4 ms·

Is this a US thing where the company doesn't want to give any reasons for firing someone because that can be used in a lawsuit against them?

by kqr 3y ago

koito17 3y ago
I would say so. This video is a perfect demonstration of America's "at-will employment" culture. It's extremely asymmetrical, too. Companies can fire you at any moment, for any reason (with or without cause!)... yet it is considered rude for employees to not provide ample notice when deciding to voluntarily quit.
- mysterydip 3y ago
  Even worse, some companies will terminate you at some point during the (customary two) weeks before you quit, throwing off your schedule and potentially pay.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  This needs to change, no more notice
  - noirbot 3y ago
    I mean, you can do that. There's literally nothing stopping you except the opinion of your team of you. I generally give notice, not because I give a single fuck about the company, but because I like my coworkers and want to make sure I tie off my work before leaving so I don't make their lives harder. Worker solidarity doesn't mean you fuck over capital any time you can, even if it makes your fellow workers' lives harder. The company cares way less about you quitting suddenly than your coworkers do. That's exactly why they don't care about laying people off with no notice. You may get faux revolutionary warm fuzzies by quitting to screw the man, but you're probably screwing your friends more than your foes.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Meh, in my view, this is sort of a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation. I don't want to leave without notice. Not for the company, but for me. Those final weeks are nice, useful. I can tie up some loose ends that have been bugging me, say goodbye to people, all that good stuff. And I keep getting paid during that time, for honestly very easy (low stakes and low stress) work. It's win win for me. Of course I know the company might escort me out when I give notice instead of letting me serve out the time, and of course that would hurt my feelings, but when I regained my composure I would see that it reflects poorly on them, not on me, if they do that lame nonsense. So I think it's really sad for companies (and also employees) that for whatever reasons they don't feel they can give notice in this same way. But I certainly don't want to give up something that I value for myself, out of spite. That makes no sense to me.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    I prefer giving a notice but then doing absolutely no work besides chitchatting with the people I liked and planning my goodbye party, while still collecting a paycheck.
  - danjac 3y ago
    You can totally do this (within the bounds of your contract) but from a career point of view, it's not wise to burn bridges. There's a lot of talk about "networking" to find jobs or opportunities (like your own startup or freelancing) but one thing networking means is building relationships with people you have worked with in the past. That doesn't mean sucking up, but just being known to be reliable and dependable makes you a safer bet if that person is in a position to hire or recommend you. That manager or coworker you did a project with a few years ago might have moved on to another company and is someone you can reach out to. If you dropped out of a project mid-way without cause leaving them in the lurch, that's something they are going to remember. Sometimes of course a job or project can be a nightmare and you want to have nothing to do with those people ever again, which is understandable. But otherwise I would try to be professional as possible and leave options open, and if that means giving your notice and coasting a few weeks, then do so.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Everyone says this as if it's not also considered rude/bad behavior for a company to lay off people with no notice. It's rude either way. Both employer and employee can opt to do it without the usual graceful phase out, but they risk backlash from other employees. Either team members getting a bad impression of someone leaving suddenly, or getting a bad feeling about the company after unexpected layoffs.
  - valval 3y ago
    Perhaps this is a subject where no good options exist, and chasing a win-win solution is unfruitful and unnecessary.
- sahila 3y ago
  Respectfully I disagree that this being a good example - when I quit I give two weeks (which sometimes I'm asked to just stop working today and take two week pay) or when they dismiss you like this video, they give you several week pay too.
- r3trohack3r 3y ago
  > It's extremely asymmetrical, too. I’ve lived a very different culture than you in the U.S. - to the degree I’m surprised to see you express this sentiment. In days of yore, people gave notice. But then a meme policy of “don’t poison the well” did the rounds. Roughly, the philosophy went: when someone is leaving they can only do harm; they are leaving, they have a convincing reason for leaving, and you don’t want that convincing reason to sour your other employees on you. The result was that, when you gave notice, you were immediately dismissed on the spot. In my career, I’ve seen a few people give very generous (months) notice. They were expecting to be _paid_ for the period of time they’d given notice for. But they found themselves terminated that day. The result, in my circles, is that people often hide their intention to leave until the day they’re leaving. When they send their notice, they’ve already quit. Any time they get paid for is gravy, but they’re out the door.
  - _nalply 3y ago
    That's horrible and very different from what I experienced in Switzerland. It's a concept in Swiss law that obligations are symmetrical, and the periods are quite long (three months, and not only for employment, but for other contracts as well, like renting). If you are dismissed on the spot, you'll get three months of pay. On the other hand, if you give or are given notice, you are sometimes expected to continue work. This happened to me ten years ago. My employer expected me to explain to my coworkers how some things work during that time. Looking back even I found that a bit strange because I understand the thing with doing only harm when someone is leaving. For example by leaving backdoors?
    - rocketbop 3y ago
      > Looking back even I found that a bit strange because I understand the thing with doing only harm when someone is leaving. For example by leaving backdoors? I think the harm meant is more about spreading negativity to other employees who might be inspired to jump ship too.
    - msilb 3y ago
      > This happened to me ten years ago. My employer expected me to explain to my coworkers how some things work during that time. Once I was asked to continue interviewing candidates after I gave notice, which seemed a little odd at the time (also in Switzerland).
- occamsrazorwit 3y ago
  Isn't severance basically said notice? If you still receive pay and benefits for a period of time, it's almost like you're still employed while the company minimizes potential damage from laid off employees. It's also considered rude for companies to not provide severance in these sorts of jobs.
- david38 3y ago
  When a large company fires you, you usually get at least two weeks severance. This is better than notice. You get the notice and don’t even have to work. When an employee quits, it’s expected they give two weeks notice. This is rather balanced. Of course there’s the issue that you are 1/N * 100 percent of their workforce and they are 100% of your income.
vineyardmike 3y ago
Yes and no. Layoffs are “supposed to be” non-performance based. “Our widget didn’t sell so we’re laying off the widget makers”. That’s the generally accepted idea. In the US you totally can sue if they fire you for a protected reason (“we noticed you were missing meetings on maternity leave, men would never do that”). Some people would sue over anything I’m sure. If you’re a salesperson and you didn’t sell anything for 5 months, that’s performance based and it’s “reasonable” to fire them. They’d probably not sue. You can tell someone they were a poor performer without legal repercussions, assuming you’re not being shady. Typically HR and legal put together some sort of evidence just in case. It’s just mean, but maybe fair, to lay off the entire sales team and call each person and tell them they were a bad performer. Bad look to do it after the Cloudflare CEO went around a press tour last year bragging about how they won’t do layoffs and now’s the time to invest in talent.
- ssharp 3y ago
  It's not limited to just filing lawsuits. There are federal agencies you can file complaints with that will then tip off investigations and you can do that for free. These types of firings, where the employee was given no negative feedback, there is no paper trail, evidence, etc. creates the type of gray areas that can easily lead to findings in favor of the employee if she were to file something for say sex discrimination. Cloudflare may have to go and find other instances where they fired non-protected class employees in a similar fashion. At the very least, it's going to be a PITA for their HR/legal team and may cost them some fines as well.
  - RetpolineDrama 3y ago
    >There are federal agencies you can file complaints with that will then tip off investigations and you can do that for free. More evidence that we need to dismantle much of the federal government, I don't want my tax dollars funding crap like this. The government should build bridges, highways, manage defense, control the border, manage trade policy etc. All of this extra stuff is scope creep to the extreme.
    - 3y ago
whazor 3y ago
In EU it would be illegal to fire someone randomly for performance reasons. Note the word randomly, if you want to fire for performance reasons, you need to give formal warnings and provide chances to improve. On the other hand, mass firings could be much easier. There might be some rules you have to follow about who to let go first. And you might need to stop hiring for a certain amount of months. But at least you could empathise the economic situation and provide empathy when firing.
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
It may be a legal issue but companies handle it the same way in France: make impossible demands as part of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and then fire without giving a real explanation.
epolanski 3y ago
I've been laid off once, in Italy, and despite my insistence I've never been told why.

Is this a US thing where the company doesn't want to give any reasons for firing someone because that can be used in a lawsuit against them?

by kqr 3y ago

Is this a US thing where the company doesn't want to give any reasons for firing someone because that can be used in a lawsuit against them?

koito17 3y ago

I would say so. This video is a perfect demonstration of America's "at-will employment" culture. It's extremely asymmetrical, too. Companies can fire you at any moment, for any reason (with or without cause!)... yet it is considered rude for employees to not provide ample notice when deciding to voluntarily quit.

mysterydip 3y ago
Even worse, some companies will terminate you at some point during the (customary two) weeks before you quit, throwing off your schedule and potentially pay.
photonbeam 3y ago
This needs to change, no more notice
- noirbot 3y ago
  I mean, you can do that. There's literally nothing stopping you except the opinion of your team of you. I generally give notice, not because I give a single fuck about the company, but because I like my coworkers and want to make sure I tie off my work before leaving so I don't make their lives harder. Worker solidarity doesn't mean you fuck over capital any time you can, even if it makes your fellow workers' lives harder. The company cares way less about you quitting suddenly than your coworkers do. That's exactly why they don't care about laying people off with no notice. You may get faux revolutionary warm fuzzies by quitting to screw the man, but you're probably screwing your friends more than your foes.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Meh, in my view, this is sort of a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation. I don't want to leave without notice. Not for the company, but for me. Those final weeks are nice, useful. I can tie up some loose ends that have been bugging me, say goodbye to people, all that good stuff. And I keep getting paid during that time, for honestly very easy (low stakes and low stress) work. It's win win for me. Of course I know the company might escort me out when I give notice instead of letting me serve out the time, and of course that would hurt my feelings, but when I regained my composure I would see that it reflects poorly on them, not on me, if they do that lame nonsense. So I think it's really sad for companies (and also employees) that for whatever reasons they don't feel they can give notice in this same way. But I certainly don't want to give up something that I value for myself, out of spite. That makes no sense to me.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  I prefer giving a notice but then doing absolutely no work besides chitchatting with the people I liked and planning my goodbye party, while still collecting a paycheck.
- danjac 3y ago
  You can totally do this (within the bounds of your contract) but from a career point of view, it's not wise to burn bridges. There's a lot of talk about "networking" to find jobs or opportunities (like your own startup or freelancing) but one thing networking means is building relationships with people you have worked with in the past. That doesn't mean sucking up, but just being known to be reliable and dependable makes you a safer bet if that person is in a position to hire or recommend you. That manager or coworker you did a project with a few years ago might have moved on to another company and is someone you can reach out to. If you dropped out of a project mid-way without cause leaving them in the lurch, that's something they are going to remember. Sometimes of course a job or project can be a nightmare and you want to have nothing to do with those people ever again, which is understandable. But otherwise I would try to be professional as possible and leave options open, and if that means giving your notice and coasting a few weeks, then do so.
noirbot 3y ago
Everyone says this as if it's not also considered rude/bad behavior for a company to lay off people with no notice. It's rude either way. Both employer and employee can opt to do it without the usual graceful phase out, but they risk backlash from other employees. Either team members getting a bad impression of someone leaving suddenly, or getting a bad feeling about the company after unexpected layoffs.
- valval 3y ago
  Perhaps this is a subject where no good options exist, and chasing a win-win solution is unfruitful and unnecessary.
sahila 3y ago
Respectfully I disagree that this being a good example - when I quit I give two weeks (which sometimes I'm asked to just stop working today and take two week pay) or when they dismiss you like this video, they give you several week pay too.
r3trohack3r 3y ago
> It's extremely asymmetrical, too. I’ve lived a very different culture than you in the U.S. - to the degree I’m surprised to see you express this sentiment. In days of yore, people gave notice. But then a meme policy of “don’t poison the well” did the rounds. Roughly, the philosophy went: when someone is leaving they can only do harm; they are leaving, they have a convincing reason for leaving, and you don’t want that convincing reason to sour your other employees on you. The result was that, when you gave notice, you were immediately dismissed on the spot. In my career, I’ve seen a few people give very generous (months) notice. They were expecting to be _paid_ for the period of time they’d given notice for. But they found themselves terminated that day. The result, in my circles, is that people often hide their intention to leave until the day they’re leaving. When they send their notice, they’ve already quit. Any time they get paid for is gravy, but they’re out the door.
- _nalply 3y ago
  That's horrible and very different from what I experienced in Switzerland. It's a concept in Swiss law that obligations are symmetrical, and the periods are quite long (three months, and not only for employment, but for other contracts as well, like renting). If you are dismissed on the spot, you'll get three months of pay. On the other hand, if you give or are given notice, you are sometimes expected to continue work. This happened to me ten years ago. My employer expected me to explain to my coworkers how some things work during that time. Looking back even I found that a bit strange because I understand the thing with doing only harm when someone is leaving. For example by leaving backdoors?
  - rocketbop 3y ago
    > Looking back even I found that a bit strange because I understand the thing with doing only harm when someone is leaving. For example by leaving backdoors? I think the harm meant is more about spreading negativity to other employees who might be inspired to jump ship too.
  - msilb 3y ago
    > This happened to me ten years ago. My employer expected me to explain to my coworkers how some things work during that time. Once I was asked to continue interviewing candidates after I gave notice, which seemed a little odd at the time (also in Switzerland).
occamsrazorwit 3y ago
Isn't severance basically said notice? If you still receive pay and benefits for a period of time, it's almost like you're still employed while the company minimizes potential damage from laid off employees. It's also considered rude for companies to not provide severance in these sorts of jobs.
david38 3y ago
When a large company fires you, you usually get at least two weeks severance. This is better than notice. You get the notice and don’t even have to work. When an employee quits, it’s expected they give two weeks notice. This is rather balanced. Of course there’s the issue that you are 1/N * 100 percent of their workforce and they are 100% of your income.

vineyardmike 3y ago

Yes and no. Layoffs are “supposed to be” non-performance based. “Our widget didn’t sell so we’re laying off the widget makers”. That’s the generally accepted idea. In the US you totally can sue if they fire you for a protected reason (“we noticed you were missing meetings on maternity leave, men would never do that”). Some people would sue over anything I’m sure. If you’re a salesperson and you didn’t sell anything for 5 months, that’s performance based and it’s “reasonable” to fire them. They’d probably not sue. You can tell someone they were a poor performer without legal repercussions, assuming you’re not being shady. Typically HR and legal put together some sort of evidence just in case. It’s just mean, but maybe fair, to lay off the entire sales team and call each person and tell them they were a bad performer. Bad look to do it after the Cloudflare CEO went around a press tour last year bragging about how they won’t do layoffs and now’s the time to invest in talent.

ssharp 3y ago
It's not limited to just filing lawsuits. There are federal agencies you can file complaints with that will then tip off investigations and you can do that for free. These types of firings, where the employee was given no negative feedback, there is no paper trail, evidence, etc. creates the type of gray areas that can easily lead to findings in favor of the employee if she were to file something for say sex discrimination. Cloudflare may have to go and find other instances where they fired non-protected class employees in a similar fashion. At the very least, it's going to be a PITA for their HR/legal team and may cost them some fines as well.
- RetpolineDrama 3y ago
  >There are federal agencies you can file complaints with that will then tip off investigations and you can do that for free. More evidence that we need to dismantle much of the federal government, I don't want my tax dollars funding crap like this. The government should build bridges, highways, manage defense, control the border, manage trade policy etc. All of this extra stuff is scope creep to the extreme.
  - 3y ago

whazor 3y ago

In EU it would be illegal to fire someone randomly for performance reasons. Note the word randomly, if you want to fire for performance reasons, you need to give formal warnings and provide chances to improve. On the other hand, mass firings could be much easier. There might be some rules you have to follow about who to let go first. And you might need to stop hiring for a certain amount of months. But at least you could empathise the economic situation and provide empathy when firing.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago

It may be a legal issue but companies handle it the same way in France: make impossible demands as part of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and then fire without giving a real explanation.

epolanski 3y ago

I've been laid off once, in Italy, and despite my insistence I've never been told why.