artist, EA or some indie gamedev?

ghaff 4y ago

>In most countries (5) is some variation of "earned income", that is you've earned that money and they have to pay you out when your employment ceases. In many countries sick leave is also earned income and must also be paid out. Hence (5) is unnecessary. Yes, but if they let you have a "last working day" and then take vacation, you're getting both your salary and your benefits (like healthcare) for that time. Depending on the circumstances--i.e. retiring or taking time off between jobs anyway--this may be the better deal. Even if they say no, you still get the money.

olliej 4y ago
That's (4) I think -- extending benefits, rather than being needed to get your vacation time. It falls into where I said "you're better off going on vacation, and then handing in notice". Handing in notice pre-vacation gives them the opportunity to say "well you're resigning anyway so today is your last day" in many jurisdictions, or simply inviting pettiness: a boss just refuses to approve your vacation request after you hand in notice - it doesn't save them money to refuse it, it's just being petty. The whole point of the article is that you benefit from giving lots of notice, but that's just not true. Say you want to quit in 8 weeks, you could give 8 weeks notice today, or you could give 2 weeks notice in 6 weeks. In both cases you get employee benefits for the same amount of time, you have the same opportunity to use vacation time, etc. But in the former case you also have the option in many places for them to just say "ok, today is your last day" - I _think_ in less anti-worker areas such a dismissal would not be valid (e.g. the company can stop you entering the premises, but would have to consider you still employed, _or_ they would have to report you as being terminated rather than resigning which has legal implications for them), but even then you aren't getting any real benefit from the early notice. Honestly the only people who gain anything from you giving advanced notice is your employer, and these are the same employers who can (and do) fire you essentially without notice.