Terminating an employee can be tough on both sides. I was involved in a situation where we should have had security escort the terminated employee back to his office to get his belongings. This employee was basically let go after multiple warnings about not showing up for work and not calling in. When he was told, he returned to his office and proceeded to smash up some equipment. Lesson learned. I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building and wish security would have been at his office. Tense situation.
But it is tougher when one side expects to be able to get away with anything, and so often sees no downside in acting like total dicks.
I'm from Norway, and I was shocked when I moved to the UK where typical notice periods is only one month. In Norway it is extremely hard to write a contract that will hold up that limits notice periods for full time non-seasonal workers to less than 3 months.
Most of the time people work out a 3 month notice period. And in fact, except in special circumstances, we generally have the right (and duty, if we want to continue to get paid through our notice period) to keep showing up for work and doing our job.
In practice, most people who are offered/asked nicely to stop coming in to work earlier will come to a suitable arrangement, but it is not very common.
Yes, as an employee it would be nice to have a three-month notice. But the downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months. In the situation I described above, the employee in question failed to show up or call in for his very first day of work and gave some poor excuse the next day. And this behavior continued in the following weeks. We had obviously made a mistake in hiring him and I was grateful that our team wasn't stuck with him for three months.
What percentage of employees are total deadbeats like you describe? And what percentage are honest folks who would never do such a thing or even consider destroying their employer's property after being told they will be let go?
When you have a generous policy like this, you have to take the good with the bad. Personally, I feel that there are many, many good, decent folks who will benefit without screwing their employer for every deadbeat who will take gross advantage of the policy. In the case of the guy who smashed up the employer's equipment - what was the loss? $2,000? $5,000? Now what's that compared to the retained goodwill of hundreds or thousands of employees who are laid off over the lifetime of the company but leave with a positive impression because they weren't escorted around like a criminal?
It's a matter of your outlook on society. Do you have trust in the public, or do you target the worst-case scenario? This is the same thing as onerous requirements for getting welfare or unemployment payments. They are focused on the 1% or less who are trying to the game the system. In the process, they are hurting the 99% who just need a hand getting through a tough time. Why optimize for a 1% case?
I'm no human-resource expert, but as far as the policy to escort terminated employees out of the building, I think this is one case where you need to trust the manager of the employee and hope for the best. If the manager knows that the employee is prone to outbursts or seems to have anger issues, it's likely best to do a more restricted process. But if the manager knows the employee well and is otherwise on good-terms it obviously would be better to do the termination without involving the humiliation of a formal security escort. I've seen both processes in the same company.
In the situation I described earlier, perhaps this employee's odd behavior (not showing up the very first day without even a phone call???) was a clue of larger issues that his manager should have heeded and keyed him to call in security when the time came to end his employment.
This completely depends upon the industry, but from my experience in retail, I'd say the percentage of deadbeats / honest folks (when it comes to work ethic) is higher than you might think. At least here in the US.
Well, it's retail. Retail jobs are a dime a dozen. Employees and employers both treat each other as completely expendable. That's why Costco swears by their approach of paying above market rate - it makes sure that their staff actually value their job, because it's not instantly replaceable by walking to the next high-turnover purgatory up the street.
Yeah, there is an establishment north of Houston that is a very common stop on the way from Houston to Dallas. They pay pretty high above market, and from what I can tell, it seems to work. Kinda sad that, by definition, everyone can't do that, although I do wonder if the above market pay just lets you find those who are stuck working retail but are willing to value the job.
" But the downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months."
The 3 month notice period is actually not required by law, but is so widespread that most people assume it is the minimum.
The minimum mandatory notice period depends on how long you have worked there. 0-5 years (1 month), 5-10 years (2 months), 10+ years (3 months).
The notice period specified in the contract do not apply to new hires. When someone is hired they are often put on a "probation period" that can last up to 6 months. In that time you can leave or be fired with a minimum of 2 weeks notice without having to explain why. Usually the contract specifies the maximum probation period (6 months) and a longer notice (1 month).
The probation period is completely optional, but most employers include it in the contract to avoid situations like the one you experienced.
That sounds like a pretty good compromise, but you can imagine that it will still cause permanent employment friction. For example, say you run a small contracting company with a few 3-month probationary employees on staff. You're waiting to hear about the next big job. When that 3-month period gets close and you still haven't got word on the new job, you might be tempted to let them go because if the job doesn't come in, you'll be paying their salaries without the equivalent revenue coming in. That could break your small company. If the job does come in, you'll need to scramble to replace them and push your permanent staff harder, but you'll still be in business. If you weren't bound by a three-month requirement, you might have keep the probationary employees on staff a bit longer waiting for the job to come in.
The real-world isn't this cut-and-dried, but to a lesser extent, these are the tradeoffs that the employer has to make every day.
Most companies specify a 6 month probation period where the contract can be terminated with 1 month notice. That should be enough to plan ahead.
The customary 3 month notice only applies to "permanent" employees, but the company is free to specify a 1 month notice for those employed for less than 5 years if they are not confident.
Norway must be nice. The short notices and general environment in the U.S. (everyone is suspect) really makes American families feel on edge.
And, most Americans are very reasonable. I would never smash-up something that belonged to my employer even if I was upset. That's wrong. Most of us would just like to be treated with respect and dignity and be able to contribute to society and provide for our families and be part of our communities.
I know people at UK companies who were banned from doing any work at all for their employer, or even coming into the office while working out their notice. They called it "gardening leave" and said it was standard practice by their company for all employees, as the company was extremely paranoid about what people might do when made redundant.
Why would that be awkward? Your employer gets your expertise in training your replacement and you get enough time to find a new job; this seems rather sensible to me.
"..I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building"
I am sure he won't be back (at least for a while) because he will most likely be in prison for sometime. He was an outlier. For the most part though, people are reasonable and just want to be treated with decency when getting laid-off/fired.
Yes, he was an outlier. Most people will not behave this way and will act reasonably. But of course, the problem is determining which people will fly off the handle in stressful situations. I never would have guessed that this guy would turn violent. And if he would have struck and injured someone else things could have been much worse. The company would have likely been held responsible for not having security around. So most companies go the "better safe than sorry" route during termination.
