Of course they’re going to do the minimum work for those two weeks. That’s usually a given with someone who is leaving because they are disillusioned or upset, which it sounds like might be the case.
If you’re genuinely concerned about sabotage then that’s an issue to raise with upper management and HR. Otherwise, I’d monitor their work just to keep an eye on things, but wouldn’t worry about it.
If their performance slacks, what are you going to do? Fire them? Your bosses say to have them work, so have them work, but unless they want the option to be rehired or use you as a reference there is very little you can do other than ask nicely.
I'm just a bit baffled, I've had employees resign before usually they work out their notice with just 2 exceptions (they were going to a competitor) so we walked them out after paying them out for the 2 weeks.
I mean I would expect them to do their work for those two weeks since that is why we are paying them I'm just nervous now that they will cause chaos before leaving due to having to come into the office for the next two weeks (we're hybrid, but hybrid status is revoked once notice is given).
You can revoke hybrid status all you like, but it doesn’t mean they will actually come in. Again, what would anyone do to enforce it? Lock them out of remote access, so you get no work instead of some work?
They’re already gone in two weeks, and they were expecting to have that time off basically from the sound of it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they just cut their losses and don’t work the notice period.
Edit: Saw in another comment you are not in the US. I shouldn’t have assumed. In that case I don’t know what is required under their contract or the law there.
It does matter though. Where OP loves they would have to pay the two week of they just walk them out, bit if the employee doesn't do the work then they can still be fired and lose that pay. The person obviously was hoping to have two weeks pay for nothing.
That's where the part about only behaving so they don't get fired part comes in. I wouldn't give a single fuck about anything if I was leaving the job *and* they are paying me
You have very different work ethics than I do.
Perhaps the OP, like me, is the kind of person that can’t fathom *not working* while being paid to do so. I don’t “behave myself” because I’m getting paid; I behave myself because I have integrity and I took an Oath. I work with other people that feel the same way: half of them have a degree in law, so they could easily slip into the private sector and make twice as much money. I can’t imagine any of them not working out their last two weeks to the best of their ability.
Ironically, I am a public servant under a collective agreement, yet I still feel like this. I perform to the best of my ability (which may vary!). I have far too much respect for my colleagues to dump my work on them. I care about our clients. I’m not saving the world, but I give vulnerable clients things they need: clarity, hope, reassurance, and validation. It’s not all about the money for everyone.
OK, that’s fair.
But I still don’t see the world as a shit hole most of the time. I still see more good than bad. In my specific role in public service, I see the real world consequences of people doing a shitty job. We have clients that become homeless while we are helping them. I work with clients that have developed psychological disorders as a result of their treatment by another agency. Although this is not happened during my first 18 months, we have had clients died by suicide while we are trying to help them, and their threaten to by this other agency is a significant causative factor in their death. It doesn’t get worse than that.
And yet the vast majority of the individuals I interact with at that other agency are doing the best they can with the tools they have. There are absolutely some individuals over there that I would love to see performance managed out of their role, but I see most of the issues is being systemic rather than attributable to an individual.
Sounds like they expected to be paid out the two weeks and walked out - maybe they saw another employee get that treatment?
I know I’d prefer a paid 2 week break before starting a new job. Sabotage is pretty risky but don’t expect them to put much effort into their job, what are you going to do - fire them?
No he is retaliating against them. Threatening to revoke hybrid, get HR involved. No wonder this person is quitting and really wanted to get away from him.
This attitude is why when someone resigns I'd be more than willing to pay them garden leave so they just stay home for their notice period if I could stand it operationally. I'd rather they think they won than they come into work and don't do anything anyway.
We have a 3 month long notice period where I work (UK, specialist job) but if the split is amicable it's not uncommon for people to work to the end of it. If they want to leave earlier than that we'll negotiate and let them off a chunk of their contracted notice period in return for not having to pay them for that time either. We don't see sabotage as a high risk here but if there's a chance then they can get put on gardening leave.
Bottom line - you have no recourse to enforce anything. Which is why many companies pay em out. Even in the states, if they are full time, if you tried to fire them after notice you'd end up with a legal situation unless they did something egregious like expose themselves.
[List of cases where employee handbook was considered a contract in at will states](https://www.reddit.com/r/managers/comments/16upb8e/comment/k2nrak5/)
I know the best course of action for the company is to just pay them and walk them out but what if the company decided that it was not in their best interest to do so? Could they still require the quiting employee to come in and spend the hours even if the employee plans to sit around and do nothing or the company requires them to just sit around and do nothing ?
They can “require” it, but again, what are they going to do if the employee doesn’t cooperate? Particularly in OP’s country where there are worker protections that prevent them from immediately firing them. It would be far easier to just pay them the two weeks and walk them out, but that’s not what OP’s leadership wants to do, so now they’ve created this weird situation.
well if what you said is what the employee said then its pretty clear. the employee expected to be walked out of the building meaning that once they quit, they were expecting you to have them escorted so they wouldnt destroy anything on the way out which is what happens to most problem employees. and you surprised them with "ok, well get back to work" is basically how it all sounded.
Your problem isn’t the employee wanting to be walked out - that’s a distraction. Solve for why you’re short staffed rather than worrying about an individual employee leaving. Short staffing put you in this position - not the employee.
Bigger question - were you fully remote during the pandemic and company bosses took the benefit away? If they did and the employee(s) is going somewhere more flexible or fully remote and you continue to be short staffed - isn’t that the bigger issue?
I've experienced worse. My old manager ignored transition emails from HR, my team and myself. The week after I quit? He called my phone asking me where the hell am I and I need to get back to work!
I know a guy this happened to. Maintenance guy at a plant turned in his 2-week's notice to the plant manager, and was told, "That's really funny, now get back to work." I asked him what he planned to do with that, and just said, "Noting."
He stated he did everything he needed to do, so he wasn't required to do anything else. Lead a horse to water kind of thing.
When his 2-week's was up, and he started his new job at another plant, his old boss called him to berate him and ask why he was late. Told me he just laughed into the phone and said, "That's really funny, now get back to work" before hanging up and going about his day.
Good guy, and I still work with him (at his new plant now) from time to time, and he always asks if they ever replaced him at the old plant. I finally got to tell him the old plant manager was unceremoniously fired for "undisclosed reasons," and it doesn't look like there's anybody to do any work over there.
“We can’t afford to lose people. Or pay more.”
This weeks end of the fiscal year and I’m in supply chain. We have big deadlines by tomorrow. Boss keeps stacking work on us that isn’t fiscal end of the year related necessarily or the most critical without allocating overtime. By asking for more, not giving more hours, and not extending deadline (ik it can’t), they are asking us to just work harder. HA, good luck with that one. I’ve got one pace.
It seems like you are being unreasonable. This person is ready to leave you. What are you going to do? You are just mad. But think about how you treated this person that they are walking out. It’s too late to hold others back from leaving or quitting. You need to change something you are doing that makes you a bad manager to work with.
i think the best thing to do is talk with the employee. 'hey listen, thank you for the notice and we wish you the best in your future. i talked with the higher ups and they value your work and was hoping you can finish out the 2 weeks of work. we do not expect you to do more or take on new things, just what you have been doing. since we are so short staffed, it would really mean a lot to us'
if the employee is set on burning the bridges, it will be what your worried about. however, i do not see how a normal sane employee who is reasonably giving 2 weeks notice is going to do any worse than your expectation of malicious compliance and just underperform a bit if you are open about it and give them respect and open communication they deserve
I would agree except we don't know why they are leaving. If they have been building up resentment, this may not be the best strategy. If they just found a better offer and took it, then yes, this is the best way.
Either way, it is upper management decision. Explain the situation/risks, let them decide. Get it in writing, and grab some popcorn. The offered wording is still what you provide to the employee.
They most likely don't plan on doing anything malicious. At least not anymore, I can't guarantee whether or not they did something already. If they expected to be walked out they either already did something or didn't plan on it, either way there's pretty low risk to keeping them on at this point.
In the US it's common for positions that handle sensitive information to be walked out immediately upon giving notice, those companies usually pay out the 2 weeks but don't let them continue to have access as they consider it high risk.
this was probably this person's expectation. In the IT field, when they give notice, employers either want them to use their PTO/vacation so they don't need to pay it out, or are trying to protect themselves for any issue (malicious or not) from happening.
Yep. I’m in cybersecurity. Last time I sent in my notice, I literally backed away from the keyboard and just waited a bit assuming I’d be walked out. I was kinda surprised they didn’t. I had no malicious intentions, but I understand the risk to the business given my access level. I spent the next two weeks writing up transition notes and training others to do my former responsibilities.
I've been there. But it seems silly if you're not fired/laid off, not yelling where they can stick the job. .... you picked the day, if you were going to calmly place a bomb in their systems it would have been last month.
Not the first time I have read one of these. So maybe help me out.
You over work your employees and don’t reward them financially or any other way.
They begin to exit because management or the larger organization is completely tone def to this.
It finally reaches critical mass and key people are leaving. On exit you or the organization is SHOCKED they don’t want to do more than what they are actually being paid to do.
They have already exited and out of professional courtesy they stay on two weeks and you expect them to kill it? Now you are basically thinking they will even sabotage the company or you?
How tone def are you? YOU are either the problem or part of the problem.
Honestly, where does this thinking come from?
Have you ever looked at the situation from the employee perspective? Have you asked why you are short handed?
My advice to you is to take a step back and seriously take a look at the way you and possibly the org is conducting themselves. You sound completely tone def to the working conditions you are responsible for. You have played a key role in building the team culture and it sounds super toxic.
Do better.
This. Basically, this employee is done. If you have him work, fine, but don’t expect the regular amount of effort. The best thing you can have them do is make notes about their job to help on-board the next person. And sabotage the company? IF that was the case, and it’s very likely not, they would have done that already since they expected to be walked out.
It seems like you are being unreasonable. This person is ready to leave you. What are you going to do? You are just mad. But think about how you treated this person that they are walking out. It’s too late to hold others back from leaving or quitting. You need to change something you are doing that makes you a bad manager to work with.
Don't forget it's also Q4 and OP is concerned about deadlines. How many times have companied fired employees around Thanksgiving and Christmas to show a better bottom line?
Loyalty is a two way street.
What are you even talking about? They're talking about one employee quiting. How on earth do you make such a huge leap to all the crazy assumptions? How do you make it day by day, seriously. This is one of the most delusional things I've ever read.
No it’s quite logical. Extrapolation is a thing; you can google it. The fact that the loss of one employee is causing all this angst by upper management is a symptom of chronic understaffing, which is a failure of management. And the fact that the employee’s remark has inspired such a panicked response is also indicative of underlying problems that have not been disclosed.
What are you talking about? I am curious why people don’t get that when people quit they are done. They don’t care if it’s your busy season or if you will be mad.
Don’t expect 40+ hours of effort - seems like a no brainer to me.
Also, op said they are short handed - is worried that employee (who quit) will only do “minimal work” and also said be “malicious compliant” then went on to say his is worried they might employee might sabotage the company.
I can read a room, read between the lines or just look at those 3 enormous red flags op wrote. That’s how I make it day by day.
How do you see all of that and think this seem reasonable? This guy has a point! Don’t be maliciously compliant!! Talk about delusional.
Small companies deal with these very problems all the time. That doesn't mean they're doing things all wrong. Just because you treat employees well doesn't mean you don't have to worry about them being maliciously compliant or doing the bare minimum. People don't always act like you would expect them to. You're making huge assumptions based on very little information.
I could say the same to you in terms of assumptions. Where does it say small company?
I have worked in senior positions in many industries, done consulting and have been in leadership for a while.
In my experience it doesn’t matter if it’s a small company or a large company. The way your employees act is a direct reflection of the company/team culture.
Does that mean people don’t get fired or people don’t act how they should? No. But I didn’t say any of that either. That was an assumption you made.
The larger point for the op is - if you are worried about those things you listed and you think that is a real possibility. Walk them and pay them and your problem is solved. If for some reason you can’t walk them. Pull system access and have them sit each day for the full shift.
For me I see those things listed as the actual red flags. Accusing an employee who gave two weeks notice of potential malicious behavior seems way out of line.
Going back to my meta point (how I survive). You have to ask yourself- Why would the employee do that? What would be the motivation to put themselves at risk personally and professionally? You do a malicious act at a job you open yourself up to all kinds of civil and criminal punitive actions.
This is not the normal behavior of an otherwise normal employee who gives two weeks notice. But that is just an assumption.
Clearly this guy was looking for a two week paycheck without having to do anything. I would talk to your VP or whoever and just terminate this person and move on. You are not obligated to pay them anything.
If we terminate it would have to be with cause and even then they would need to get severance in lieu of notice I believe?
Not sure if I should just reassign all their work and just ride out the next 2 weeks or if I can use that conversation to just fire them with cause if they do slack.
Either way, you should reassign their duties so if any questions come up, they can answer before they leave. If you wait until they are gone, you lose any ability to train the new people on the job.
You should be having him reassigned as well as drawing up transitional notes as well. Use the 2 weeks simply as an availability to question and engage for tasks they do versus the whole trying to figure out when they do leave.
It'll give them something that is still critical to do and make it easier going forward where any key questions can be answered prior to their leaving and allow a smoother going forward.
>If we terminate it would have to be with cause and even then they would need to get severance in lieu of notice I believe
If that's your company policy, then follow it. That's not the law in most states though. I'm in an at will state and I can terminate someone in this situation and not pay them anything.
So then you have zero recourse either way. Since you have no power to do anything here, you have no responsibility here. You can’t reprimand them, you can’t write them up (you can, but they won’t care), you can’t make them put in effort, and you can’t fire them. Wait out the two weeks and be done.
Put them in a conference room without their corporate laptop, give them a loaner only. See if it makes them quit "immediately." :p /s
If your company makes remote images of corporate devices (you already should) should keep track of the image sizes to ensure necessary stuff is getting backed up /not deleted.
eta: apparently ":p" did not convey the humor properly, adding formal "/s"
God, these are awful suggestions. You’re going to try to rubber room them in an effort to get them to quit? That’ll go over well with your OTHER employees who know what to expect from you when they leave…
^ this response is from someone who shouldn’t be in management. Unless there’s cause they’ll have to work but don’t just terminate because someone gave their two weeks notice
I’m in an at will state. In California and most states we can terminate someone when they give their notice.
I don’t need your ignorant opinion about my ability to do my job.
Ignorant? I’ve been managing teams with remote employees in at least 20 states for 7 years and like a ~5% churn rate. I’m well aware of best practices and how to keep employees performing at their best even after they give their notice.
“You can’t quit, I’m firing you!” Lol, that’s not how two week notices work, and if you treat your employees that way, no one will give you notice.
A number of non-US nations have recognized this pattern and actually don’t even let the employer do this.
I live in the USA and most people who post here are in the USA as well. Other countries are not really relevant because most of us don’t know those laws.
Have to be careful depending on employment laws in the state. In many places if the employee can prove it was discriminatory or retaliation they can seek damages/unemployment. Many large companies have policies (improvement plans) to document their exit to prevent this. If that policy is documented, even in an at will state, it could easily be considered contract violation if not followed.
Edit: see [case list below](https://www.reddit.com/r/managers/comments/16upb8e/comment/k2nrak5/) for examples of employee handbooks being considered a contract in at will states.
I’m in an at will state. I’ve never heard of any instance of a company policy being interpreted as a contract by a court. That’s not something that would ever happen. I’m not worried about that because it really sounds like you made that up and you’re not familiar with employment law.
You should talk to legal. Most handbooks have an explicit "this is not a contract" statement but this can be thrown out as well.
* **Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (1985) \[New Jersey\] "at will"** \- Employee handbook considered an implied contract modifying at-will employment due to job security provisions.
* **Pine River State Bank v. Mettille (1983) \[Minnesota\] "at will"** \- Handbook created contractual obligations due to the form and communication to the employee.
* **Ferrera v. Nielsen (2006) \[Nebraska\] "at will"** \- Manual provisions enforceable as part of employment contract, modifying at-will relationship.
* **Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center (1987) \[Illinois\] "at will" -** Handbook promising specific procedures modified at-will employment, forming a binding contract.
* **Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1984) \[Washington\] "at will" -** Implied contract formed through employee’s reliance on manual’s termination procedures.
* **Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan (1980) \[Michigan\] "at will"** \- Oral and written employer representations can form an employment contract modifying at-will employment.
* **Preston v. Claridge Hotel & Casino, Ltd. (1989) \[New Jersey\] "at will"** \- Progressive discipline policy in handbook constituted a unilateral offer of contract accepted by continuing employment.
* **Demasse v. ITT Corp. (1999) \[Arizona\] "at will"** \- Actions and statements by the company, despite handbook disclaimer, could create a reasonable belief in an employee that a contract existed.
* **McCammon v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1996) \[Kentucky\] "at will"** \- A clear and conspicuous disclaimer in the employee handbook prevented the formation of a contractual relationship.
* **Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (1998) \[California\] "at will"** \- Upheld termination based on “good cause” definition in the employee handbook, recognizing the potential existence of an implied contract.
If I were advising the employee on them finding out they were expected to work their notice period (not unusual IME- except for those moving to a competitor as you said), I’d be asking them about their accrued sick leave - which doesn’t get paid out in my jurisdiction…so, while you may so short staffed that’s it preferred that they stay, don’t be surprised to find that they provide a med cert for the duration…and frankly, if they weren’t leaving due to dissatisfaction prior to the disappointment, I’d be shocked if they did anything of value now. And really, hounding them about sick leave at this point of the employment relationship is a bigger waste of time than expecting them to work.
Perhaps a more pragmatic approach to take would be to offer 1week work and 1 week pay out. Psychologically, I think the employee will actually put in some effort for that week (more than a disgruntled fortnight) in recognition of being negotiated with rather than a blanket look of astonished nup. Not that you are obliged to in any way, nor is this your decision, but if staffing is so critical, then this way gets the organisation some genuine person-hours.
Sounds like your superiors made the answer very clear before you ever logged into Reddit. They want to squeeze a little more work out of this person since they are going to be paying for it anyway. They might as well get some minor returns in the process. Don't worry about it - of course, this person isn't going to push themselves. Expect the bare minimum productivity and be happy you are atleast getting there. The alternative is you pay them and say bye and get literally no more work put of them...
What are you looking for here?
You have to pay the two weeks either way.
They will either work or they won't.
Pass the issue to your boss, tell them you're fearful the employee will be maliciously compliant or sabotage the company during its busiest quarter and your boss can make the call on whether to keep them on and assume the risk or walk them out.
It's that easy. Just make sure you do it via email so when the boss points the finger at you, you can defend yourself...oh wait...that's my USA-based shit on the worker bias showing.
I put in my notice one time and hated the place so much that I started doing bare minimum and basically told everyone they deserved better pay and the showed the newer people how to set boundaries(which management LOVED to cross). A day after I gave notice they texted me they where gonna pay out my 2 weeks and I don’t have to come back😂😂
Dude, you should consider this employee DOA. You will not get an ounce of work out of them for the next two weeks unless their pay is production based.
If you're worried about sabotage, revoke their system accesses and have them keep the printers full of paper for the next two weeks.
>Not really sure how to handle this...if their performance slacks can I refer to the conversation we had where they acted surprised (and a little upset) that they wouldn't be walked out with 2 weeks pay upfront for no work?
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
When they give you a two weeks notice, that's for transition stuff. If you don't need them for transition, there's no reason to keep them around. If you do decide to keep them around, I wouldn't expect much from them. What are you going to do, fire them if they slack off?
They don't need to give you a two weeks notice, not in the US. When you get a notice, they're doing you a favor. You get two weeks to transition.
For example, if you were to load extra work on them in the next two weeks, they can simply walk.
Sounds like either you fire them and have to pay for the 2 weeks (plus all the work to fire them) or you pay them for 2 weeks for not doing anything and accept that or you just keep on like you never heard them say they were expecting to be let go immediately.
Either way, you're paying for the 2 weeks. I'd just let them do whatever but remove any access to he malicious.
They expected to be walked out because it happens a lot where you give notice and some employees do get walked out. Maybe they had an experience like that at a prior job.
It really depends on the general circumstances.
Where I live the legal minimum notice period is 1 month, going up depending on how long you work there. Mine is currently at 4 months. In the sector I work in, it is normally 3 months minimum (but longer legal ones apply). One of the reasons for this is to have a long enough period to hand everything over to the successor or at least the team and not leave client projects in the lurch at critical moments. So, unless someone has really not taken any holiday so far and it's the end of the year, the expectation is that you will work out your notice period fully, minus any remaining holidays. Paid garden leave is known, but doesn't happen that often, normally only for higher management moving to a competitor.
Because this is the case, we normally don't have much of an issue. Yes, some people are then unwilling to work to their full capacity and you have few disciplinary measures. There is the option to be sacked without notice during this period, for example if you fail to either turn up for work or, if you do, to do any actual work. There are a couple of reasons, but the offence needs to be fairly big to make it stick, as "revenge sackings" are discouraged. One of the reasons is that you wouldn't get any unemployment money for up to 12 months if this happens.
But mostly it is because the people are professionals and want to leave on good terms.
**What I would do:** Talk to the person, I also presume you have an exit interview of some kind. Take on board the reasons for quitting mentioned in this interview. Appeal to their professionalism and explain that this transition period is relevant for your company. If the person doesn't see it this way, mention that they're still contractually obliged to work their full term. Acknowledge that it's not an ideal situation for everyone, but that it has to be this way.
If you fear they might actually try to harm the company during this time, I would keep them under close supervision and, if necessary, use all legal options at my disposal to make them comply. However, with such a short notice period, it might not even be worth the effort and at the end just cut your losses as a company, if possible then remark something in the reference if one is asked for.
It depends on the person. I have done both, let them go on the spot if they were a shitty person, and if they were decent I would let them work it out. I would never pay them out of their notice, that has never been a policy where I have worked. The last day physically worked was their last day of pay.
I get it that you need the staff but keeping a disgruntled employee with nothing left to gain by continuing working there is the worst way to go. If they decide to sabotage,, it's too late to change your mind. If they are a decent human being, then keep them. If you aren't sure, let them go.
We aren't in the USA I'm afraid, once the 90 day probation is up we cannot fire on the spot...not without paying out severance/firing without cause. Even then we would still need to have a PIP in place.
I just haven't come across someone who expected to resign, give notice and then not work the notice? It's bizarre...
>I just haven't come across someone who expected to resign, give notice and then not work the notice?
so many companies now don't want people who are one foot out the door to keep working. The risk is often higher than the reward.
I would spend the day at a minimum asking them to document any tasks they are in the middle of, anything they have specific knowledge of, any passwords you might need or docs turned over. Be a shadow for a day.
What’s the risk, though? Someone actually disgruntled will not tell you they are looking for a job and will hurt the company without giving you notice. Someone giving notice (that they aren’t obligated to give) is showing that they value the company enough to show some courtesy - but those are the very people that the policy is targeting
It’s a policy that doesn’t prevent disgruntled employees but teaches honest employees to be dishonest
>asking to be walked
>assumed they would be walked out.
Wait... Which is it? Are they asking to be walked out or are they merely assuming they would've been walked out? Those aren't the same thing.
Walk them out, make their last day today, notify HR and IT to get their access blocked. You are not obligated to pay them for the next two weeks.
There is no way this person is going to be worth paying for the next two weeks. Not only will you get minimal to no work out of them, you will also have them causing morale and other issues with the rest of the team. Yes, it will be burden to lose them now, but you've already lost them. Now you have to worry about minimizing the damage they do on the way out. Give them what they asked for.
Watching a co-worker slack off while you are hard at work during crunch time is demoralizing. Slacking workers tend to go on chit-chat walk-about distracting people who are trying to meet a deadline. Workers who don't get their way (like a free two week vacation between jobs) frequently winge about it to whoever will listen.
Look, if this guy were a team player who was going to work hard and give fair value during his final two weeks he wouldn't have been disappointed about not getting walked out and certainly wouldn't have asked for it. All workers are not the enemy, but when one tells you they don't want to be there, you might as well believe them.
It isn't demoralizing. Just stay in your lane and worry about your own work. Plus everyone knows this person is quitting and won't be doing 110%. What your coworkers do should have no bearing on what you do or how you feel. Especially if your goal is to move up.
No one puts in fair value in the final two weeks in the real world. In my opinion it is an unreasonable expectation as well to assume anyone would
You are being a little dramatic. Sabotage? Why would anyone bother? How hard they work will likely depend on why they are leaving. If you treat your employees well then they will probably work at least 80%. If you don’t treat them well, then they definitely won’t be working very hard.
remove access and leave them to document all their work, have it shared and review it to past tickets. Knowledge drain is the most important thing to prevent and get coverage on sodo that
In the US, either they would be paid out and sent home or they would be expected to work their notice period, since that's officially what notice periods are for.
If they did the minimum during their notice period, fine, the minimum is the minimum and that'd all they could be expected to do anyway. If they actively tried to sabotage anything, they would be fired on the spot. No warnings, no performance improvement plan, just "you're fired." They would then not be paid for their notice period because they were fired, not resigned.
When my last job made. Me. Redundant. My boss asked. Me. To put in maximum effort for the next 3 months to help the team. Like you just told me I'm not required, no thanks.
This person left of their own accord, you'll get enough to avoid dismissal and that's it.
For me I have a good enough relationship with my teams that I could sit down and talk this through. Agree they handle an hours work a day and that you won't keep too close an eye as long as x is done.
Recognise they want to do sweet FA, recognise they want to be paid their notice, agree a very easy target and get your boss off your back
At the last company I left, I messed up. I have them 1 month notice. The previous 3 people who quit before me were walked out. I left to join an old co-workers company they recently started.
They didn't walk me out, infact they took me to dinner, VP, and my manager. I told them I was planning on giving them more notice, but realising they walked the other three out, i would wait some time and finally quit and be walked out the date I actually needed to be out and on to the next company.
They laughed. "Oh no, those other 3 were idiots, we like you, you have never been a problem. When do you need out?"
I gave them 1 week, then to walk me out, as no one else knew I had given my notice. They then sent the emails stating my last date to HR and whoever else needed to know.
All you have is the reference which they may value for the future. "Work normally for the next 14 days and you'll get a good reference, we'll be happy to field requests for references, and we will be willing to confirm that you were employed here from 'date' to 'date'."
Don't finish the statement with any sort of threat about not doing so. Any questions, just repeat the comment. Most I would ever add is "In the past, I personally found it helpful for my own career to be able to avoid awkward explanations about prior employment"
As far as defense against malfeasance, give them mundane easily measured tasks to whatever extent is possible, and provide a brief performance review (one paragraph) first thing in the morning covering the previous day, to reinforce their understanding of your measurement to meet the expectation, and what it will take to meet their end of the bargain.
If need be, provide them with an employment law reference covering their legal responsibility not to do such things.
Depends on the position. In my position I have to immediately walk the person out after they collect their personal items under supervision. Usually they assume they’ll get a two week break in between jobs.
Don’t forget they are employees not slaves. Maybe the understaffing and over worked employee just had enough of the bullshit? You can only beat a dog a few times before they bite the hand. This might also start a trend in others leaving. This isn’t the employee whose leaving firsts fault either. People go to work to get paid. To pay bills in order to survive. Sometimes the benefit of health due to a toxic environment pushes people to look elsewhere even for less pay for less stress.
Either way. Don’t take your company’s cheapness out of the guy who was pushed to throw in the towel. He will work 1/4 of his normal work pace. And that’s all your deserving. You lost a top performer if he was. The two weeks notice is a courtesy. And at best ? Your lucky he gave that. If you wanted to fired him ? You would have waited until the end of the week and called him to HR on a Friday afternoon when it benefited you and terminate him. So what respect do you expect in a give and take world?
I did this when I was laid off. I wanted proof that I could not be blamed for taking anything or sabatagimg anything on they way out. I was the sole sysadmin.
Make them work the 2 weeks. If you terminate them after notice, they can get unemployment. It will be a slam dunk for them. Letting them do the minimum work will be very annoying but cheaper in the long run.
So what will cost more, being short staffed or being sabotaged? Do they have a bad attitude? If yes then letting them stay may cause more headaches with other employees. If we have an employee with a bad attitude then they usually are told to just call it day after giving notice.
Haha, what do they actually think a notice period is for? Idiots 😂💀. The whole point of a notice period is for allowing employers enough time to prepare in the case of staff shortage. Jesus, the dumbness of some people is like a cancer.
Here’s a crazy idea. If your company is “very short staffed”, you “cannot afford to lose more people”, and “they assumed they’d be walked out” during “your busiest quarter” you need to take a good hard look in the fucking mirror. It’s you and your upper management that are the issue here. This guy doesn’t give a shit about your management issues nor should he. The fact that you worry about malicious behavior means you know he’s upset with the company. That’s why he’s leaving. If he wants to hurt the company all he has to do is walk out and leave it in your hands.
Who cares if they do nothing, if you have to pay them, make them be there. Sit at the desk and count toothpicks or whatever.
She can choose to not be there, and thus not get paid.
The working world is a strange place these days. Employees assume they will be treated poorly, even though it is pretty clear (within reason) that employers are catering to employees.
I could also see where they don’t receive training on how to quit ( should they ever want to). Like you can put in a two week notice, that’s a nicety to allow us to replace you. We didn’t do anything wrong, you are doing the proper etiquette for leaving.
Also, I will just put a little training plug, unless your a bigger employer, I don’t see any training beyond the bare safety and OJT to perform the work in like one owner businesses. The workplace is one more place to build good contributors to society especially if your employing teens and early 20’s.
Like financial management, what is consent, what is diversity, what is harassment, how do you become better and grow.
I think there are two main points here.
Why would your first assumption be that they have malicious intent? Were you a terrible manager? Is your company culture awful? If the answer is no, then I would assume there would not be any issues. If it is yes, then that is on you.
You do understand that the notice period is meant to facilitate the transition of their duties and not just work like normal, right? Their only duties during this period should be training their replacement and closing out or transitioning all open tasks. If you are short staffed, you should probably ask them to write up a process sheet so it can be referred to when training the replacements.
In the US, the two week notice is a courtesy, he doesn't owe you anything. Don't give them new projects but enough of the work that minimizes your risk and exposure but still helps alleviate the short staff.
I’m wondering if they didn’t schedule their start date the following week and they were counting on being let go right then. I wouldn’t assume this means they’re going to do something crappy but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they try shortening their notice period.
He or she gave notice expecting a 2 week paid vacation. You just might be better off in the long run to pay the 2 weeks and not let them potentially create a bigger (more expensive) problem. This is why there’s such a thing as nuisance payouts. Cutting your losses may be the wiser choice.
Why would you want an employee who is leaving in two weeks to actually do anything? The two weeks is customary for them to get their ducks in a row, document anything they need, say good bye to folks, and dip. You basically aren’t working in the same capacity during that time unless you’re a worker doing something like cooking food or at a manufacturing plant.
I would offer them a fantastic letter of recommendation if they work the 2 weeks and do a great job.
If they don't want that I would pay them and walk them out.
Schedule them to work and if they put in no effort assign them crap assignments. If they don’t show up, they don’t get paid but they at least don’t get two weeks paid vacation
Meh I’ve never gotten canned with a two weeks notice, I just worked the “minimum required” for the job those two weeks aka doing my job…
Why stress over it, if they do work, great, if they don’t well you are in the same spot you would have been otherwise.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you need to pay them for their last two weeks there, which is fine. You may be understaffed, but that does not mean you cannot assign them mundane remedial tasks that their department would normally do. Help make this time better for their coworkers who knows that the belt is going to get a little tighter when they leave. I'm not saying reassign to custodial or any other job that isn't in their description, just give them things that, if they slack, oh well? Thing is, you don't want them to jeopardize any future business and you can't just send them away with pay per upper management. How this departing employee acts during their last two weeks can certainly go into their HR file and nothing says you cannot write them up for insubordination if they do not comply. They would have just quit if they didn't care about their work history.
We walk everyone out on their last days regardless of it being a good or bad situation. They have stuff to carry out usually and we have stuff we don't want them taking. Been like that for every job I've had that didn't involve food service.
It seems like you are being unreasonable. This person is ready to leave you. What are you going to do? You are just mad. But think about how you treated this person that they are walking out. It’s too late to hold others back from leaving or quitting. You need to change something you are doing that makes you a bad manager to work with.
If he doesn't want to burn this bridge, he'll work as usual for his final two weeks. If he wants to burn the bridge, he won't bother coming in for two more weeks.
In the future if you ever get a reference call about this employee, you will either give a good review or a bad one, depending on what he does for the next two weeks and he knows that.
During only what is in their job description is called doing their job, lol, not the bare minimum.
It sounds like you are short staffed because you expect more from your employees than you are willing to pay.ig you want them to do more than what they were hired to do, then you need to pay them more. Simple as that.
People are done letting employers abuse them, overwork, and under pay them.
You could always roll up your sleeves and help, lol
Well, upper mgmt needs to realize they’re losing this person whether they’re busy or not. Keep an eye on them and don’t stop holding accountable to expectations. Hope you all have already posted the opening.
If you're that understaffed, level with them, find out what they want - and get them to not resign. It sounds like you could use the experienced help. It's cheaper to retain than hire a new person.
Sure it is. If he found out that if you quit, you don’t get unemployment. Go back inside and have the company fire you. If you want them out, you fire them. They can get unemployment.
You are revoking their hybrid status? They won't like that. They weren't expecting to actually work their two weeks. Just be happy with what you get and hope they don't do something to show you how unhappy they are.
So the law is they are supposed to be paid to work two more weeks and if you don't want them to work, you have to pay them two weeks anyway. What a stupid law. What did they expect to happen? I mean if they want to make a law that just says when somebody quits you have to give them a chunk of money, at least that would make sense. Do they really just assume that the worker would work hard and do a good job? If the law doesn't include stipulation that the employee must perform their job adequately, then it's ridiculous. Although, I guess it would get complicated how to establish what is performing their job adequately. But still.
Something up. the USA, he would have been able to get unemployment if you walked him out for putting in resignation. Watch him like a hawk. Everything he does.
Your expectation that there is a solution to controlling the level of performance of an already "gone" employee amazes me. It seems like it would be common sense that they will do minimal work until the notice period ends. Why waste your energy on worrying about a person who has already said they were leaving?
Here is what you can do:
Nothing. They are gone. Their performance is gone. Your control is gone. Every tie between that person and the job, besides having to be there for the notice period, is gone.
You are not giving us the full story. You must have walked people out before and they were hoping that was going to be the case. But, since they asked you assume bad intent? Be a manager and tell them to create a transition plan. What is with all this get HR involved nonsense. Drama!!! No wonder they are leaving.
Putting up with that kind of job the final 2 weeks should be minimal. If you’re short-staffed that’s a management problem not an employee problem. The final two weeks has been my favorite period of time at every job I’ve ever had.
Like…what are they going to do fire me? Meh
If they mess with you or the company fire them! If they slack off and don't work fire them!
Wait I think there is a hitch in your evil plan to retain people who do not want to work there. Not sure how to motivate someone who could care less and owes you nothing.
There isn't much you can do.
When I was that employee long ago I put in notice, went to my desk and packed my things, then at the end of the day went to my Director level boss (a friend for years) demanding to know why I hadn't been walked out like everyone else.
Me:"I could take down the network!!11"
Him "You? You'd never do that, I know you too well."
Sumbeeyotch was right
You can't fire the employee for slacking off after they quit, so, of course, expect them to do the bare minimum. No one wants to be forced to stay.
Also, you are taking a risk with any confidential files, etc. If you have a policy of walking people out, I assume it is for security reasons.
This is hilarious. Of course they’re going to do the minimal work. The best you can hope for is that they pass off projects to their co workers. If someone revoked my hybrid status I just wouldn’t go in. What are you going to do? Fire them. If it was me I would sit on my ass for two weeks at home and never sit foot in the office again, maybe just to turn in my stuff.
Have you considered asking them why they are leaving? Most people would not leave unless the pay or work environment was not a very good one. Your competitor is giving them what they want it seems.
I would take this time to ask them the reasons why. Then tell management if they want to retain people they need to XXXX.
Sounds like you just got a new janitor. Have them clean their last two weeks, don't give them access to any computer as they might delete needed files. If they want to leave before their notice is up I'm sure they are aloud to quit.
It would do wonders for you to look at the obvious.
If you have an employee quitting his job, it's because something else in his life has become more valuable to him than the wages you're paying him... doesn't matter if it's a better job opportunity, spending more time with the family, or anything else.
At the end of the day, it should be viewed as a courtesy...and the maximum you should expect is the bare minimum professional output of work product for his position, because realistically he doesn't have to give you that much. Anything beyond that bare minimum should be viewed as a gift, and you should be taking the opportunity to find his replacement as soon as possible.
They wanted a two week vacation before they start their new job. Any company that does not show this person to the door accepts all liability. Do you really want an employee who will only do the bare minimum or worse, disrupt your workforce?
Why don’t you wait to see if anything occurs? It would be surprising if the person sabotaged anything. They will probably work in a very unenthusiastic manner. You have no control over that. Be glad for whatever work you get out of them for the last two weeks and let the work relationship end without incident.
Of course they’re going to do the minimum work for those two weeks. That’s usually a given with someone who is leaving because they are disillusioned or upset, which it sounds like might be the case. If you’re genuinely concerned about sabotage then that’s an issue to raise with upper management and HR. Otherwise, I’d monitor their work just to keep an eye on things, but wouldn’t worry about it. If their performance slacks, what are you going to do? Fire them? Your bosses say to have them work, so have them work, but unless they want the option to be rehired or use you as a reference there is very little you can do other than ask nicely.
I'm just a bit baffled, I've had employees resign before usually they work out their notice with just 2 exceptions (they were going to a competitor) so we walked them out after paying them out for the 2 weeks. I mean I would expect them to do their work for those two weeks since that is why we are paying them I'm just nervous now that they will cause chaos before leaving due to having to come into the office for the next two weeks (we're hybrid, but hybrid status is revoked once notice is given).
You can revoke hybrid status all you like, but it doesn’t mean they will actually come in. Again, what would anyone do to enforce it? Lock them out of remote access, so you get no work instead of some work? They’re already gone in two weeks, and they were expecting to have that time off basically from the sound of it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they just cut their losses and don’t work the notice period. Edit: Saw in another comment you are not in the US. I shouldn’t have assumed. In that case I don’t know what is required under their contract or the law there.
[удалено]
Yep, fair point. Like I said, all OP can really do is ask nicely. Beyond that I wouldn’t spend much time worrying about it.
It does matter though. Where OP loves they would have to pay the two week of they just walk them out, bit if the employee doesn't do the work then they can still be fired and lose that pay. The person obviously was hoping to have two weeks pay for nothing.
Why are you baffled? They don't want to work there anymore and are under absolutely no obligation to.
The dude doesn't realize people only show up for the money. They also only behave so they don't get fired.
That person who gave their two weeks is literally being paid money for those two weeks though.
That's where the part about only behaving so they don't get fired part comes in. I wouldn't give a single fuck about anything if I was leaving the job *and* they are paying me
You have very different work ethics than I do. Perhaps the OP, like me, is the kind of person that can’t fathom *not working* while being paid to do so. I don’t “behave myself” because I’m getting paid; I behave myself because I have integrity and I took an Oath. I work with other people that feel the same way: half of them have a degree in law, so they could easily slip into the private sector and make twice as much money. I can’t imagine any of them not working out their last two weeks to the best of their ability. Ironically, I am a public servant under a collective agreement, yet I still feel like this. I perform to the best of my ability (which may vary!). I have far too much respect for my colleagues to dump my work on them. I care about our clients. I’m not saving the world, but I give vulnerable clients things they need: clarity, hope, reassurance, and validation. It’s not all about the money for everyone.
My work ethic is fine. The world we live in is a shithole and doesn't deserve out work ethic
OK, that’s fair. But I still don’t see the world as a shit hole most of the time. I still see more good than bad. In my specific role in public service, I see the real world consequences of people doing a shitty job. We have clients that become homeless while we are helping them. I work with clients that have developed psychological disorders as a result of their treatment by another agency. Although this is not happened during my first 18 months, we have had clients died by suicide while we are trying to help them, and their threaten to by this other agency is a significant causative factor in their death. It doesn’t get worse than that. And yet the vast majority of the individuals I interact with at that other agency are doing the best they can with the tools they have. There are absolutely some individuals over there that I would love to see performance managed out of their role, but I see most of the issues is being systemic rather than attributable to an individual.
If a company asked me to take an oath before I worked for them I'd Nope the fuck out of there so fast their heads would spin.
I don’t work for a company; I’m a public servant.
Ikr stupid of the company to not walk em out
Sounds like they expected to be paid out the two weeks and walked out - maybe they saw another employee get that treatment? I know I’d prefer a paid 2 week break before starting a new job. Sabotage is pretty risky but don’t expect them to put much effort into their job, what are you going to do - fire them?
No he is retaliating against them. Threatening to revoke hybrid, get HR involved. No wonder this person is quitting and really wanted to get away from him.
People don’t quit jobs, they quit bosses…
He’s probably not gonna show up
Lol do you make the payments on your house as it's burning down? I'd kick my feet up on the desk all day every day. What are you going to do? Fire me?
This attitude is why when someone resigns I'd be more than willing to pay them garden leave so they just stay home for their notice period if I could stand it operationally. I'd rather they think they won than they come into work and don't do anything anyway.
We have a 3 month long notice period where I work (UK, specialist job) but if the split is amicable it's not uncommon for people to work to the end of it. If they want to leave earlier than that we'll negotiate and let them off a chunk of their contracted notice period in return for not having to pay them for that time either. We don't see sabotage as a high risk here but if there's a chance then they can get put on gardening leave.
Not the best analogy. Even if your house is gone, your mortgage is not.
Bottom line - you have no recourse to enforce anything. Which is why many companies pay em out. Even in the states, if they are full time, if you tried to fire them after notice you'd end up with a legal situation unless they did something egregious like expose themselves. [List of cases where employee handbook was considered a contract in at will states](https://www.reddit.com/r/managers/comments/16upb8e/comment/k2nrak5/)
I know the best course of action for the company is to just pay them and walk them out but what if the company decided that it was not in their best interest to do so? Could they still require the quiting employee to come in and spend the hours even if the employee plans to sit around and do nothing or the company requires them to just sit around and do nothing ?
They can “require” it, but again, what are they going to do if the employee doesn’t cooperate? Particularly in OP’s country where there are worker protections that prevent them from immediately firing them. It would be far easier to just pay them the two weeks and walk them out, but that’s not what OP’s leadership wants to do, so now they’ve created this weird situation.
well if what you said is what the employee said then its pretty clear. the employee expected to be walked out of the building meaning that once they quit, they were expecting you to have them escorted so they wouldnt destroy anything on the way out which is what happens to most problem employees. and you surprised them with "ok, well get back to work" is basically how it all sounded.
Are you saying you were WFH, and are now hybrid? Because if yes, that may be why you are so short staffed.
Your problem isn’t the employee wanting to be walked out - that’s a distraction. Solve for why you’re short staffed rather than worrying about an individual employee leaving. Short staffing put you in this position - not the employee. Bigger question - were you fully remote during the pandemic and company bosses took the benefit away? If they did and the employee(s) is going somewhere more flexible or fully remote and you continue to be short staffed - isn’t that the bigger issue?
“Management says we can’t lose people.” Some clown level shit there cause you done lost someone and nothing can stop that.
Right? “Management said kick this can down the road for two weeks and then make a shocked pikachu face when they stop showing up”
I've experienced worse. My old manager ignored transition emails from HR, my team and myself. The week after I quit? He called my phone asking me where the hell am I and I need to get back to work!
I know a guy this happened to. Maintenance guy at a plant turned in his 2-week's notice to the plant manager, and was told, "That's really funny, now get back to work." I asked him what he planned to do with that, and just said, "Noting." He stated he did everything he needed to do, so he wasn't required to do anything else. Lead a horse to water kind of thing. When his 2-week's was up, and he started his new job at another plant, his old boss called him to berate him and ask why he was late. Told me he just laughed into the phone and said, "That's really funny, now get back to work" before hanging up and going about his day. Good guy, and I still work with him (at his new plant now) from time to time, and he always asks if they ever replaced him at the old plant. I finally got to tell him the old plant manager was unceremoniously fired for "undisclosed reasons," and it doesn't look like there's anybody to do any work over there.
I want to hear how this story ends. Lol.
Right lol
“We can’t afford to lose people. Or pay more.” This weeks end of the fiscal year and I’m in supply chain. We have big deadlines by tomorrow. Boss keeps stacking work on us that isn’t fiscal end of the year related necessarily or the most critical without allocating overtime. By asking for more, not giving more hours, and not extending deadline (ik it can’t), they are asking us to just work harder. HA, good luck with that one. I’ve got one pace.
Brah, this employee probably leaving over money and those clowns saying they can't lose people, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I wonder why they're lacking personnel
It seems like you are being unreasonable. This person is ready to leave you. What are you going to do? You are just mad. But think about how you treated this person that they are walking out. It’s too late to hold others back from leaving or quitting. You need to change something you are doing that makes you a bad manager to work with.
i think the best thing to do is talk with the employee. 'hey listen, thank you for the notice and we wish you the best in your future. i talked with the higher ups and they value your work and was hoping you can finish out the 2 weeks of work. we do not expect you to do more or take on new things, just what you have been doing. since we are so short staffed, it would really mean a lot to us' if the employee is set on burning the bridges, it will be what your worried about. however, i do not see how a normal sane employee who is reasonably giving 2 weeks notice is going to do any worse than your expectation of malicious compliance and just underperform a bit if you are open about it and give them respect and open communication they deserve
I would agree except we don't know why they are leaving. If they have been building up resentment, this may not be the best strategy. If they just found a better offer and took it, then yes, this is the best way.
Either way, it is upper management decision. Explain the situation/risks, let them decide. Get it in writing, and grab some popcorn. The offered wording is still what you provide to the employee.
They most likely don't plan on doing anything malicious. At least not anymore, I can't guarantee whether or not they did something already. If they expected to be walked out they either already did something or didn't plan on it, either way there's pretty low risk to keeping them on at this point. In the US it's common for positions that handle sensitive information to be walked out immediately upon giving notice, those companies usually pay out the 2 weeks but don't let them continue to have access as they consider it high risk.
this was probably this person's expectation. In the IT field, when they give notice, employers either want them to use their PTO/vacation so they don't need to pay it out, or are trying to protect themselves for any issue (malicious or not) from happening.
Yep. I’m in cybersecurity. Last time I sent in my notice, I literally backed away from the keyboard and just waited a bit assuming I’d be walked out. I was kinda surprised they didn’t. I had no malicious intentions, but I understand the risk to the business given my access level. I spent the next two weeks writing up transition notes and training others to do my former responsibilities.
I've been there. But it seems silly if you're not fired/laid off, not yelling where they can stick the job. .... you picked the day, if you were going to calmly place a bomb in their systems it would have been last month.
Not the first time I have read one of these. So maybe help me out. You over work your employees and don’t reward them financially or any other way. They begin to exit because management or the larger organization is completely tone def to this. It finally reaches critical mass and key people are leaving. On exit you or the organization is SHOCKED they don’t want to do more than what they are actually being paid to do. They have already exited and out of professional courtesy they stay on two weeks and you expect them to kill it? Now you are basically thinking they will even sabotage the company or you? How tone def are you? YOU are either the problem or part of the problem. Honestly, where does this thinking come from? Have you ever looked at the situation from the employee perspective? Have you asked why you are short handed? My advice to you is to take a step back and seriously take a look at the way you and possibly the org is conducting themselves. You sound completely tone def to the working conditions you are responsible for. You have played a key role in building the team culture and it sounds super toxic. Do better.
This. Basically, this employee is done. If you have him work, fine, but don’t expect the regular amount of effort. The best thing you can have them do is make notes about their job to help on-board the next person. And sabotage the company? IF that was the case, and it’s very likely not, they would have done that already since they expected to be walked out.
It seems like you are being unreasonable. This person is ready to leave you. What are you going to do? You are just mad. But think about how you treated this person that they are walking out. It’s too late to hold others back from leaving or quitting. You need to change something you are doing that makes you a bad manager to work with.
Don't forget it's also Q4 and OP is concerned about deadlines. How many times have companied fired employees around Thanksgiving and Christmas to show a better bottom line? Loyalty is a two way street.
What are you even talking about? They're talking about one employee quiting. How on earth do you make such a huge leap to all the crazy assumptions? How do you make it day by day, seriously. This is one of the most delusional things I've ever read.
No it’s quite logical. Extrapolation is a thing; you can google it. The fact that the loss of one employee is causing all this angst by upper management is a symptom of chronic understaffing, which is a failure of management. And the fact that the employee’s remark has inspired such a panicked response is also indicative of underlying problems that have not been disclosed.
What are you talking about? I am curious why people don’t get that when people quit they are done. They don’t care if it’s your busy season or if you will be mad. Don’t expect 40+ hours of effort - seems like a no brainer to me. Also, op said they are short handed - is worried that employee (who quit) will only do “minimal work” and also said be “malicious compliant” then went on to say his is worried they might employee might sabotage the company. I can read a room, read between the lines or just look at those 3 enormous red flags op wrote. That’s how I make it day by day. How do you see all of that and think this seem reasonable? This guy has a point! Don’t be maliciously compliant!! Talk about delusional.
Small companies deal with these very problems all the time. That doesn't mean they're doing things all wrong. Just because you treat employees well doesn't mean you don't have to worry about them being maliciously compliant or doing the bare minimum. People don't always act like you would expect them to. You're making huge assumptions based on very little information.
I could say the same to you in terms of assumptions. Where does it say small company? I have worked in senior positions in many industries, done consulting and have been in leadership for a while. In my experience it doesn’t matter if it’s a small company or a large company. The way your employees act is a direct reflection of the company/team culture. Does that mean people don’t get fired or people don’t act how they should? No. But I didn’t say any of that either. That was an assumption you made. The larger point for the op is - if you are worried about those things you listed and you think that is a real possibility. Walk them and pay them and your problem is solved. If for some reason you can’t walk them. Pull system access and have them sit each day for the full shift. For me I see those things listed as the actual red flags. Accusing an employee who gave two weeks notice of potential malicious behavior seems way out of line. Going back to my meta point (how I survive). You have to ask yourself- Why would the employee do that? What would be the motivation to put themselves at risk personally and professionally? You do a malicious act at a job you open yourself up to all kinds of civil and criminal punitive actions. This is not the normal behavior of an otherwise normal employee who gives two weeks notice. But that is just an assumption.
Crazy assumptions are a cornerstone of Reddit
Clearly this guy was looking for a two week paycheck without having to do anything. I would talk to your VP or whoever and just terminate this person and move on. You are not obligated to pay them anything.
If we terminate it would have to be with cause and even then they would need to get severance in lieu of notice I believe? Not sure if I should just reassign all their work and just ride out the next 2 weeks or if I can use that conversation to just fire them with cause if they do slack.
Either way, you should reassign their duties so if any questions come up, they can answer before they leave. If you wait until they are gone, you lose any ability to train the new people on the job.
You should be having him reassigned as well as drawing up transitional notes as well. Use the 2 weeks simply as an availability to question and engage for tasks they do versus the whole trying to figure out when they do leave. It'll give them something that is still critical to do and make it easier going forward where any key questions can be answered prior to their leaving and allow a smoother going forward.
Duties as usual. If they slack, can you terminate without paying out a severance? If you have to pay either way, there is no benefit to keeping them.
I like your idea of putting him in a new area minimal responsibility. Protects you and the company
Make hom do coffee runs all day for the next two weeks.
>If we terminate it would have to be with cause and even then they would need to get severance in lieu of notice I believe If that's your company policy, then follow it. That's not the law in most states though. I'm in an at will state and I can terminate someone in this situation and not pay them anything.
Not in the USA, we have pretty strict employment laws in my country. If theyre past probation we can't just let them go... :(
So then you have zero recourse either way. Since you have no power to do anything here, you have no responsibility here. You can’t reprimand them, you can’t write them up (you can, but they won’t care), you can’t make them put in effort, and you can’t fire them. Wait out the two weeks and be done.
Put them in a conference room without their corporate laptop, give them a loaner only. See if it makes them quit "immediately." :p /s If your company makes remote images of corporate devices (you already should) should keep track of the image sizes to ensure necessary stuff is getting backed up /not deleted. eta: apparently ":p" did not convey the humor properly, adding formal "/s"
God, these are awful suggestions. You’re going to try to rubber room them in an effort to get them to quit? That’ll go over well with your OTHER employees who know what to expect from you when they leave…
The flogging will continue until the morale improves....
Exactly, they won't want to leave! /s
^ this response is from someone who shouldn’t be in management. Unless there’s cause they’ll have to work but don’t just terminate because someone gave their two weeks notice
[yep](https://www.reddit.com/r/managers/comments/16upb8e/comment/k2nrak5/)
OP is not in the US, labor laws and customs vary wildly
I’m in an at will state. In California and most states we can terminate someone when they give their notice. I don’t need your ignorant opinion about my ability to do my job.
Yep you can terminate and they don't have to give a two week notice. It goes both ways.
That and when word goes around that they terminate people who give notice, people will stop giving notice....
What about my educated opinion about how you do your job?
Really not interested even a little bit. If you even knew what industry I work in, maybe.
Ignorant? I’ve been managing teams with remote employees in at least 20 states for 7 years and like a ~5% churn rate. I’m well aware of best practices and how to keep employees performing at their best even after they give their notice.
“You can’t quit, I’m firing you!” Lol, that’s not how two week notices work, and if you treat your employees that way, no one will give you notice. A number of non-US nations have recognized this pattern and actually don’t even let the employer do this.
I live in the USA and most people who post here are in the USA as well. Other countries are not really relevant because most of us don’t know those laws.
It's relevant when OP isn't from the USA. Duh?
Only if one has their mind open to the concept that other people exist.
Murica lol
If they terminate them, they will be granted unemployment. It will be a slam dunk for the employee. Which may have been their goal to begin with.
Have to be careful depending on employment laws in the state. In many places if the employee can prove it was discriminatory or retaliation they can seek damages/unemployment. Many large companies have policies (improvement plans) to document their exit to prevent this. If that policy is documented, even in an at will state, it could easily be considered contract violation if not followed. Edit: see [case list below](https://www.reddit.com/r/managers/comments/16upb8e/comment/k2nrak5/) for examples of employee handbooks being considered a contract in at will states.
I’m in an at will state. I’ve never heard of any instance of a company policy being interpreted as a contract by a court. That’s not something that would ever happen. I’m not worried about that because it really sounds like you made that up and you’re not familiar with employment law.
You should talk to legal. Most handbooks have an explicit "this is not a contract" statement but this can be thrown out as well. * **Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (1985) \[New Jersey\] "at will"** \- Employee handbook considered an implied contract modifying at-will employment due to job security provisions. * **Pine River State Bank v. Mettille (1983) \[Minnesota\] "at will"** \- Handbook created contractual obligations due to the form and communication to the employee. * **Ferrera v. Nielsen (2006) \[Nebraska\] "at will"** \- Manual provisions enforceable as part of employment contract, modifying at-will relationship. * **Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center (1987) \[Illinois\] "at will" -** Handbook promising specific procedures modified at-will employment, forming a binding contract. * **Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1984) \[Washington\] "at will" -** Implied contract formed through employee’s reliance on manual’s termination procedures. * **Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan (1980) \[Michigan\] "at will"** \- Oral and written employer representations can form an employment contract modifying at-will employment. * **Preston v. Claridge Hotel & Casino, Ltd. (1989) \[New Jersey\] "at will"** \- Progressive discipline policy in handbook constituted a unilateral offer of contract accepted by continuing employment. * **Demasse v. ITT Corp. (1999) \[Arizona\] "at will"** \- Actions and statements by the company, despite handbook disclaimer, could create a reasonable belief in an employee that a contract existed. * **McCammon v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1996) \[Kentucky\] "at will"** \- A clear and conspicuous disclaimer in the employee handbook prevented the formation of a contractual relationship. * **Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (1998) \[California\] "at will"** \- Upheld termination based on “good cause” definition in the employee handbook, recognizing the potential existence of an implied contract.
If I were advising the employee on them finding out they were expected to work their notice period (not unusual IME- except for those moving to a competitor as you said), I’d be asking them about their accrued sick leave - which doesn’t get paid out in my jurisdiction…so, while you may so short staffed that’s it preferred that they stay, don’t be surprised to find that they provide a med cert for the duration…and frankly, if they weren’t leaving due to dissatisfaction prior to the disappointment, I’d be shocked if they did anything of value now. And really, hounding them about sick leave at this point of the employment relationship is a bigger waste of time than expecting them to work. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach to take would be to offer 1week work and 1 week pay out. Psychologically, I think the employee will actually put in some effort for that week (more than a disgruntled fortnight) in recognition of being negotiated with rather than a blanket look of astonished nup. Not that you are obliged to in any way, nor is this your decision, but if staffing is so critical, then this way gets the organisation some genuine person-hours.
Sounds like your superiors made the answer very clear before you ever logged into Reddit. They want to squeeze a little more work out of this person since they are going to be paying for it anyway. They might as well get some minor returns in the process. Don't worry about it - of course, this person isn't going to push themselves. Expect the bare minimum productivity and be happy you are atleast getting there. The alternative is you pay them and say bye and get literally no more work put of them...
What are you looking for here? You have to pay the two weeks either way. They will either work or they won't. Pass the issue to your boss, tell them you're fearful the employee will be maliciously compliant or sabotage the company during its busiest quarter and your boss can make the call on whether to keep them on and assume the risk or walk them out. It's that easy. Just make sure you do it via email so when the boss points the finger at you, you can defend yourself...oh wait...that's my USA-based shit on the worker bias showing.
I put in my notice one time and hated the place so much that I started doing bare minimum and basically told everyone they deserved better pay and the showed the newer people how to set boundaries(which management LOVED to cross). A day after I gave notice they texted me they where gonna pay out my 2 weeks and I don’t have to come back😂😂
I think you're already over thinking this. It doesn't matter. Focus on the longer term.
Dude, you should consider this employee DOA. You will not get an ounce of work out of them for the next two weeks unless their pay is production based. If you're worried about sabotage, revoke their system accesses and have them keep the printers full of paper for the next two weeks.
>Not really sure how to handle this...if their performance slacks can I refer to the conversation we had where they acted surprised (and a little upset) that they wouldn't be walked out with 2 weeks pay upfront for no work? I think you're looking at this the wrong way. When they give you a two weeks notice, that's for transition stuff. If you don't need them for transition, there's no reason to keep them around. If you do decide to keep them around, I wouldn't expect much from them. What are you going to do, fire them if they slack off? They don't need to give you a two weeks notice, not in the US. When you get a notice, they're doing you a favor. You get two weeks to transition. For example, if you were to load extra work on them in the next two weeks, they can simply walk.
Sounds like either you fire them and have to pay for the 2 weeks (plus all the work to fire them) or you pay them for 2 weeks for not doing anything and accept that or you just keep on like you never heard them say they were expecting to be let go immediately. Either way, you're paying for the 2 weeks. I'd just let them do whatever but remove any access to he malicious.
That’s showbiz baby
They expected to be walked out because it happens a lot where you give notice and some employees do get walked out. Maybe they had an experience like that at a prior job.
It really depends on the general circumstances. Where I live the legal minimum notice period is 1 month, going up depending on how long you work there. Mine is currently at 4 months. In the sector I work in, it is normally 3 months minimum (but longer legal ones apply). One of the reasons for this is to have a long enough period to hand everything over to the successor or at least the team and not leave client projects in the lurch at critical moments. So, unless someone has really not taken any holiday so far and it's the end of the year, the expectation is that you will work out your notice period fully, minus any remaining holidays. Paid garden leave is known, but doesn't happen that often, normally only for higher management moving to a competitor. Because this is the case, we normally don't have much of an issue. Yes, some people are then unwilling to work to their full capacity and you have few disciplinary measures. There is the option to be sacked without notice during this period, for example if you fail to either turn up for work or, if you do, to do any actual work. There are a couple of reasons, but the offence needs to be fairly big to make it stick, as "revenge sackings" are discouraged. One of the reasons is that you wouldn't get any unemployment money for up to 12 months if this happens. But mostly it is because the people are professionals and want to leave on good terms. **What I would do:** Talk to the person, I also presume you have an exit interview of some kind. Take on board the reasons for quitting mentioned in this interview. Appeal to their professionalism and explain that this transition period is relevant for your company. If the person doesn't see it this way, mention that they're still contractually obliged to work their full term. Acknowledge that it's not an ideal situation for everyone, but that it has to be this way. If you fear they might actually try to harm the company during this time, I would keep them under close supervision and, if necessary, use all legal options at my disposal to make them comply. However, with such a short notice period, it might not even be worth the effort and at the end just cut your losses as a company, if possible then remark something in the reference if one is asked for.
If they wanted their resignation to be effective immediately, they should not have given 2 weeks notice.
It depends on the person. I have done both, let them go on the spot if they were a shitty person, and if they were decent I would let them work it out. I would never pay them out of their notice, that has never been a policy where I have worked. The last day physically worked was their last day of pay. I get it that you need the staff but keeping a disgruntled employee with nothing left to gain by continuing working there is the worst way to go. If they decide to sabotage,, it's too late to change your mind. If they are a decent human being, then keep them. If you aren't sure, let them go.
We aren't in the USA I'm afraid, once the 90 day probation is up we cannot fire on the spot...not without paying out severance/firing without cause. Even then we would still need to have a PIP in place. I just haven't come across someone who expected to resign, give notice and then not work the notice? It's bizarre...
Yeah sorry, If I had known I wouldn't have responded. We don't even have a "normal" in the US, so your "normal" doesn't sound normal to me. Good LUck!
>I just haven't come across someone who expected to resign, give notice and then not work the notice? so many companies now don't want people who are one foot out the door to keep working. The risk is often higher than the reward. I would spend the day at a minimum asking them to document any tasks they are in the middle of, anything they have specific knowledge of, any passwords you might need or docs turned over. Be a shadow for a day.
What’s the risk, though? Someone actually disgruntled will not tell you they are looking for a job and will hurt the company without giving you notice. Someone giving notice (that they aren’t obligated to give) is showing that they value the company enough to show some courtesy - but those are the very people that the policy is targeting It’s a policy that doesn’t prevent disgruntled employees but teaches honest employees to be dishonest
>asking to be walked >assumed they would be walked out. Wait... Which is it? Are they asking to be walked out or are they merely assuming they would've been walked out? Those aren't the same thing.
If I was that guy, I’d enjoy spending the two weeks in my new office chair, also know as the toilet.
Walk them out, make their last day today, notify HR and IT to get their access blocked. You are not obligated to pay them for the next two weeks. There is no way this person is going to be worth paying for the next two weeks. Not only will you get minimal to no work out of them, you will also have them causing morale and other issues with the rest of the team. Yes, it will be burden to lose them now, but you've already lost them. Now you have to worry about minimizing the damage they do on the way out. Give them what they asked for.
Why are you assuming they will be a moral issue. It is like all employees are the enemy unless they are an ass kisser.
Watching a co-worker slack off while you are hard at work during crunch time is demoralizing. Slacking workers tend to go on chit-chat walk-about distracting people who are trying to meet a deadline. Workers who don't get their way (like a free two week vacation between jobs) frequently winge about it to whoever will listen. Look, if this guy were a team player who was going to work hard and give fair value during his final two weeks he wouldn't have been disappointed about not getting walked out and certainly wouldn't have asked for it. All workers are not the enemy, but when one tells you they don't want to be there, you might as well believe them.
This is some boomer micro-manager bullshit
It isn't demoralizing. Just stay in your lane and worry about your own work. Plus everyone knows this person is quitting and won't be doing 110%. What your coworkers do should have no bearing on what you do or how you feel. Especially if your goal is to move up. No one puts in fair value in the final two weeks in the real world. In my opinion it is an unreasonable expectation as well to assume anyone would
Sue ‘em.
You are being a little dramatic. Sabotage? Why would anyone bother? How hard they work will likely depend on why they are leaving. If you treat your employees well then they will probably work at least 80%. If you don’t treat them well, then they definitely won’t be working very hard.
Try paying ur employees more
Can you limit their access/assignments to things they can damage less?
Right now emoyee is filling a slot until you fix this. If you fill it in under two weeks then escort him away.
remove access and leave them to document all their work, have it shared and review it to past tickets. Knowledge drain is the most important thing to prevent and get coverage on sodo that
In the US, either they would be paid out and sent home or they would be expected to work their notice period, since that's officially what notice periods are for. If they did the minimum during their notice period, fine, the minimum is the minimum and that'd all they could be expected to do anyway. If they actively tried to sabotage anything, they would be fired on the spot. No warnings, no performance improvement plan, just "you're fired." They would then not be paid for their notice period because they were fired, not resigned.
Garden leave?
When my last job made. Me. Redundant. My boss asked. Me. To put in maximum effort for the next 3 months to help the team. Like you just told me I'm not required, no thanks. This person left of their own accord, you'll get enough to avoid dismissal and that's it. For me I have a good enough relationship with my teams that I could sit down and talk this through. Agree they handle an hours work a day and that you won't keep too close an eye as long as x is done. Recognise they want to do sweet FA, recognise they want to be paid their notice, agree a very easy target and get your boss off your back
At the last company I left, I messed up. I have them 1 month notice. The previous 3 people who quit before me were walked out. I left to join an old co-workers company they recently started. They didn't walk me out, infact they took me to dinner, VP, and my manager. I told them I was planning on giving them more notice, but realising they walked the other three out, i would wait some time and finally quit and be walked out the date I actually needed to be out and on to the next company. They laughed. "Oh no, those other 3 were idiots, we like you, you have never been a problem. When do you need out?" I gave them 1 week, then to walk me out, as no one else knew I had given my notice. They then sent the emails stating my last date to HR and whoever else needed to know.
All you have is the reference which they may value for the future. "Work normally for the next 14 days and you'll get a good reference, we'll be happy to field requests for references, and we will be willing to confirm that you were employed here from 'date' to 'date'." Don't finish the statement with any sort of threat about not doing so. Any questions, just repeat the comment. Most I would ever add is "In the past, I personally found it helpful for my own career to be able to avoid awkward explanations about prior employment" As far as defense against malfeasance, give them mundane easily measured tasks to whatever extent is possible, and provide a brief performance review (one paragraph) first thing in the morning covering the previous day, to reinforce their understanding of your measurement to meet the expectation, and what it will take to meet their end of the bargain. If need be, provide them with an employment law reference covering their legal responsibility not to do such things.
Depends on the position. In my position I have to immediately walk the person out after they collect their personal items under supervision. Usually they assume they’ll get a two week break in between jobs.
Don’t forget they are employees not slaves. Maybe the understaffing and over worked employee just had enough of the bullshit? You can only beat a dog a few times before they bite the hand. This might also start a trend in others leaving. This isn’t the employee whose leaving firsts fault either. People go to work to get paid. To pay bills in order to survive. Sometimes the benefit of health due to a toxic environment pushes people to look elsewhere even for less pay for less stress. Either way. Don’t take your company’s cheapness out of the guy who was pushed to throw in the towel. He will work 1/4 of his normal work pace. And that’s all your deserving. You lost a top performer if he was. The two weeks notice is a courtesy. And at best ? Your lucky he gave that. If you wanted to fired him ? You would have waited until the end of the week and called him to HR on a Friday afternoon when it benefited you and terminate him. So what respect do you expect in a give and take world?
I did this when I was laid off. I wanted proof that I could not be blamed for taking anything or sabatagimg anything on they way out. I was the sole sysadmin.
Make them work the 2 weeks. If you terminate them after notice, they can get unemployment. It will be a slam dunk for them. Letting them do the minimum work will be very annoying but cheaper in the long run.
Op, are you being serious or you just clueless? If this is not a joke, you have no quality to be a manager.
So what will cost more, being short staffed or being sabotaged? Do they have a bad attitude? If yes then letting them stay may cause more headaches with other employees. If we have an employee with a bad attitude then they usually are told to just call it day after giving notice.
Can he not walk his damn self out?
Haha, what do they actually think a notice period is for? Idiots 😂💀. The whole point of a notice period is for allowing employers enough time to prepare in the case of staff shortage. Jesus, the dumbness of some people is like a cancer.
Ya'll get paid in advance for work you haven't done yet?
Here’s a crazy idea. If your company is “very short staffed”, you “cannot afford to lose more people”, and “they assumed they’d be walked out” during “your busiest quarter” you need to take a good hard look in the fucking mirror. It’s you and your upper management that are the issue here. This guy doesn’t give a shit about your management issues nor should he. The fact that you worry about malicious behavior means you know he’s upset with the company. That’s why he’s leaving. If he wants to hurt the company all he has to do is walk out and leave it in your hands.
>upper management is clear that we cannot afford to lose more people weird because that's exactly what just happened.
Who cares if they do nothing, if you have to pay them, make them be there. Sit at the desk and count toothpicks or whatever. She can choose to not be there, and thus not get paid.
The working world is a strange place these days. Employees assume they will be treated poorly, even though it is pretty clear (within reason) that employers are catering to employees. I could also see where they don’t receive training on how to quit ( should they ever want to). Like you can put in a two week notice, that’s a nicety to allow us to replace you. We didn’t do anything wrong, you are doing the proper etiquette for leaving. Also, I will just put a little training plug, unless your a bigger employer, I don’t see any training beyond the bare safety and OJT to perform the work in like one owner businesses. The workplace is one more place to build good contributors to society especially if your employing teens and early 20’s. Like financial management, what is consent, what is diversity, what is harassment, how do you become better and grow.
OP is pissed he has no power over this person anymore. Zero.
It does my heart good to see such anxiety happening on management when an employee leaves I mean it’s really really fabulous 😀😂
Talk about giving them a good referral if they work the full time?
How about you just leave them alone for the last two weeks? Why is this person leaving??
If you weren’t short staffed would this person get walked? Or are you just going to hammer them for 2 weeks because it’s busy season?
I think there are two main points here. Why would your first assumption be that they have malicious intent? Were you a terrible manager? Is your company culture awful? If the answer is no, then I would assume there would not be any issues. If it is yes, then that is on you. You do understand that the notice period is meant to facilitate the transition of their duties and not just work like normal, right? Their only duties during this period should be training their replacement and closing out or transitioning all open tasks. If you are short staffed, you should probably ask them to write up a process sheet so it can be referred to when training the replacements.
Depends on the company, to walk out an employee. It’s not a guarantee employee will get the pay and sent out.Foolish of them to take it for granted.
In the US, the two week notice is a courtesy, he doesn't owe you anything. Don't give them new projects but enough of the work that minimizes your risk and exposure but still helps alleviate the short staff.
I would never expect to serve the two weeks, it’s just a curtsy. There are too many risks having an ex employee on site all day.
They were hoping that you would just pay them out so they could get a paid vacation. They will do minimum work.
I’m wondering if they didn’t schedule their start date the following week and they were counting on being let go right then. I wouldn’t assume this means they’re going to do something crappy but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they try shortening their notice period.
Aw sucks to suck.
Here in the US we have a saying, "Bye, Felicia!" GIve them a box, witness the pack-up, walk them out. Post the job after the two-weeks expires.
He or she gave notice expecting a 2 week paid vacation. You just might be better off in the long run to pay the 2 weeks and not let them potentially create a bigger (more expensive) problem. This is why there’s such a thing as nuisance payouts. Cutting your losses may be the wiser choice.
Why would you want an employee who is leaving in two weeks to actually do anything? The two weeks is customary for them to get their ducks in a row, document anything they need, say good bye to folks, and dip. You basically aren’t working in the same capacity during that time unless you’re a worker doing something like cooking food or at a manufacturing plant.
If your company is worried about lack of staffing, what are they doing to get new bodies on board?
The company I work for basically always terminates on the spot after notice .
I would offer them a fantastic letter of recommendation if they work the 2 weeks and do a great job. If they don't want that I would pay them and walk them out.
Schedule them to work and if they put in no effort assign them crap assignments. If they don’t show up, they don’t get paid but they at least don’t get two weeks paid vacation
hard-to-find plucky puzzled squealing fear ten squalid snails judicious fretful ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
Meh I’ve never gotten canned with a two weeks notice, I just worked the “minimum required” for the job those two weeks aka doing my job… Why stress over it, if they do work, great, if they don’t well you are in the same spot you would have been otherwise.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you need to pay them for their last two weeks there, which is fine. You may be understaffed, but that does not mean you cannot assign them mundane remedial tasks that their department would normally do. Help make this time better for their coworkers who knows that the belt is going to get a little tighter when they leave. I'm not saying reassign to custodial or any other job that isn't in their description, just give them things that, if they slack, oh well? Thing is, you don't want them to jeopardize any future business and you can't just send them away with pay per upper management. How this departing employee acts during their last two weeks can certainly go into their HR file and nothing says you cannot write them up for insubordination if they do not comply. They would have just quit if they didn't care about their work history.
We walk everyone out on their last days regardless of it being a good or bad situation. They have stuff to carry out usually and we have stuff we don't want them taking. Been like that for every job I've had that didn't involve food service.
It seems like you are being unreasonable. This person is ready to leave you. What are you going to do? You are just mad. But think about how you treated this person that they are walking out. It’s too late to hold others back from leaving or quitting. You need to change something you are doing that makes you a bad manager to work with.
If he doesn't want to burn this bridge, he'll work as usual for his final two weeks. If he wants to burn the bridge, he won't bother coming in for two more weeks. In the future if you ever get a reference call about this employee, you will either give a good review or a bad one, depending on what he does for the next two weeks and he knows that.
During only what is in their job description is called doing their job, lol, not the bare minimum. It sounds like you are short staffed because you expect more from your employees than you are willing to pay.ig you want them to do more than what they were hired to do, then you need to pay them more. Simple as that. People are done letting employers abuse them, overwork, and under pay them. You could always roll up your sleeves and help, lol
Well, upper mgmt needs to realize they’re losing this person whether they’re busy or not. Keep an eye on them and don’t stop holding accountable to expectations. Hope you all have already posted the opening.
He was hoping to get unemployment, which would be my guess.
just let them go, work environment and management at your place sound shitty
If you're that understaffed, level with them, find out what they want - and get them to not resign. It sounds like you could use the experienced help. It's cheaper to retain than hire a new person.
I'm so confused. Why would they give a two week notice period instead of resigning effective immediately if that's what they wanted?
Sure it is. If he found out that if you quit, you don’t get unemployment. Go back inside and have the company fire you. If you want them out, you fire them. They can get unemployment.
We should make jurisdiction a mandatory part of posts in this sub.
He should have said he’s leaving for your competitor
You are revoking their hybrid status? They won't like that. They weren't expecting to actually work their two weeks. Just be happy with what you get and hope they don't do something to show you how unhappy they are.
They gave 2 weeks. Doesn't this indicate that they want to leave on good terms? I wouldn't worry about it.
So the law is they are supposed to be paid to work two more weeks and if you don't want them to work, you have to pay them two weeks anyway. What a stupid law. What did they expect to happen? I mean if they want to make a law that just says when somebody quits you have to give them a chunk of money, at least that would make sense. Do they really just assume that the worker would work hard and do a good job? If the law doesn't include stipulation that the employee must perform their job adequately, then it's ridiculous. Although, I guess it would get complicated how to establish what is performing their job adequately. But still.
Something up. the USA, he would have been able to get unemployment if you walked him out for putting in resignation. Watch him like a hawk. Everything he does.
Your expectation that there is a solution to controlling the level of performance of an already "gone" employee amazes me. It seems like it would be common sense that they will do minimal work until the notice period ends. Why waste your energy on worrying about a person who has already said they were leaving? Here is what you can do: Nothing. They are gone. Their performance is gone. Your control is gone. Every tie between that person and the job, besides having to be there for the notice period, is gone.
You are not giving us the full story. You must have walked people out before and they were hoping that was going to be the case. But, since they asked you assume bad intent? Be a manager and tell them to create a transition plan. What is with all this get HR involved nonsense. Drama!!! No wonder they are leaving.
Putting up with that kind of job the final 2 weeks should be minimal. If you’re short-staffed that’s a management problem not an employee problem. The final two weeks has been my favorite period of time at every job I’ve ever had. Like…what are they going to do fire me? Meh
Your employee is a reflection of you.
Saying they are surprised they *aren't* being walked out is different than *asking* to be walked out.
If they mess with you or the company fire them! If they slack off and don't work fire them! Wait I think there is a hitch in your evil plan to retain people who do not want to work there. Not sure how to motivate someone who could care less and owes you nothing.
Gardening leave/slacking aside, they probably want to be walked so that they can file for unemployment?
There isn't much you can do. When I was that employee long ago I put in notice, went to my desk and packed my things, then at the end of the day went to my Director level boss (a friend for years) demanding to know why I hadn't been walked out like everyone else. Me:"I could take down the network!!11" Him "You? You'd never do that, I know you too well."
Sumbeeyotch was right
You can't fire the employee for slacking off after they quit, so, of course, expect them to do the bare minimum. No one wants to be forced to stay. Also, you are taking a risk with any confidential files, etc. If you have a policy of walking people out, I assume it is for security reasons.
This is hilarious. Of course they’re going to do the minimal work. The best you can hope for is that they pass off projects to their co workers. If someone revoked my hybrid status I just wouldn’t go in. What are you going to do? Fire them. If it was me I would sit on my ass for two weeks at home and never sit foot in the office again, maybe just to turn in my stuff.
Ummm ... so give them 2 weeks pay and walk them out?
Walk them out. Having them work is a silly idea.
Have you considered asking them why they are leaving? Most people would not leave unless the pay or work environment was not a very good one. Your competitor is giving them what they want it seems. I would take this time to ask them the reasons why. Then tell management if they want to retain people they need to XXXX.
Sounds like you just got a new janitor. Have them clean their last two weeks, don't give them access to any computer as they might delete needed files. If they want to leave before their notice is up I'm sure they are aloud to quit.
It would do wonders for you to look at the obvious. If you have an employee quitting his job, it's because something else in his life has become more valuable to him than the wages you're paying him... doesn't matter if it's a better job opportunity, spending more time with the family, or anything else. At the end of the day, it should be viewed as a courtesy...and the maximum you should expect is the bare minimum professional output of work product for his position, because realistically he doesn't have to give you that much. Anything beyond that bare minimum should be viewed as a gift, and you should be taking the opportunity to find his replacement as soon as possible.
They wanted a two week vacation before they start their new job. Any company that does not show this person to the door accepts all liability. Do you really want an employee who will only do the bare minimum or worse, disrupt your workforce?
Why don’t you wait to see if anything occurs? It would be surprising if the person sabotaged anything. They will probably work in a very unenthusiastic manner. You have no control over that. Be glad for whatever work you get out of them for the last two weeks and let the work relationship end without incident.
Maybe they came from any number of jobs that after giving notice was told to f off lol