5 ms·

Depending on where you are, "severance", or the 2-week pay after you have been told you do not have a job anymore, may or may not be a worker's right.

poopsintub 13y ago
I've never heard of severance in the U.S. being mandatory or illegal to withhold if say, they did it for every other employee that left the company prior. I think unemployment benefits takes care of this.
chimeracoder 13y ago
IANAL, but while that may be true in general, California (where the author was employed[0]) is an at-will state, and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will. AFAIK, that means that they are not entitled to any severance unless their initial contract stipulated otherwise. [0] Actually, where the company was based we don't know which employment laws applied to his contract without reading it. You can be a California resident employed by a Delaware corporation operating out of California and your contract can still be subject the the employment laws of a third state. I'm not entirely sure how this actually works in practice, but I know it is done. EDIT Some quick Googling found this website, which has some interesting information (albeit a rather terrible layout): http://www.careerprotection.com/severancepay.html http://www.careerprotection.com/severancepay.html
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  While working in at-will states, the severance agreement may in fact be the first document you sign that is actually legally binding upon the company in any way. Most offers I see are clear that the letter is not a contract, and no contract can even exist without direct and explicit intervention by the CEO. And that seems to be a left-handed way of saying that if you do try to get an actual contract, you will not be successful, and the offer of employment will be withdrawn. I would very much like to see more at-will workers do same-day resignations when they change jobs, possibly even writing their own severance agreements. It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. And most of the time, all that you get for the courtesy of making it easier for the employer to replace you is a payout for your accumulated vacation time, if anything.
  - cbr 13y ago
    It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. While you would be fully within your legal rights to quit without notice, and they would be fully within theirs to fire you effective immediately with no severance, both would be rude, contrary to custom, and unprofessional. It's reasonable and healthy to have customs that are not fully backed by the law, and trying to set up the law to fully match our senses of justice would be massive overengineering.
    - bradleyjg 13y ago
      That's true in general, but conditional severance isn't the same thing as unconditional severance. Conditional severance, depending on the conditions, may well be a quid pro quo. If the money is compensation for e.g. a non-disparagement clause than it isn't also customary two weeks severance. If such practices are widespread in a particular industry than that industry in practice doesn't provide severance. In those circumstances, it makes sense to withdraw the corresponding practice of giving notice. Or perhaps instead substituting a practice of conditional notice.
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      Having recently experienced such rudeness from an employer, I feel fully justified in recommending tit-for-tat retaliation from employees. Holding to human standards of decency is no longer warranted when your employer no longer views you as a human being. Given the behavior of my current company towards all of its employees, I am looking to go elsewhere, and when I do, I won't worry overly much about burning those bridges behind me. The at-will sword is two-edged, so let the other guy feel the backswing occasionally.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    > It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. I disagree. One of the things that distinguishes professional behavior for me is having professional standards. That is, no matter what your clients or employers do, there are certain ways you plan to behave. For me that would definitely include a good handover. Of course, my professional standards also include refusing to build things that are obviously dumb, dangerous, or destructive. But a disturbing number of developers feel that they should just do whatever their bosses tell them, no matter the disaster that they set in motion. So one could argue that a lot of IT-related jobs are more trades than professions, in which case a "take this job and shove it" exit could be more acceptable. Not because it isn't unprofessional behavior, but because professional behavior isn't expected.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "California is an at-will state," California is an odd example of an at-will state, for various reasons. There have been a lot of implied-in-fact exceptions to the at-will doctrine (see Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. ) essentially holding that your employment contract would not control if the employer gives you a different impression. The general legal view is that california is not really an at-will state anymore, because of the routine exceptions that get made. IE cases holding "evidence of a “long and distinguished career” supported finding of implied contract not to terminate without good cause", etc. See http://ainleylaw.com/2012/10/25/avoiding-the-at-will-bar/ http://ainleylaw.com/2012/10/25/avoiding-the-at-will-bar/ for a random list of cases and holdings. Suffice to say, i would not hold up california as a typical example of anything employment law related :)
- vidarh 13y ago
  > and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will I'm not so sure about that. While Silicon Valley particularly, and the US in general, has a disproportionate number of high tech startups, you also have some of the weakest workers rights in the world, and while I don't know the exact demographics of HN, I'm not so sure it is that focused around California. Pretty much all of Europe, with a population of about 800 million, for example, have protections that are vastly stronger. A substantial majority of countries have 1-3 months notice periods that are hard or impossible to get around, in some cases with a legal right to actually continue to show up to work and carry out the contracted work during that period even if your employer would like to pay you to stay away.
  - nwzpaperman 13y ago
    The European Union is only hanging on by a thin fibre. These values are certainly admirable, but that doesn't make them scalable from a systems engineering perspective. Like natural resources, it's called human resources for a reason.
  - leoromanovsky 13y ago
    wow 1-3 months of notice, that's insane.. seems impossible to let go of a poor performer.
    - klausjensen 13y ago
      It is quite common with a 3-6 month trial period, where you can be fired with shorter notice.
- robterrell 13y ago
  IIRC, the author lives in NYC, so I assume he was working remotely. If that was the case, which states laws apply? What if one of the states is an at-will state and the other isn't?
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    I've often seen contracts explicitly contain "Disputes will be handled in CA and I waive my choice of venue."
    - danielweber 13y ago
      If it's a small company in California they really don't want to take a bus to Texas to get into a legal fight with you. This is one of those cases where you can't have both sides compromise. They want things jurisdicted (izzat a word?) in one state or the other. And the company is the one with the lawyers who have crafted things specifically for their home state. You should give them this, perhaps in exchange for something else.
jgalt212 13y ago
If it's a mass layoff, the event will probably fall under the WARN act which requires 60 days notice for "full-time" workers. http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm
- harryh 13y ago
  Only if it's part of a "plant closing."
- jgalt212 13y ago
  plant closing is loosely defined. I worked at a bank that closed a division, and the division closing fell under the WARN Act.
- coldcode 13y ago
  I am currently awaiting a 60 day notice, as 80% of the company is being laid off. Our parent company recently laid off a number of folks who only got 30 as the company is eliminating a large portion of the company.
- TomSawyer 13y ago
  A place that I worked at two years ago laid off 2/3 of the company just 49 days after I'd joined. They weren't as brain dead as the federal legislature so they simply framed it as temporary for five months which falls under the requirements of "WARN."

poopsintub 13y ago

I've never heard of severance in the U.S. being mandatory or illegal to withhold if say, they did it for every other employee that left the company prior. I think unemployment benefits takes care of this.

chimeracoder 13y ago

IANAL, but while that may be true in general, California (where the author was employed[0]) is an at-will state, and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will. AFAIK, that means that they are not entitled to any severance unless their initial contract stipulated otherwise. [0] Actually, where the company was based we don't know which employment laws applied to his contract without reading it. You can be a California resident employed by a Delaware corporation operating out of California and your contract can still be subject the the employment laws of a third state. I'm not entirely sure how this actually works in practice, but I know it is done. EDIT Some quick Googling found this website, which has some interesting information (albeit a rather terrible layout): http://www.careerprotection.com/severancepay.html http://www.careerprotection.com/severancepay.html

logfromblammo 13y ago
While working in at-will states, the severance agreement may in fact be the first document you sign that is actually legally binding upon the company in any way. Most offers I see are clear that the letter is not a contract, and no contract can even exist without direct and explicit intervention by the CEO. And that seems to be a left-handed way of saying that if you do try to get an actual contract, you will not be successful, and the offer of employment will be withdrawn. I would very much like to see more at-will workers do same-day resignations when they change jobs, possibly even writing their own severance agreements. It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. And most of the time, all that you get for the courtesy of making it easier for the employer to replace you is a payout for your accumulated vacation time, if anything.
- cbr 13y ago
  It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. While you would be fully within your legal rights to quit without notice, and they would be fully within theirs to fire you effective immediately with no severance, both would be rude, contrary to custom, and unprofessional. It's reasonable and healthy to have customs that are not fully backed by the law, and trying to set up the law to fully match our senses of justice would be massive overengineering.
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    That's true in general, but conditional severance isn't the same thing as unconditional severance. Conditional severance, depending on the conditions, may well be a quid pro quo. If the money is compensation for e.g. a non-disparagement clause than it isn't also customary two weeks severance. If such practices are widespread in a particular industry than that industry in practice doesn't provide severance. In those circumstances, it makes sense to withdraw the corresponding practice of giving notice. Or perhaps instead substituting a practice of conditional notice.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    Having recently experienced such rudeness from an employer, I feel fully justified in recommending tit-for-tat retaliation from employees. Holding to human standards of decency is no longer warranted when your employer no longer views you as a human being. Given the behavior of my current company towards all of its employees, I am looking to go elsewhere, and when I do, I won't worry overly much about burning those bridges behind me. The at-will sword is two-edged, so let the other guy feel the backswing occasionally.
- wpietri 13y ago
  > It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. I disagree. One of the things that distinguishes professional behavior for me is having professional standards. That is, no matter what your clients or employers do, there are certain ways you plan to behave. For me that would definitely include a good handover. Of course, my professional standards also include refusing to build things that are obviously dumb, dangerous, or destructive. But a disturbing number of developers feel that they should just do whatever their bosses tell them, no matter the disaster that they set in motion. So one could argue that a lot of IT-related jobs are more trades than professions, in which case a "take this job and shove it" exit could be more acceptable. Not because it isn't unprofessional behavior, but because professional behavior isn't expected.
DannyBee 13y ago
"California is an at-will state," California is an odd example of an at-will state, for various reasons. There have been a lot of implied-in-fact exceptions to the at-will doctrine (see Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. ) essentially holding that your employment contract would not control if the employer gives you a different impression. The general legal view is that california is not really an at-will state anymore, because of the routine exceptions that get made. IE cases holding "evidence of a “long and distinguished career” supported finding of implied contract not to terminate without good cause", etc. See http://ainleylaw.com/2012/10/25/avoiding-the-at-will-bar/ http://ainleylaw.com/2012/10/25/avoiding-the-at-will-bar/ for a random list of cases and holdings. Suffice to say, i would not hold up california as a typical example of anything employment law related :)
vidarh 13y ago
> and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will I'm not so sure about that. While Silicon Valley particularly, and the US in general, has a disproportionate number of high tech startups, you also have some of the weakest workers rights in the world, and while I don't know the exact demographics of HN, I'm not so sure it is that focused around California. Pretty much all of Europe, with a population of about 800 million, for example, have protections that are vastly stronger. A substantial majority of countries have 1-3 months notice periods that are hard or impossible to get around, in some cases with a legal right to actually continue to show up to work and carry out the contracted work during that period even if your employer would like to pay you to stay away.
- nwzpaperman 13y ago
  The European Union is only hanging on by a thin fibre. These values are certainly admirable, but that doesn't make them scalable from a systems engineering perspective. Like natural resources, it's called human resources for a reason.
- leoromanovsky 13y ago
  wow 1-3 months of notice, that's insane.. seems impossible to let go of a poor performer.
  - klausjensen 13y ago
    It is quite common with a 3-6 month trial period, where you can be fired with shorter notice.
robterrell 13y ago
IIRC, the author lives in NYC, so I assume he was working remotely. If that was the case, which states laws apply? What if one of the states is an at-will state and the other isn't?
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I've often seen contracts explicitly contain "Disputes will be handled in CA and I waive my choice of venue."
  - danielweber 13y ago
    If it's a small company in California they really don't want to take a bus to Texas to get into a legal fight with you. This is one of those cases where you can't have both sides compromise. They want things jurisdicted (izzat a word?) in one state or the other. And the company is the one with the lawyers who have crafted things specifically for their home state. You should give them this, perhaps in exchange for something else.

jgalt212 13y ago

If it's a mass layoff, the event will probably fall under the WARN act which requires 60 days notice for "full-time" workers. http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm

harryh 13y ago
Only if it's part of a "plant closing."
jgalt212 13y ago
plant closing is loosely defined. I worked at a bank that closed a division, and the division closing fell under the WARN Act.
coldcode 13y ago
I am currently awaiting a 60 day notice, as 80% of the company is being laid off. Our parent company recently laid off a number of folks who only got 30 as the company is eliminating a large portion of the company.
TomSawyer 13y ago
A place that I worked at two years ago laid off 2/3 of the company just 49 days after I'd joined. They weren't as brain dead as the federal legislature so they simply framed it as temporary for five months which falls under the requirements of "WARN."