Why should people have to give 2 weeks notice when they quit?

[Reckoner]

I never really understood why this became a mainstream ideal. If a company can save a penny by knocking you to the curb, they'll do it without a second thought. But this same company believes their employees should give them 2 weeks to get their contingency plan together?

Am I looking at this the wrong way?

 

[Ktulu]

I'm with you. They don't care about your living situation, so why should you care about theirs.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Just because they can screw you doesn't mean you should screw them. Two wrongs don't make a right as they say.

 

[mzkhadir]

Burning bridges is not a good way to get and keep references

 

[Specop 007]

I wouldnt. I give them the same courtesy they give me.
They pay me, I work. If at such time someone else will pay me more to work I will leave at that time, much like they will quit paying me when they no longer need my services.

 

[BKLounger]

It is a good question we always think ok i have to give them 2 weeks or in some cases more so they can train my replacement but they fire people on a minutes notice and replace you with someone who knows nothing about your job to take your place anyways.

 

[tvbi]

if you don't need to for reference later.. give them a 2 minute notice.

 

[krunchykrome]

If you want a good future reference, it's best to give two weeks. If you don't care about the reference or you don't plan on using it, forget about a two weeks notice.

 

[acemcmac]

AFAIK, they have to give you some kind of notice too... don't they?

 

[FoBoT]

i don't really get all that either

at-will employment seems not so good for both parties, but i guess companies prefer it for the flexibility

 

[Patt]

I don't know about the States, but in Canada they are legally required to give me 2 weeks ... if they don't, I get paid it anyway, so I figure it is an even playing field.

 

[Glavinsolo]

If you quit, it is the window of time for them to find a replacement to do whatever job it is you do. Obviously you have a position at a company, that position was created (whether there are 20 of those positions doing the same work) because the company is more efficient and makes more money when someone works that position for whatever pay. So your idea of them saving money by kicking you to the curb is incorrect since they will lose money by not being as efficient.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Where i work they pay you for two-weeks if they let you go (lay off as oppesed to getting fired for not doing your job). also when you give two weeks here, they just pay you for 2 weeks and tell you to go ahead and leave right then. guess they don't want employees who are leaving soon to be handling large amounts of money.

 

[Pacemaker]

It's so that they can have time to replace you. If you don't care about them being able to replace you then you haven't worked for a good company. When I left my last job I gave them a date months in advance (I was moving) and they treated me no different until the last day (when the gave a going away party for me). I let them know early because first of all I knew I was leaving and secondly they had (in a way) payed for everything I had for the last 2 and half years and I actually liked those I worked with.

BTW, you aren't really going to cause your manager any real problems by leaving with little notice (in most cases). You are just going to cause your co-workers to be forced to pick up the slack until a replacement is found.

 

[Glavinsolo]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
Where i work they pay you for two-weeks if they let you go (lay off as oppesed to getting fired for not doing your job). also when you give two weeks here, they just pay you for 2 weeks and tell you to go ahead and leave right then. guess they don't want employees who are leaving soon to be handling large amounts of money.

Where is this and how long is the training period

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I never really understood why this became a mainstream ideal. If a company can save a penny by knocking you to the curb, they'll do it without a second thought. But this same company believes their employees should give them 2 weeks to get their contingency plan together?

Am I looking at this the wrong way?

Believe it or not, companies don't like to fire people. Firing people means they're probably in bad shape, and they do things they're really rather not have to do to survive. It's very expensive to hire a new person, train them and get them up to speed, it's in every company's best interest to keep the employees they have.

Two weeks is a courtesy. It is not required, but your next employer will almost always be willing to let you start after your two weeks. So it's really no big deal.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
If you quit, it is the window of time for them to find a replacement to do whatever job it is you do. Obviously you have a position at a company, that position was created (whether there are 20 of those positions doing the same work) because the company is more efficient and makes more money when someone works that position for whatever pay. So your idea of them saving money by kicking you to the curb is incorrect since they will lose money by not being as efficient.

Realistically, 2 weeks isn't enough time to find and hire a replacement unless the job is at McDonald's or something. But it does give you time to document the work you do so your replacement has an easier time.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Just because they can screw you doesn't mean you should screw them. Two wrongs don't make a right as they say.

Pretty much.

 

[broon]

Usually a company will give some sort of severance if you get laid off. If you get fired it's because of something you did and don't deserve notice. Give the notice.

 

[thomsbrain]

you don't have to give 2 weeks notice unless you are under some special contract. you can stop anytime you want. but if you burn bridges, don't expect to cross them.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: mzkhadir
Burning bridges is not a good way to get and keep references

For the win. It's not a matter of "being the bigger man"... it's a matter of preserving a future reference. In today's competitive workplace, references are typically the deciding factors between candidates.

 

[mzkhadir]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mzkhadir
Burning bridges is not a good way to get and keep references

For the win. It's not a matter of "being the bigger man"... it's a matter of preserving a future reference. In today's competitive workplace, references are typically the deciding factors between candidates.

Couple of my co workers gave 1 or 2 day notices. My manager said they would not work for the company again. But because of me talking to the manager about me looking for a new job, I am going to get a good review with the company, and if I decide to come back, they will let me comeback to this company. I gave my 2 week notice last week and on monday start my new job.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mzkhadir
Burning bridges is not a good way to get and keep references

For the win. It's not a matter of "being the bigger man"... it's a matter of preserving a future reference. In today's competitive workplace, references are typically the deciding factors between candidates.

It's not just reference for future jobs. If you wanna be in a higher up position, networking inside and outside of your company will be a huge part of your future success.

 

[zanieladie]

They don't give you 2 weeks notice when they lay you off...

 

[imported_LoKe]

You need their reference, they don't need yours.