I think many of us have probably felt the temptation, but please do realize, you are building a reputation over time, and it is probably best to be remembered as someone who acts like a professional. If you work in the Bay Area, it is really common to reconnect with past co-workers years later at a different company.
Assuming there is a justifiable reason behind it, quitting on the spot is not at all unprofessional, and may even be the most professional thing you can do in a given circumstance.
When I meet people who have quit on the spot, I always assume it was for a reasonable, professional reason. Unless I am somehow presented with evidence suggesting otherwise, there is no reason for that to have a generic stigma of unprofessionalism. It's just a normal part of business life.
The same is largely also true with employment gaps. Too often people make unreasonable assumptions about why someone has a gap. For example, in my own case I have had a big unemployment gap due to a severe family problem that was truly unavoidable and required full-time effort from me for around 8 months. I'll never know how many hiring managers saw the gap on my resume and elected to reject me solely based on that, assuming it was a negative mark regarding my skill or job performance, without ever asking me to find out. I definitely don't want to make that same mistake by unfairly making premature assumptions about other people I meet who have gaps on their resume.
i agree with one of the points the article made - in any company where employees are routinely fired/laid off without notice, quitting without notice is implicitly acceptable.
I've always given notice, but over time its been much more acceptable for employers to lay people off without notice/let people go without notice/walk people who give notice - in that environment, I feel no loyalty, nor obligation to give notice myself. It's also perfectly acceptable to quit without notice in the first two weeks of work. Quitting because of severe malfeasance on the part of the employer is also somewhat obviously OK.
You should give two weeks notice, but be financially prepared to have to leave immediately. However, if a company does ask you to walk instead of notice, they've pretty much given up on ever getting any notice from any of their other employees.
Given the total lack of loyalty given to employees by employers, combined with an unwillingness to give references (limiting the impact on professional reputation), why would anyone be surprised by this?
Slavery has been illegal in the US for about a century and a half. The answer is, of course, "yes." If an employer doesn't like that, then they should make sure their people are motivated to stay. Warning: this may involve paying them more.
Certainly you shouldn't unless you have a really good reason. If you just can't agree about the new product name, you should definitely give notice. If they handed you a gun and ordered you to kill a customer, quit on the spot.
A lot of employees are loyal to companies, not so much the other way around. They're both quite similar: when a loyal employee thinks about quitting, they worry about the impact it'll have on the company. When the company sees someone quit (or fires them), they too worry about the impact it'll have on the company.
This has been my experience in every job that I have had (4 in total). I've suffered severe career burnout basically wholly because my working experience leads me to believe there is no such thing as a company that treats employees with even a minimal level of acceptable decency, at least in the U.S. (I have no experience working elsewhere).
In my early career I was foolish enough to believe this was just a symptom of earning your stripes or paying your dues. In the first professional job in which I gave two weeks' notice, I worked my tail off during those two weeks to clean up several lagging code repos, write a bunch of badly needed tests, polish off a deliverable for an important system, and write copious documentation detailing step-by-step how to handle any of the little ad hoc things that I had to do on a weekly or monthly basis. On my final day, I even worked an hour late (until 6 pm) furiously giving a tutorial on some of that last-minute work. I was literally sweating in my shirt when I collected my last items and walked to the elevator for the final time.
Months later I came to find out that a former colleague at that firm had given a negative review about me (a very petty action related to being upset about my choice to leave) to another employer when I was interviewing. Now I feel it is completely unsafe to ask them for any kind of reference or recommendation.
So much for really pouring myself into the role and trying, even literally to the final minute, to be an exceptional employee for them...
There's always a good chance you could work with some of your old peers at a new company. They aren't necessarily going to forget the way you acted when you left.
Honestly two weeks notice isn't about the company at all, it's about the people you work alongside (including your boss). The company will do just fine regardless, but your co-workers have to pick up the extra slack.
Yes, but if the company is treating you badly, you don't owe it to your coworkers to continue enduring that for their sake. If they really value their professional relationship with you and if they respect you, they will certainly understand that you can't be expected to subject yourself to two additional weeks of poor treatment just for their sake -- and neither should you expect that from them if they determine that the company is treating them badly and they need to quit.
It is not you who has made the coworkers pick up extra slack via your choice to quit without notice. It is the company that has given them that extra burden by placing you in a situation where the only healthy option was to quit without notice. Thoughtful colleagues will understand that the company is to blame for this kind of thing, not the worker who did not give notice.
In cases when someone was treated well and simply did not give notice for some extrinsic, selfish reason (like being offered a sign-on bonus to start immediately at a new firm or something), it will be pretty obvious to everyone that actually the company had treated them well.
The higher skill a job requires, the less impact quitting without notice should have on colleagues, with respect to "pick up the extra slack." As far as I can tell from reading around, it's going to be a long time after even a two week notice before a replacement is in place (if at all).
You should probably send emails to people about what's where, etc. Or try not to have loose ends. And I can understand colleagues feeling snubbed without a goodbye, much less a happy hour.
I'm not advocating without notice, but when it happens, around "here," I just don't see much of an impact.
One reflection I have: I wouldn't worry so much about "negative" performance reviews from former colleagues. After all, you did give notice on that job, so that in itself is a a kind of a negative review of their "performance."
Also, you're more than within your rights to ask the HR contact to "confirm dates of service, and my reason for leaving", only. Most anyone would be more than happy to comply with such a request, even if they didn't exactly see eye-to-eye with you while stuck in the same boat with you, job-wise (since hardly anyone particularly likes saying negative things about other people unless they really have to).
Or if you do feel compelled to let them continue to give their negative review -- you can either preface it ("We had a difference of viewpoints about certain things, which is why I left"), -or- provide another colleague from the same shop who viewed you more positively (or whom you can at least trust to not outright badmouth you).
I once had a "negative" review backfire against me once, many years ago. Someone said some stuff about me in a reference call that they never said to me in person while I was there -- so I brought in another co-worker who quit shortly after I did, as a counter-reference. I ended up getting the job, and it was one of my more pleasant working experiences actually.
I do not have the personal resources to sustain doing that -- whereas the other person absolutely does. Perhaps if I film myself sleeping with his wife, then someone with financial resources might help out.
If an employer is that way to everyone, then I generally will make an effort to brush it aside. However, embarrass me in front of the team and all bets are off. It does not mean I will not give notice. It just means I'm likely making a mental note of it because I generally just want to give people what they want even if they didn't know they wanted it.
'A lot of employees are loyal to companies, not so much the other way around.'
Recognising and then losing this mindset is so important. Many of my younger friends who have only been employed a few years appear to have fierce loyalty to their employers. So many have sacrificed salary for essentially worthless options. They appear less likely to ask for a raise, assert their rights to reasonable work hours, dissent to a bad work environment.
The best way I have found for avoiding this is reducing the idea of your job into a very simple transaction, taking the view of a consultant. You have problems that need solving and will pay. I will solve those problems for pay. When seen as purely transactional, I believe the individual feels more empowered and avoids the loyalty trap.
Most of the jobs I've lost as a teenager were because of normal teenage things like SAT/ACT/AP exams. Like they really wanted me to value the job more than my future.
Another thing they liked to do was change the schedule after publishing it. But it's my fault for not checking the schedule everyday.
This is one of those 'it depends' questions (like most important ones are!).
I've quit on the spot once and I think it was ok. I was consulting (paid hourly), had multiple disagreements with my 'boss' (CEO) about major work behaviors (wanted to literally sit behind me while working and watch, critiqued my work despite not being technical and tried to control everything). No loss, had plenty of work elsewhere, wasn't going to use him as a reference.
Other times I've quit from places I've worked at for > 6 months I gave at least 2 weeks notice.
If you flipped this and asked all these people arguing that it's never ok to quit on the spot if it's fine to fire someone on the spot, do you think a single one would say no? Of course not. Employers wanted right-to-work laws to make it easier for them to fire workers at will; workers should feel free to return the favor and leave when and if they want.
> If you flipped this and asked all these people arguing that it's never ok to quit on the spot if it's fine to fire someone on the spot, do you think a single one would say no?
With or without two weeks of pay? I don't think I'd fire someone without two weeks of pay in lieu of notice, although I suppose if the behaviour were terrible enough it's possible.
Pay isn't everything though. Consider the case of immigrants who may need to be continuously employed to remain in the united states, or the more common case of people who depend on their employer for health insurance coverage.
I do think that it matters how someone is fired on the spot though. I'd say firing someone on the spot is about the same as giving them a few weeks notice if you also give them full pay for those weeks and also officially end the employment after that period. I'd rather take a few days off and get extra time to look for a new job instead of coming into work at a company who is letting me go in a few weeks.
Yes, given that my employer can decide to dismiss me with zero warning, I don't really feel a blanket obligation to give them any more warning than I'd expect them to give me (i.e. zero).
I would give warning to my current employer, because I've been here for a long time, they've treated me alright, and I have a lot of knowledge that's important to the business. But I'd see it as a courtesy, not an obligation.
Right, I've been having the same thought as I interview places and mentally prepare myself to (hopefully) leave my job soon. I'm quite unhappy and just want to turn in my resignation and go. I don't see the purpose it serves to stick around.
To me, a 2-weeks notice is a courtesy to fellow coworkers, not the employer. 2 weeks is just about enough time to wrap up projects and transition the ownership of systems and remaining work to coworkers. I have been on the receiving end of a coworker quitting without warning, and it was incredibly annoying to try to figure out the details of what they were working on to make sure nothing fell through the cracks.
The professional relationships you establish today can be very important in the future. Your coworkers can give you references, help you get hired, or even do the hiring themselves one day. Therefore, it is in your best interest to not be an asshole and leave them hanging by quitting without warning.
Actually if you have a good relationship with your coworker and are struggling to go though his things you could just call him up after work or even during work to help you out ?
There is always ways to make things work when relationships are good.
Most people have little reasons to switch jobs if they are happy.
I've actually done this and my former co-worker wrote back and helped me out. So...
Lately, I've trended towards not trying to work with people at future jobs I've already worked with as I don't like the pressure of having to live up to whatever expectations they or others have. I'd rather someone have reasonable expectations that I can actually beat and vice versa.
Another interesting twist looking at this from Norway. Here 3 months notice (goes both ways) is the norm, 1 month the minimum. I'm honestly not sure how 2 weeks notice is meaningfully different from no notice at all.
After all, you will have to be able to cover someone if they are sick (typically short time, no notice) - while presumably replacing an employee fully will take longer than two weeks anyway?
> I'm honestly not sure how 2 weeks notice is meaningfully different from no notice at all.
Agreed. 2 weeks feels like a number so small it effectively rounds to 0. I am actually unsure of the minimum notice period here (Australia) but I have typically given 1-3 months notice unless there was a very good reason why I needed to leave sooner.
"Others cite an increased tendency among employers to rescind job offers"
I was under the impression an employer could get in litigation trouble for rescinding a formal job offer that costs the employee significantly (ie moving across country, losing their old job, etc).
At the very least I'd imagine they would get one hell of a glassdoor black mark pulling a stunt like that.
Depends on intent, if you gave two people offers for one position just to see which one would accept the fastest you'd have a lawsuit. If there was a genuine reason then it's fine. Just like how a company can't sue you if you recind after signing a contract, even if the company stopped hiring and had monetary damages as a result.
>Just like how a company can't sue you if you recind after signing a contract
How would that work? Wouldn't that be a breach of a binding contract, or is there usually some kind of exit clause to account for specific circumstances?
Well it is "at will" employment, so you're more or less quitting the new job immediately. Most people would of course not turn down a job immediately _after_ signing a job offer. They just wouldn't sign the job offer.
What I was getting at, is I had heard somewhere that companies can be liable if they extend a job offer then rescind it causing the employee considerable harm. Sounds like it is a "it depends" type of situation.
Sometimes, while interviewing for multiple jobs, the window to accept an offer for job A ends before you receive an offer for (preferable) job B. So you accept job A as a hedge, and then immediately rescind job A if you get the offer for job B.
And there's nothing wrong with that, since if you view A and B as actors, they're both (because they're inhuman corporations) psychopathic monsters who will fuck you over in an instant
The operative word that I'm questioning is "contract". I assumed they meant something about a contract specifying minimum employment times, or something. If you aren't bound by a signed contract, of course it makes sense that you could quit.
I've never heard anything suggest there is "an increased tendency among employers to rescind job offers," so it's probably just an excuse people give (or don't, maybe the author pulled that statement out of thin air) to not do the right thing and give two weeks, assuming a normal situation of course.
What's interesting about this article is I saw only two parts where it mentioned critical, employer behavior. That behavior is treating people like disposable objects with no concern for their pay or well-being. Also, reinforcing it by pushing for "at-will" employment where they can even drop good workers without cause. Lots of layoffs of loyal employees at the big firms over the past decade just reinforce this issue.
So, after all that crap, they want to say a person is doing a disservice to the company to quit without two weeks of extra benefit to the company? Funny stuff. They keep forgetting that capitalism says that everyone, not just business owners, should act in their self interest. Truth told, unless it's a stakeholder-oriented business, then everyone should be giving the company as little as possible. Like the company does them.
Companies that want loyal employees that will make sacrifices for them know what to do. They can go back to old IBM Watson or current, Publix Crenshaw approach of taking care of workers along with incentives for them to improve bottom line. Then, the workers will take care of them and much less likely to disappear in a day. That simple. My money says they won't do it, though. So, ditch them the second you get a better offer much like the CEO or board members would.
It appears from across the pond that the US heavily favours employers when it comes to workers rights. I could be wrong, but I believe in most states you can be fired even without a reasonable cause. This is extremely different from the UK, at least for full time workers 1-year+ at the company.
As this is the case, I don't think quitting on the spot is an unfair use of the system.
In the UK it's usually only after 2 years at a company can you go to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. (You can go to a tribunal however claiming discriminatory dismissal/whistleblowing/H&S (and a few more categories) under 2 years.). AFAIK there is nothing special about 1 year (and probationary periods ending are merely contractual. What usually changes is benefit entitlement, notice periods etc)
Also, tribunal fees are also quite expensive: £390 for unpaid wages, £1,200 for unfair dismissal.
Further, employers can just make you quit through a series of changes in your job. Constructive dismissal I imagine is quite difficult for the employee to prove.
A lot of people are approaching this as an employer/employee relationship, which is fair, but I think it's more important to understand how quitting on the spot affects the employee - employee relationship.
If someone I work with quits day-of, and there's no obvious signs that it was over an ethical no-go, I'm going to conclude that it's someone I don't want to collaborate with in the future.
If you can't make the effort to spend a week cleaning up loose ends, document your projects, and pass on knowledge to the rest of the team, you are certainly not someone I want to work with in the future -- much less ever consider having as a co-founder. It's just basic professionalism.
Obviously not the case if the employer asked you to do something unethical, but you need to make that clear to the rest of your team if it happened, in order to reasonably retain their respect.
> If you can't make the effort to spend a week cleaning up loose ends, document your projects, and pass on knowledge to the rest of the team, you are certainly not someone I want to work with in the future -- much less ever consider having as a co-founder. It's just basic professionalism.
Why would you accept the same case from a company? ("at will employment")
Why would I wanna work for free for a "for profit" company (or any organization for that matter that doesn't at least value my time I may spend with them to at least compensate for such labor to the extent I feel its worth), esp when they couldn't even give the time of day to ask for that stuff while one is still being compensated by them (or make a better offer than leaving cold turkey, "at will employment" remember)?
Fuck whatever kind of "professionalism" that is lol I'll keep it movin. Plenty of other people want to work with me :D
It's a good point, but I disagree that it's more important. Especially since you probably don't really know the details of how your fellow employee was being treated by the company.
Is there any consideration that someone who leaves without notice should perhaps reflect upon the employer, and not only the employee?
"If someone I work with quits day-of, and there's no obvious signs that it was over an ethical no-go, I'm going to conclude that it's someone I don't want to collaborate with in the future."
Here's the problem, you really don't know the whole situation and making such a determination without data will be problematic. You could be punishing the innocent party. Worse, your former fellow employee might use the same lack of information to conclude that you agreed with the company over perhaps their very valid reasons.
As an example, your fellow employee's health is declining (not obviously to you but that is quite common too), work is keeping them awake (devops is so fun), and then maybe their mother got cancer. A quick meeting and no hope of relief is given, and they quit. Farfetched? No, sadly. They know they can go somewhere that will understand, and where you are isn't it. They're hundreds of these things, and not one will be told to you honestly by an employer.
Years later they get back to a happy place, and you do your "don't want to collaborate". We're in an industry with a lot of introverted people so don't expect them to give some explanation for your approval.
Disrespect should be truly earned and not inferred, or as my Dad taught me: come by your hatreds honestly and with full knowledge of the why.
I just don't understand who is going to not give at least the appropriate amount of notice unless something adverse happened. Why are you assuming the worst of the people you work with? What does that say about you?
When I left my previous job I had documented, cleaned up and transitioned everything without anyone realizing I was doing so before I gave my two weeks notice. "Not giving a notice period" and "not tying up loose ends etc" are totally orthogonal concepts - it is equally possible to work out your two weeks notice and still leave your colleagues in a pile of incomprehensible crap.
Giving notice is a courtesy. I think it's the 'right' thing when you think you and your employer have mutual respect for each other.
However, if you feel you are being underpaid, under-appreciated, or asked to do unethical things, why do you owe them anything? Just get out! Maybe if it stings a bit, they'll treat their remaining/future employees a bit better (or go out of business).
> “Well, good for you,” Mr. Tremblay says he thought at the time. He could understand wanting a vacation, but felt “you’re also screwing our business,” leaving the company short-staffed at a busy time.
Turned around that becomes "You're laying me off, in exchange for higher corporate profits, when I have bills due".
The Millennial angle is interesting. The comments and to a lesser degree the article itself imply that millennials are the ones quitting without notice. However in my personal experience, I have only ever seen boomers quit on the spot, whereas millennials and genXers have gone above and beyond by giving 3 or more weeks. Younger workers seem much more afraid of the potential damage a negative reputation can do to their future careers.
Good. You know what? In a world where overzealous HR departments can fire valuable contributors out of the blue for infractions only HR is responsible enough to know, fuck a two week notice. If HR is going to make employment adversarial, let them reap what they fucking sow.
A couple of jobs ago I didn't give any sort of notice when I quit. I waited until the CEO and CFO (a husband and wife duo) left for the day, said my goodbyes to my coworkers, and left a note with my office key under the door of the CEO informing him that I was quitting effective immediately and requesting that they do not contact me for any reason whatsoever. Frankly I'm inclined to think I was too polite. The way they treated their employees (not so much me, but the others) was cruel. A textbook example of psychopathic tryanny writ small. I wish them nothing but the worst.
My last job, however, I gave my employer three weeks notice. I cried when I had to tell my boss I had taken a job elsewhere. It wasn't the hardest thing I've ever done, but quitting that job definitely cracks the top five most emotional moments of my life. I'm happy where I am now, but I was happy there too, surrounded by good people and working under a manager I not only respected but admired as a person. I am keenly aware of how rare a thing that is. The only reason I left was because of the company policy that allows people to leave and then come back no questions asked if they left on good standing. I needed to take a personal risk and they actually encourage that.
The point of my anecdotes is: you reap what you sow. Treat people like shit, pay them poorly, humiliate them publicly and they will quit the moment they can with spite instead of hesitation. Show people kindness, pay them what they're worth, and give them chances to learn from their mistakes and you will routinely have people work for you for decades. If more people are quitting without notice then employers need only to look at how they treat people to see why.
The huge down-side risk when giving notice is that the company can take advantage and fire you as soon as you give notice, cutting your paycheck, health insurance, etc. that day. I've seen this happen on more than one occasion, and have since been extremely wary of following the "tradition" of giving notice. When you're living paycheck to paycheck or close, you don't need that kind of risk.
You can walk out on the spot and should if you really have to, but it's been my personal experience that if you do then the employer just doesn't pay you what they owe!
from a game theory standpoint, giving two weeks notice should be considered from the perspective of managing your reputation with your peers in your industry, not about whether we 'owe' something or not to our employer. teamwork, communication, cooperation (see Stephen Covey) are as important as technical competency.
it's a bit like the mark twain quote: "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
About 30 years ago I had a boss (who I liked) ask me for 7 weeks more work, after I gave notice. I gave him the 7 weeks (new company was OK with that; I had worked for them before), even though it was a personal hassle. Fast forward to 5 years ago: same ex-boss and his wife visited my wife and I when they were traveling through Arizona, and we had a great time.
That said, now in most cases, everything is at-will and neither side really owes the other anything, although it is good to be polite and not burn bridges.
I usually try to provide the courtesy of a 2 week notice. I've even stayed 3 weeks at a previous employer's request and found them a suitable replacement.
However, at one of my jobs a COO yelled at me in front of everyone over an issue he could've resolved himself by sending out a well written email like I had done.
He thought I should just start tearing code apart to "find" a solution until 12am if that's what it took. I told him that I was not doing anything until I spoke with our vendor and that he will just have to wait until the vendor responds as 24 hours had not even passed since I sent the email. The CTO didn't even defend me. Well the next day it turns out that I had done the write thing and that the COO and friends had changed the admin settings and broke the system. No code needed to be changed like I suspected. They just needed to use the admin settings correctly.
The COO did not even apologize for yelling at me in front of everyone. On top of that he still owes me $400. So yea... Three weeks later I had an offer in hand and a vacation starting the next day that I had already paid for the month prior. What do you think I did? I gave my two weeks notice and hopped on the plane.
I can think of a time when I probably should've quit on the first day. It was right after they told me they use SVN and half of their code base was located in their content management system which was comprised of some messy jsp files some html css and a mountain of horribly written javascript (This javascript had one letter variable names everywhere that were not the result of a build tool and not simply located in for loops). I hated every second of it. Yet, I still managed to work there for a year and I gave a two week notice.
Why is it that there is a cultural meme and expectation for an Employee to give notice to an Employer but, none the other way around?
In fact, it largely happens only because it's mandated by law.
If I have loyalty to an organization and I don't want to hurt the people who keeping that organization running, then yeah, I'll give notice but, that is a gift.
No one has ever told me that the company is going to be downsizing in two weeks; an exit interview and an escort out of the building is the only thing I've gotten.
I quit my only professional 'full-time' job on the spot. It was a very emotional decision. However, even then I gave two weeks notice. After a week off, they hired me back as a consultant [which was a bit rocky; but at least I got sent home after 8 hours]. Since then they've hired me as a consultant multiple times and I'm glad I didn't burn that bridge.
77 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadWhen I meet people who have quit on the spot, I always assume it was for a reasonable, professional reason. Unless I am somehow presented with evidence suggesting otherwise, there is no reason for that to have a generic stigma of unprofessionalism. It's just a normal part of business life.
The same is largely also true with employment gaps. Too often people make unreasonable assumptions about why someone has a gap. For example, in my own case I have had a big unemployment gap due to a severe family problem that was truly unavoidable and required full-time effort from me for around 8 months. I'll never know how many hiring managers saw the gap on my resume and elected to reject me solely based on that, assuming it was a negative mark regarding my skill or job performance, without ever asking me to find out. I definitely don't want to make that same mistake by unfairly making premature assumptions about other people I meet who have gaps on their resume.
Certainly you shouldn't unless you have a really good reason. If you just can't agree about the new product name, you should definitely give notice. If they handed you a gun and ordered you to kill a customer, quit on the spot.
A lot of employees are loyal to companies, not so much the other way around. They're both quite similar: when a loyal employee thinks about quitting, they worry about the impact it'll have on the company. When the company sees someone quit (or fires them), they too worry about the impact it'll have on the company.
Though much of the time it should suffice to simply not treat them horribly.
Difficult though that may seem for the management circles of certain organizations.
In my early career I was foolish enough to believe this was just a symptom of earning your stripes or paying your dues. In the first professional job in which I gave two weeks' notice, I worked my tail off during those two weeks to clean up several lagging code repos, write a bunch of badly needed tests, polish off a deliverable for an important system, and write copious documentation detailing step-by-step how to handle any of the little ad hoc things that I had to do on a weekly or monthly basis. On my final day, I even worked an hour late (until 6 pm) furiously giving a tutorial on some of that last-minute work. I was literally sweating in my shirt when I collected my last items and walked to the elevator for the final time.
Months later I came to find out that a former colleague at that firm had given a negative review about me (a very petty action related to being upset about my choice to leave) to another employer when I was interviewing. Now I feel it is completely unsafe to ask them for any kind of reference or recommendation.
So much for really pouring myself into the role and trying, even literally to the final minute, to be an exceptional employee for them...
Honestly two weeks notice isn't about the company at all, it's about the people you work alongside (including your boss). The company will do just fine regardless, but your co-workers have to pick up the extra slack.
It is not you who has made the coworkers pick up extra slack via your choice to quit without notice. It is the company that has given them that extra burden by placing you in a situation where the only healthy option was to quit without notice. Thoughtful colleagues will understand that the company is to blame for this kind of thing, not the worker who did not give notice.
In cases when someone was treated well and simply did not give notice for some extrinsic, selfish reason (like being offered a sign-on bonus to start immediately at a new firm or something), it will be pretty obvious to everyone that actually the company had treated them well.
You should probably send emails to people about what's where, etc. Or try not to have loose ends. And I can understand colleagues feeling snubbed without a goodbye, much less a happy hour.
I'm not advocating without notice, but when it happens, around "here," I just don't see much of an impact.
One reflection I have: I wouldn't worry so much about "negative" performance reviews from former colleagues. After all, you did give notice on that job, so that in itself is a a kind of a negative review of their "performance."
Also, you're more than within your rights to ask the HR contact to "confirm dates of service, and my reason for leaving", only. Most anyone would be more than happy to comply with such a request, even if they didn't exactly see eye-to-eye with you while stuck in the same boat with you, job-wise (since hardly anyone particularly likes saying negative things about other people unless they really have to).
Or if you do feel compelled to let them continue to give their negative review -- you can either preface it ("We had a difference of viewpoints about certain things, which is why I left"), -or- provide another colleague from the same shop who viewed you more positively (or whom you can at least trust to not outright badmouth you).
I once had a "negative" review backfire against me once, many years ago. Someone said some stuff about me in a reference call that they never said to me in person while I was there -- so I brought in another co-worker who quit shortly after I did, as a counter-reference. I ended up getting the job, and it was one of my more pleasant working experiences actually.
Recognising and then losing this mindset is so important. Many of my younger friends who have only been employed a few years appear to have fierce loyalty to their employers. So many have sacrificed salary for essentially worthless options. They appear less likely to ask for a raise, assert their rights to reasonable work hours, dissent to a bad work environment.
The best way I have found for avoiding this is reducing the idea of your job into a very simple transaction, taking the view of a consultant. You have problems that need solving and will pay. I will solve those problems for pay. When seen as purely transactional, I believe the individual feels more empowered and avoids the loyalty trap.
Another thing they liked to do was change the schedule after publishing it. But it's my fault for not checking the schedule everyday.
I've quit on the spot once and I think it was ok. I was consulting (paid hourly), had multiple disagreements with my 'boss' (CEO) about major work behaviors (wanted to literally sit behind me while working and watch, critiqued my work despite not being technical and tried to control everything). No loss, had plenty of work elsewhere, wasn't going to use him as a reference.
Other times I've quit from places I've worked at for > 6 months I gave at least 2 weeks notice.
So, use your judgment :)
With or without two weeks of pay? I don't think I'd fire someone without two weeks of pay in lieu of notice, although I suppose if the behaviour were terrible enough it's possible.
I would give warning to my current employer, because I've been here for a long time, they've treated me alright, and I have a lot of knowledge that's important to the business. But I'd see it as a courtesy, not an obligation.
The professional relationships you establish today can be very important in the future. Your coworkers can give you references, help you get hired, or even do the hiring themselves one day. Therefore, it is in your best interest to not be an asshole and leave them hanging by quitting without warning.
There is always ways to make things work when relationships are good.
Most people have little reasons to switch jobs if they are happy.
Lately, I've trended towards not trying to work with people at future jobs I've already worked with as I don't like the pressure of having to live up to whatever expectations they or others have. I'd rather someone have reasonable expectations that I can actually beat and vice versa.
After all, you will have to be able to cover someone if they are sick (typically short time, no notice) - while presumably replacing an employee fully will take longer than two weeks anyway?
Agreed. 2 weeks feels like a number so small it effectively rounds to 0. I am actually unsure of the minimum notice period here (Australia) but I have typically given 1-3 months notice unless there was a very good reason why I needed to leave sooner.
I was under the impression an employer could get in litigation trouble for rescinding a formal job offer that costs the employee significantly (ie moving across country, losing their old job, etc).
At the very least I'd imagine they would get one hell of a glassdoor black mark pulling a stunt like that.
How would that work? Wouldn't that be a breach of a binding contract, or is there usually some kind of exit clause to account for specific circumstances?
What I was getting at, is I had heard somewhere that companies can be liable if they extend a job offer then rescind it causing the employee considerable harm. Sounds like it is a "it depends" type of situation.
So, after all that crap, they want to say a person is doing a disservice to the company to quit without two weeks of extra benefit to the company? Funny stuff. They keep forgetting that capitalism says that everyone, not just business owners, should act in their self interest. Truth told, unless it's a stakeholder-oriented business, then everyone should be giving the company as little as possible. Like the company does them.
Companies that want loyal employees that will make sacrifices for them know what to do. They can go back to old IBM Watson or current, Publix Crenshaw approach of taking care of workers along with incentives for them to improve bottom line. Then, the workers will take care of them and much less likely to disappear in a day. That simple. My money says they won't do it, though. So, ditch them the second you get a better offer much like the CEO or board members would.
As this is the case, I don't think quitting on the spot is an unfair use of the system.
Also, tribunal fees are also quite expensive: £390 for unpaid wages, £1,200 for unfair dismissal.
Further, employers can just make you quit through a series of changes in your job. Constructive dismissal I imagine is quite difficult for the employee to prove.
If someone I work with quits day-of, and there's no obvious signs that it was over an ethical no-go, I'm going to conclude that it's someone I don't want to collaborate with in the future.
If you can't make the effort to spend a week cleaning up loose ends, document your projects, and pass on knowledge to the rest of the team, you are certainly not someone I want to work with in the future -- much less ever consider having as a co-founder. It's just basic professionalism.
Obviously not the case if the employer asked you to do something unethical, but you need to make that clear to the rest of your team if it happened, in order to reasonably retain their respect.
Why would you accept the same case from a company? ("at will employment")
Fuck whatever kind of "professionalism" that is lol I'll keep it movin. Plenty of other people want to work with me :D
Is there any consideration that someone who leaves without notice should perhaps reflect upon the employer, and not only the employee?
Here's the problem, you really don't know the whole situation and making such a determination without data will be problematic. You could be punishing the innocent party. Worse, your former fellow employee might use the same lack of information to conclude that you agreed with the company over perhaps their very valid reasons.
As an example, your fellow employee's health is declining (not obviously to you but that is quite common too), work is keeping them awake (devops is so fun), and then maybe their mother got cancer. A quick meeting and no hope of relief is given, and they quit. Farfetched? No, sadly. They know they can go somewhere that will understand, and where you are isn't it. They're hundreds of these things, and not one will be told to you honestly by an employer.
Years later they get back to a happy place, and you do your "don't want to collaborate". We're in an industry with a lot of introverted people so don't expect them to give some explanation for your approval.
Disrespect should be truly earned and not inferred, or as my Dad taught me: come by your hatreds honestly and with full knowledge of the why.
However, if you feel you are being underpaid, under-appreciated, or asked to do unethical things, why do you owe them anything? Just get out! Maybe if it stings a bit, they'll treat their remaining/future employees a bit better (or go out of business).
Put it this way, if a manager has this happen more than twice, fire him.
Turned around that becomes "You're laying me off, in exchange for higher corporate profits, when I have bills due".
The title reminds me of Bill Burr's sketch about "You should never hit a women".
I though the default was to quit using email the evening you found a better job ?
Maybe its just the Millennial in me talking.
My last job, however, I gave my employer three weeks notice. I cried when I had to tell my boss I had taken a job elsewhere. It wasn't the hardest thing I've ever done, but quitting that job definitely cracks the top five most emotional moments of my life. I'm happy where I am now, but I was happy there too, surrounded by good people and working under a manager I not only respected but admired as a person. I am keenly aware of how rare a thing that is. The only reason I left was because of the company policy that allows people to leave and then come back no questions asked if they left on good standing. I needed to take a personal risk and they actually encourage that.
The point of my anecdotes is: you reap what you sow. Treat people like shit, pay them poorly, humiliate them publicly and they will quit the moment they can with spite instead of hesitation. Show people kindness, pay them what they're worth, and give them chances to learn from their mistakes and you will routinely have people work for you for decades. If more people are quitting without notice then employers need only to look at how they treat people to see why.
it's a bit like the mark twain quote: "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
That said, now in most cases, everything is at-will and neither side really owes the other anything, although it is good to be polite and not burn bridges.
However, at one of my jobs a COO yelled at me in front of everyone over an issue he could've resolved himself by sending out a well written email like I had done.
He thought I should just start tearing code apart to "find" a solution until 12am if that's what it took. I told him that I was not doing anything until I spoke with our vendor and that he will just have to wait until the vendor responds as 24 hours had not even passed since I sent the email. The CTO didn't even defend me. Well the next day it turns out that I had done the write thing and that the COO and friends had changed the admin settings and broke the system. No code needed to be changed like I suspected. They just needed to use the admin settings correctly.
The COO did not even apologize for yelling at me in front of everyone. On top of that he still owes me $400. So yea... Three weeks later I had an offer in hand and a vacation starting the next day that I had already paid for the month prior. What do you think I did? I gave my two weeks notice and hopped on the plane.
I can think of a time when I probably should've quit on the first day. It was right after they told me they use SVN and half of their code base was located in their content management system which was comprised of some messy jsp files some html css and a mountain of horribly written javascript (This javascript had one letter variable names everywhere that were not the result of a build tool and not simply located in for loops). I hated every second of it. Yet, I still managed to work there for a year and I gave a two week notice.
In fact, it largely happens only because it's mandated by law.
If I have loyalty to an organization and I don't want to hurt the people who keeping that organization running, then yeah, I'll give notice but, that is a gift.
No one has ever told me that the company is going to be downsizing in two weeks; an exit interview and an escort out of the building is the only thing I've gotten.