←back to thread

975 points namukang | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.97s | source
Show context
NooneAtAll3 ◴[] No.43678094[source]
my take on this is that "2 week notice" should probably apply to businesses as well?
replies(6): >>43678134 #>>43678204 #>>43678234 #>>43679400 #>>43684640 #>>43685450 #
grandempire ◴[] No.43678204[source]
For what? He’s probably getting fantastic severance so his time is best spent on the next thing. The employer isn’t going to get more work - it’s not wise or safe to let layed off individuals roam around the office.
replies(1): >>43678592 #
iainmerrick ◴[] No.43678592[source]
it’s not wise or safe to let layed off individuals roam around the office.

I don’t really buy this. I take it you’re worried about vengeful ex-employees abusing their access privileges to break stuff on the way out?

It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Probably some people would feel vengeful if you do shitty things to them like removing all their access and firing them with no notice whatsoever.

Bad employees can already break stuff while they’re employed. They might feel more inclined to do stuff like that if there are chilling effects that build distrust in the work environment, like jump-scare layoffs.

Conversely, if people are getting “fantastic severance” and you treat them with dignity on the way out, aren’t both they and the people who remain more likely to feel more positively inclined?

replies(2): >>43678769 #>>43678795 #
1. codr7 ◴[] No.43678769[source]
Agreed, the explanation for why this is standard procedure never made much sense to me.

I just know it feels really shitty on the receiving end.

replies(1): >>43678823 #
2. grandempire ◴[] No.43678823[source]
So you’ve heard the risks. What would be the benefit? And why would it outweigh those risks?