6 ms·

The thing I'm taking away from this is that the next time I get a new job I will be taking a week of vacation at my old job for the first week of my new job and

The thing I'm taking away from this is that the next time I get a new job I will be taking a week of vacation at my old job for the first week of my new job and only then quitting the old job. No two weeks notice, no nothing. No employer gives you huge notice in layoffs (at least in the recent rounds) and some places barely give severance. The trust relationship here is 100% broken and it cannot be fixed because in the end I will never be able to afford the legal route to vindicate my rights.

iakh 3y ago
Does that really buy you anything though? If they're willing to rescind offers, they'll be happy to lay you-off a few days into your employment too.
- twelve40 3y ago
  that would be another level of douchebaggery, although probably not unprecedented
- mattnewton 3y ago
  This is exactly what happened with the last batch of major tech layoffs.
- wcunning 3y ago
  That would at least trigger COBRA and unemployment, which having quit and not actually started a new job wouldn’t. That’s a better situation from my perspective.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    COBRA is available regardless of whether you quit voluntarily or not. And COBRA isn’t free, you have to pay for it and it is extremely expensive.
twelve40 3y ago
that is wise, as long as you don't piss off your old colleagues as to not be able to get a reference later. or don't care.
- wcunning 3y ago
  I haven’t been asked for a reference in years. No one asks if you’re currently employed because you don’t want to warn your current job that you’re interviewing. Does anyone see that request regularly?
  - twelve40 3y ago
    * just because you personally haven't done something in years doesn't mean that burning bridges won't come back to bite you someday * who said anything about currently employed, what??? good relationships are forever * if you use your imagination, you can easily find other consequences of leaving with drama, like not being invited to a new startup your ex-colleagues launch * you personally might enjoy burning bridges and get away with it so far, doesn't mean it a good practice. When you are e.g. in the layoff shitter, every tiny bit helps.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Virtually no references in my life have been genuine anyway. My college roommate has been my "boss" and "landlord" several times.
bsder 3y ago
If you somehow are under California jurisdiction, the legal term you are looking for is called "promissory estoppel". Being given a promise of a job may have put Flexport on the hook for damages.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  This is a general legal concept, not limited to CA. It’s also referred to as “section 90 reliance”.
  - bsder 3y ago
    True. It's just that California courts tend to take a much dimmer view of these kinds of shenanigans than, say, Texas courts.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      A quick google would indicate that Texas and California actually apply the concept in very similar ways: > Local politics do not seem to matter to the new formulation; the law on the ground in Texas, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others is much the same, and it is not Section 90. [1] 1: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  But what damages? Unless the pronise was of a job which itself wasn't at will employment, they could have terminated you immediately when you took it up, so even if promissory estoppel applies (which requires not only the promise, but reasonable and detrimental reliance on it) there's unlikely to be much recovery. Not saying its not worth exploring, but I wouldn't expect much out of it.
  - anon84873628 3y ago
    Most people get most of their income from salary; you don't think loss of all your income is detrimental?
Aurornis 3y ago
How common do you think rescinded offers are? You’re virtually guaranteed to burn your reputation among your former coworkers and ensure that the one thing they remember you for is taking a new job and giving negative one weeks of notice. Is that really worth avoiding the vanishingly small risk of a rescinded offer? Do you really think the old job wouldn’t let you keep working there if you gave 2 weeks’ notice and then rescinded your notice? I think you’ve got your risk model backwards. If you optimize too much for rare outcomes, you start missing the bigger picture.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  > You’re virtually guaranteed to burn your reputation among your former coworkers and ensure that the one thing they remember you for is taking a new job and giving negative one weeks of notice. The good news is that in my experience this simply isn't a thing. Not even a little. The industry is so fucking big you'd have to be incredibly toxic to somehow lock yourself out of it. Burned bridges? Were you really going to go back to the place you were so unhappy you left with zero notice? Folks you have real relationships with will understand. Who gives a shit about the rest?
  - coffeemug 3y ago
    That's not how this works. People progress through their careers. Some of your coworkers will do really well, some will do ok. Now imagine two universes. You're 45. In Universe A every one of your old coworkers remembers you fondly and would love to work with you again. You've built up ~25 years of good will, and the folks who do really well will keep inviting you to join them. In Universe B they all think "meh" and have forgotten about you. Which of these two universes would you like to be in?
    - quadrifoliate 3y ago
      Sure, Universe A — but I can't imagine people who like me really well would start thinking "meh" because I gave less than two weeks of notice. At least, from my side I couldn't care less about how much notice my coworkers give the company; it's the excellence of the work that they did while they were there that makes up the core of my impressions about them and puts them in Universe A.
xwdv 3y ago
If you’re a remote worker you don’t have to actually quit the old job, you can stay overemployed until the stress of managing both jobs is too much to bear, then quit the old one.
throwawaysleep 3y ago
Just be overemployed and never resign a job. There is no reason to give anything to an employer but the bare minimum.
franciscop 3y ago
The right move is to ask your politicians to make this illegal. Both in the country where I live now and where I was born this would've been illegal and they'd have had to officially fire the people with whom they signed offers, which triggers all set of protections for the workers.
- kepler1 3y ago
  Really? What's the principle there? Even though no contractual relationship has been established yet between the employer and employee, the offer creates some entitlement that has been broken and therefore is a cause for action? I assume then that an employer could hold a potential hire accountable for damages if the candidate backs out of the job offer/commitment after agreeing?
  - hnfong 3y ago
    Why would there be no contractual relationship? If two people sign a paper agreeing that they would both do something on a future date, it's generally a contract, and they don't get to back out of it without paying some form of compensation. The difficulty of job offers is that you generally can't force the employer to continue hiring a person they don't want, so the most you can get is severance assuming they fire you on the first day at work. As for whether the employer can sue if the potential hire backs out... my understanding is theoretically yes, but probably the only thing you can claim is the amount they would pay if they resigned without notice. Which generally isn't worth the legal costs and the PR risks.
  - franciscop 3y ago
    That they both signed a contract promising employment, seems pretty straightforward. Don't get me wrong, the employer can then fire the employee within the probation period of two weeks scotch-free (well, after a bunch of paperwork), and the employee can quit within that period as well, and while it might seem the same it's not because that triggers all sorts of gvmt protections for the employee (mainly, unemployment benefits, but YMMV).
shadowgovt 3y ago
I did that. Let me tell you what happens: ... nothing. The recruiter makes disappointed puppy-dog noises but after going through all that trouble to source, vet, interview, and close with you, they're not about to waste that time and effort starting over with someone else. Seize the time you want. Especially if you're American; nothing in the way American business treats employees will hand you the time you should take.
jshen 3y ago
This is a really bad idea. I’m the long run your network and relationships are the most important thing for your career. What you are saying will burn all the bridges to many of the people you worked with. Also, most big companies give a 60 day notice on layoffs because they are required by law to publicly announce layoffs over a certain size prior to the layoffs.
balderdash 3y ago
You think you can’t get laid off a week into a new job, a month, three months? Sure you might get a little severance but, don’t count on much, and you’re basically just as screwed with as with a rescinded job offer. Except you burned your bridges before you left… Antidotally, I had someone leave for a better offer (I that’s life), but gave about a months notice, and transitioned out of her role well. Came back about 4 months later realizing she had made a huge mistake, and we hired her back, because she had left on good terms… if you she had done what you suggested, not a chance.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  I don’t endorse what the gp post advocates, but giving a month’s notice seems like the opposite extreme of the spectrum. I’ve given three week notices before and almost always it seems to make little difference, even in terms of knowledge transfer.

iakh 3y ago

Does that really buy you anything though? If they're willing to rescind offers, they'll be happy to lay you-off a few days into your employment too.

twelve40 3y ago
that would be another level of douchebaggery, although probably not unprecedented
mattnewton 3y ago
This is exactly what happened with the last batch of major tech layoffs.
wcunning 3y ago
That would at least trigger COBRA and unemployment, which having quit and not actually started a new job wouldn’t. That’s a better situation from my perspective.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  COBRA is available regardless of whether you quit voluntarily or not. And COBRA isn’t free, you have to pay for it and it is extremely expensive.

twelve40 3y ago

that is wise, as long as you don't piss off your old colleagues as to not be able to get a reference later. or don't care.

wcunning 3y ago
I haven’t been asked for a reference in years. No one asks if you’re currently employed because you don’t want to warn your current job that you’re interviewing. Does anyone see that request regularly?
- twelve40 3y ago
  * just because you personally haven't done something in years doesn't mean that burning bridges won't come back to bite you someday * who said anything about currently employed, what??? good relationships are forever * if you use your imagination, you can easily find other consequences of leaving with drama, like not being invited to a new startup your ex-colleagues launch * you personally might enjoy burning bridges and get away with it so far, doesn't mean it a good practice. When you are e.g. in the layoff shitter, every tiny bit helps.
throwawaysleep 3y ago
Virtually no references in my life have been genuine anyway. My college roommate has been my "boss" and "landlord" several times.

bsder 3y ago

If you somehow are under California jurisdiction, the legal term you are looking for is called "promissory estoppel". Being given a promise of a job may have put Flexport on the hook for damages.

gnicholas 3y ago
This is a general legal concept, not limited to CA. It’s also referred to as “section 90 reliance”.
- bsder 3y ago
  True. It's just that California courts tend to take a much dimmer view of these kinds of shenanigans than, say, Texas courts.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    A quick google would indicate that Texas and California actually apply the concept in very similar ways: > Local politics do not seem to matter to the new formulation; the law on the ground in Texas, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others is much the same, and it is not Section 90. [1] 1: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874
dragonwriter 3y ago
But what damages? Unless the pronise was of a job which itself wasn't at will employment, they could have terminated you immediately when you took it up, so even if promissory estoppel applies (which requires not only the promise, but reasonable and detrimental reliance on it) there's unlikely to be much recovery. Not saying its not worth exploring, but I wouldn't expect much out of it.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  Most people get most of their income from salary; you don't think loss of all your income is detrimental?

Aurornis 3y ago

How common do you think rescinded offers are? You’re virtually guaranteed to burn your reputation among your former coworkers and ensure that the one thing they remember you for is taking a new job and giving negative one weeks of notice. Is that really worth avoiding the vanishingly small risk of a rescinded offer? Do you really think the old job wouldn’t let you keep working there if you gave 2 weeks’ notice and then rescinded your notice? I think you’ve got your risk model backwards. If you optimize too much for rare outcomes, you start missing the bigger picture.

tstrimple 3y ago
> You’re virtually guaranteed to burn your reputation among your former coworkers and ensure that the one thing they remember you for is taking a new job and giving negative one weeks of notice. The good news is that in my experience this simply isn't a thing. Not even a little. The industry is so fucking big you'd have to be incredibly toxic to somehow lock yourself out of it. Burned bridges? Were you really going to go back to the place you were so unhappy you left with zero notice? Folks you have real relationships with will understand. Who gives a shit about the rest?
- coffeemug 3y ago
  That's not how this works. People progress through their careers. Some of your coworkers will do really well, some will do ok. Now imagine two universes. You're 45. In Universe A every one of your old coworkers remembers you fondly and would love to work with you again. You've built up ~25 years of good will, and the folks who do really well will keep inviting you to join them. In Universe B they all think "meh" and have forgotten about you. Which of these two universes would you like to be in?
  - quadrifoliate 3y ago
    Sure, Universe A — but I can't imagine people who like me really well would start thinking "meh" because I gave less than two weeks of notice. At least, from my side I couldn't care less about how much notice my coworkers give the company; it's the excellence of the work that they did while they were there that makes up the core of my impressions about them and puts them in Universe A.

xwdv 3y ago

If you’re a remote worker you don’t have to actually quit the old job, you can stay overemployed until the stress of managing both jobs is too much to bear, then quit the old one.

throwawaysleep 3y ago

Just be overemployed and never resign a job. There is no reason to give anything to an employer but the bare minimum.

franciscop 3y ago

The right move is to ask your politicians to make this illegal. Both in the country where I live now and where I was born this would've been illegal and they'd have had to officially fire the people with whom they signed offers, which triggers all set of protections for the workers.

kepler1 3y ago
Really? What's the principle there? Even though no contractual relationship has been established yet between the employer and employee, the offer creates some entitlement that has been broken and therefore is a cause for action? I assume then that an employer could hold a potential hire accountable for damages if the candidate backs out of the job offer/commitment after agreeing?
- hnfong 3y ago
  Why would there be no contractual relationship? If two people sign a paper agreeing that they would both do something on a future date, it's generally a contract, and they don't get to back out of it without paying some form of compensation. The difficulty of job offers is that you generally can't force the employer to continue hiring a person they don't want, so the most you can get is severance assuming they fire you on the first day at work. As for whether the employer can sue if the potential hire backs out... my understanding is theoretically yes, but probably the only thing you can claim is the amount they would pay if they resigned without notice. Which generally isn't worth the legal costs and the PR risks.
- franciscop 3y ago
  That they both signed a contract promising employment, seems pretty straightforward. Don't get me wrong, the employer can then fire the employee within the probation period of two weeks scotch-free (well, after a bunch of paperwork), and the employee can quit within that period as well, and while it might seem the same it's not because that triggers all sorts of gvmt protections for the employee (mainly, unemployment benefits, but YMMV).

shadowgovt 3y ago

I did that. Let me tell you what happens: ... nothing. The recruiter makes disappointed puppy-dog noises but after going through all that trouble to source, vet, interview, and close with you, they're not about to waste that time and effort starting over with someone else. Seize the time you want. Especially if you're American; nothing in the way American business treats employees will hand you the time you should take.

jshen 3y ago

This is a really bad idea. I’m the long run your network and relationships are the most important thing for your career. What you are saying will burn all the bridges to many of the people you worked with. Also, most big companies give a 60 day notice on layoffs because they are required by law to publicly announce layoffs over a certain size prior to the layoffs.

balderdash 3y ago

You think you can’t get laid off a week into a new job, a month, three months? Sure you might get a little severance but, don’t count on much, and you’re basically just as screwed with as with a rescinded job offer. Except you burned your bridges before you left… Antidotally, I had someone leave for a better offer (I that’s life), but gave about a months notice, and transitioned out of her role well. Came back about 4 months later realizing she had made a huge mistake, and we hired her back, because she had left on good terms… if you she had done what you suggested, not a chance.

Apocryphon 3y ago
I don’t endorse what the gp post advocates, but giving a month’s notice seems like the opposite extreme of the spectrum. I’ve given three week notices before and almost always it seems to make little difference, even in terms of knowledge transfer.