4 ms·

I find it so childish, when company escorts an executive out. If CEO have been looking for a job, then all needed files have been copied long time ago. CEO know

I find it so childish, when company escorts an executive out. If CEO have been looking for a job, then all needed files have been copied long time ago. CEO knows it. Company knows it. yet they cannot resist the stupid ritual. giggling.

tomkarlo 14y ago
It's not childish, it's just being responsible. This is generally done for any employee with access to highly sensitive data. They're not going to do any more work for you; why take any risk that they'll do anything damaging after the moment when they tell you they're leaving? Also, once they've resigned, they're no longer an employee, so for a lot of companies (Google included) they may not be allowed in the sensitive office areas, anyway.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  It's "responsible" to treat people like potential criminals in lots of contexts. Doesn't mean it isn't a shitty thing to do.
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    Asking a non-employee to leave the premises of a business isn't treating them like a "potential criminal". If you find a random visitor wandering around your office, you may ask them to leave. It's not a "shitty" thing to do as long as it's done politely. Let's keep in mind this is also someone who is leaving voluntarily, not being laid off. They are picking their moment when they become a non-employee.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  It seems a lot like closing the barn door after the horses have left. If they were going to do anything damaging, why wouldn't they do it after they've decided they're leaving but before they tell you they're leaving? After all, they control when they tell you. I think that particular practice is security theater - it's so the employer can say "We take all possible precautions", regardless of whether the possible precautions are effective.
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    There's been a real state change. The individual has gone from an employee - with contractual obligations to the employer in terms of intellectual property, etc. - to a non-employee who may not have those same obligations. There are also issues of liability and safety - as a non-employee, they may no longer be covered by your insurance, depending on the type of workplace. Is it mostly for form? Probably, but there's a reason it's considered the right process. It's not done for "theater", it's done because sometimes these things end up in court later on.
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      Usually when you resign, there's an "effective MM/DD/YYYY" clause in your resignation letter. Until that date, you're still an employee, and still bound by any contractual obligations as such. There's no particular reason for that effective date to be "now" vs. "two weeks from now". I've certainly had coworkers that announced their intention to resign 2 weeks or a month before their actual departure (actually, the one time I've quit a job, I think I stayed for a couple weeks afterwards wrapping up my project & transferring knowledge). The difference is only that in one case, the employee is intending to resign but you don't know about it, but in the other, the employee is intending to resign but you do know about it.
      - tomkarlo 14y ago
        If you've read the news reports, this was an immediate resignation. At least in California, there's no obligation to give notice on a resignation. It's a courtesy, but in the case of some senior positions, or when you're going to a competitor, a company isn't going to want you to work two more weeks anyway.
        nostrademons 14y ago
        Right, but now we've circled back to the original point, which is that when you do give notice, it makes no sense for the company to insist that you leave immediately and escort you out, as you were in control of when you gave notice. If you wanted to do any damage, you would've just done it and then gave notice.

tomkarlo 14y ago

It's not childish, it's just being responsible. This is generally done for any employee with access to highly sensitive data. They're not going to do any more work for you; why take any risk that they'll do anything damaging after the moment when they tell you they're leaving? Also, once they've resigned, they're no longer an employee, so for a lot of companies (Google included) they may not be allowed in the sensitive office areas, anyway.

MartinCron 14y ago
It's "responsible" to treat people like potential criminals in lots of contexts. Doesn't mean it isn't a shitty thing to do.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  Asking a non-employee to leave the premises of a business isn't treating them like a "potential criminal". If you find a random visitor wandering around your office, you may ask them to leave. It's not a "shitty" thing to do as long as it's done politely. Let's keep in mind this is also someone who is leaving voluntarily, not being laid off. They are picking their moment when they become a non-employee.
nostrademons 14y ago
It seems a lot like closing the barn door after the horses have left. If they were going to do anything damaging, why wouldn't they do it after they've decided they're leaving but before they tell you they're leaving? After all, they control when they tell you. I think that particular practice is security theater - it's so the employer can say "We take all possible precautions", regardless of whether the possible precautions are effective.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  There's been a real state change. The individual has gone from an employee - with contractual obligations to the employer in terms of intellectual property, etc. - to a non-employee who may not have those same obligations. There are also issues of liability and safety - as a non-employee, they may no longer be covered by your insurance, depending on the type of workplace. Is it mostly for form? Probably, but there's a reason it's considered the right process. It's not done for "theater", it's done because sometimes these things end up in court later on.
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    Usually when you resign, there's an "effective MM/DD/YYYY" clause in your resignation letter. Until that date, you're still an employee, and still bound by any contractual obligations as such. There's no particular reason for that effective date to be "now" vs. "two weeks from now". I've certainly had coworkers that announced their intention to resign 2 weeks or a month before their actual departure (actually, the one time I've quit a job, I think I stayed for a couple weeks afterwards wrapping up my project & transferring knowledge). The difference is only that in one case, the employee is intending to resign but you don't know about it, but in the other, the employee is intending to resign but you do know about it.
    - tomkarlo 14y ago
      If you've read the news reports, this was an immediate resignation. At least in California, there's no obligation to give notice on a resignation. It's a courtesy, but in the case of some senior positions, or when you're going to a competitor, a company isn't going to want you to work two more weeks anyway.
      - nostrademons 14y ago
        Right, but now we've circled back to the original point, which is that when you do give notice, it makes no sense for the company to insist that you leave immediately and escort you out, as you were in control of when you gave notice. If you wanted to do any damage, you would've just done it and then gave notice.