4 ms·

I've seen corporations in the U.S. change the locks on doors and not tell employees. The next morning, they'd have security officers escort workers back to thei

I've seen corporations in the U.S. change the locks on doors and not tell employees. The next morning, they'd have security officers escort workers back to their former offices so they could get personal pictures and things. Employees were 'watched' by security to ensure they didn't take anything or turn on a computer. America is a different place. It can be very hostile here.

jbuzbee 13y ago
Terminating an employee can be tough on both sides. I was involved in a situation where we should have had security escort the terminated employee back to his office to get his belongings. This employee was basically let go after multiple warnings about not showing up for work and not calling in. When he was told, he returned to his office and proceeded to smash up some equipment. Lesson learned. I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building and wish security would have been at his office. Tense situation.
- codegeek 13y ago
  "....proceeded to smash up some equipment." "..I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building" I am sure he won't be back (at least for a while) because he will most likely be in prison for sometime. He was an outlier. For the most part though, people are reasonable and just want to be treated with decency when getting laid-off/fired.
  - jbuzbee 13y ago
    Yes, he was an outlier. Most people will not behave this way and will act reasonably. But of course, the problem is determining which people will fly off the handle in stressful situations. I never would have guessed that this guy would turn violent. And if he would have struck and injured someone else things could have been much worse. The company would have likely been held responsible for not having security around. So most companies go the "better safe than sorry" route during termination.
- vidarh 13y ago
  But it is tougher when one side expects to be able to get away with anything, and so often sees no downside in acting like total dicks. I'm from Norway, and I was shocked when I moved to the UK where typical notice periods is only one month. In Norway it is extremely hard to write a contract that will hold up that limits notice periods for full time non-seasonal workers to less than 3 months. Most of the time people work out a 3 month notice period. And in fact, except in special circumstances, we generally have the right (and duty, if we want to continue to get paid through our notice period) to keep showing up for work and doing our job. In practice, most people who are offered/asked nicely to stop coming in to work earlier will come to a suitable arrangement, but it is not very common.
  - ef47d35620c1 13y ago
    Norway must be nice. The short notices and general environment in the U.S. (everyone is suspect) really makes American families feel on edge. And, most Americans are very reasonable. I would never smash-up something that belonged to my employer even if I was upset. That's wrong. Most of us would just like to be treated with respect and dignity and be able to contribute to society and provide for our families and be part of our communities.
  - jbuzbee 13y ago
    Yes, as an employee it would be nice to have a three-month notice. But the downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months. In the situation I described above, the employee in question failed to show up or call in for his very first day of work and gave some poor excuse the next day. And this behavior continued in the following weeks. We had obviously made a mistake in hiring him and I was grateful that our team wasn't stuck with him for three months.
    - eigenvector 13y ago
      What percentage of employees are total deadbeats like you describe? And what percentage are honest folks who would never do such a thing or even consider destroying their employer's property after being told they will be let go? When you have a generous policy like this, you have to take the good with the bad. Personally, I feel that there are many, many good, decent folks who will benefit without screwing their employer for every deadbeat who will take gross advantage of the policy. In the case of the guy who smashed up the employer's equipment - what was the loss? $2,000? $5,000? Now what's that compared to the retained goodwill of hundreds or thousands of employees who are laid off over the lifetime of the company but leave with a positive impression because they weren't escorted around like a criminal? It's a matter of your outlook on society. Do you have trust in the public, or do you target the worst-case scenario? This is the same thing as onerous requirements for getting welfare or unemployment payments. They are focused on the 1% or less who are trying to the game the system. In the process, they are hurting the 99% who just need a hand getting through a tough time. Why optimize for a 1% case?

jbuzbee 13y ago

Terminating an employee can be tough on both sides. I was involved in a situation where we should have had security escort the terminated employee back to his office to get his belongings. This employee was basically let go after multiple warnings about not showing up for work and not calling in. When he was told, he returned to his office and proceeded to smash up some equipment. Lesson learned. I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building and wish security would have been at his office. Tense situation.

codegeek 13y ago
"....proceeded to smash up some equipment." "..I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building" I am sure he won't be back (at least for a while) because he will most likely be in prison for sometime. He was an outlier. For the most part though, people are reasonable and just want to be treated with decency when getting laid-off/fired.
- jbuzbee 13y ago
  Yes, he was an outlier. Most people will not behave this way and will act reasonably. But of course, the problem is determining which people will fly off the handle in stressful situations. I never would have guessed that this guy would turn violent. And if he would have struck and injured someone else things could have been much worse. The company would have likely been held responsible for not having security around. So most companies go the "better safe than sorry" route during termination.
vidarh 13y ago
But it is tougher when one side expects to be able to get away with anything, and so often sees no downside in acting like total dicks. I'm from Norway, and I was shocked when I moved to the UK where typical notice periods is only one month. In Norway it is extremely hard to write a contract that will hold up that limits notice periods for full time non-seasonal workers to less than 3 months. Most of the time people work out a 3 month notice period. And in fact, except in special circumstances, we generally have the right (and duty, if we want to continue to get paid through our notice period) to keep showing up for work and doing our job. In practice, most people who are offered/asked nicely to stop coming in to work earlier will come to a suitable arrangement, but it is not very common.
- ef47d35620c1 13y ago
  Norway must be nice. The short notices and general environment in the U.S. (everyone is suspect) really makes American families feel on edge. And, most Americans are very reasonable. I would never smash-up something that belonged to my employer even if I was upset. That's wrong. Most of us would just like to be treated with respect and dignity and be able to contribute to society and provide for our families and be part of our communities.
- jbuzbee 13y ago
  Yes, as an employee it would be nice to have a three-month notice. But the downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months. In the situation I described above, the employee in question failed to show up or call in for his very first day of work and gave some poor excuse the next day. And this behavior continued in the following weeks. We had obviously made a mistake in hiring him and I was grateful that our team wasn't stuck with him for three months.
  - eigenvector 13y ago
    What percentage of employees are total deadbeats like you describe? And what percentage are honest folks who would never do such a thing or even consider destroying their employer's property after being told they will be let go? When you have a generous policy like this, you have to take the good with the bad. Personally, I feel that there are many, many good, decent folks who will benefit without screwing their employer for every deadbeat who will take gross advantage of the policy. In the case of the guy who smashed up the employer's equipment - what was the loss? $2,000? $5,000? Now what's that compared to the retained goodwill of hundreds or thousands of employees who are laid off over the lifetime of the company but leave with a positive impression because they weren't escorted around like a criminal? It's a matter of your outlook on society. Do you have trust in the public, or do you target the worst-case scenario? This is the same thing as onerous requirements for getting welfare or unemployment payments. They are focused on the 1% or less who are trying to the game the system. In the process, they are hurting the 99% who just need a hand getting through a tough time. Why optimize for a 1% case?