Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a bit of a situation and would appreciate some advice on whether or not giving two weeks notice is the right thing to do here.
I've been with my current company for 15 months now. We are going through a merger and about 6 weeks ago, the leadership of my team in addition to several others were all let go, about half the team. This included my boss who was a huge supporter of mine. These positions were replaced by a Director that works out of London and some other staff that work for a third party company in Slovakia. Our entire team is located in Los Angeles, so the fact that we report to people this far away is odd and IMO will not work in the long run. Things in general are a mess now. The employees that remain are unhappy, not buying into the new regime and most are looking for new jobs.
With so many of my friends/colleagues gone, I have been working in conference room on a laptop with a female coworker instead of my office. With the reorg, we now report to the same person so it makes some sense that we work in the same room now. We work on the same projects and collaboration is essential. However, it does probably appear that some fraternizing is going on, though management seems okay with it. Work is still getting done and I am not romantically involved with her.
Both this woman and I have offers on the table and will likely be leaving soon. We both plan on giving our two weeks notice this Monday. Part of me does feel that management will not be okay knowing both her and I have given notice and are still "working" alone in the same room. I am concerned we will both give notice on Monday and be let go immediately after. I would prefer not to lose 2 weeks of salary before leaving.
I am on extremely good terms with anyone I would ever use as a reference from here. I have only worked under the new management 6 weeks and would not use them. Also the fact that they are overseas means we do not know the same people. Im also aware employers do not give out information about an employee other than confirming the basics.
Is this a situation where it is okay not to give 2 weeks notice? I could deal without income for a week, but 2 weeks is a chunk of change.
"Im also aware employers do not give out information about an employee other than confirming the basics."
That may be true for your past organization (and maybe your present) but it's not limited by any law.
That said, with those major changes happening I'd be comfortable with providing a week notice and communicating that to any future employers.
Give the 2 weeks notice. This is not a situation where it's necessary or even preferable to burn that bridge. At the very least, you want the contact in HR to be able to answer "yes" when potential employers call and ask if they would rehire you. Giving less than 2 weeks notice often means an automatic "no". Besides, you need the money!
I really don't understand why you think they'd fire you after you give your notice just because you'd then be working in a room with someone else who has given their notice. That would put the business on the hook for potential unemployment claims, wouldn't it? I would think that once you give your notice, you and her will enter lame duck status and people will basically forget you're there. Work the 2 weeks, collect the pay, and move on
Either give no notice or wait until your colleague gives notice and see what happens. If she isn't let go right away, give your notice. Frankly, I don't understand why you think the company will let you go on the spot.
Generally, management will only fire you when you give notice if you're going to a competitor or if they think you'll be unproductive during those last two weeks.
I thought it was REALLY weird that you mentioned the female co-worker. But I have a feeling that you know that if management thinks you're gonna sit in there and goof off with her for 2 weeks, then yes, they will walk you out after you give notice.
You need to do the right thing: give notice and then straighten up for the last two weeks.
Give the 2 weeks notice. This is not a situation where it's necessary or even preferable to burn that bridge. At the very least, you want the contact in HR to be able to answer "yes" when potential employers call and ask if they would rehire you. Giving less than 2 weeks notice often means an automatic "no". Besides, you need the money!
I really don't understand why you think they'd fire you after you give your notice just because you'd then be working in a room with someone else who has given their notice. That would put the business on the hook for potential unemployment claims, wouldn't it? I would think that once you give your notice, you and her will enter lame duck status and people will basically forget you're there. Work the 2 weeks, collect the pay, and move on
Totally agree.
Why would anyone use the presumption that they may get let go after putting in a 2 week notice, as a reason not to put one in the first place?
Always, ALWAYS cover your rear end. Put that notice in, email it, whatever, so that there's a record that the notice was put in. If they do let you go immediately, at least you can tell future employers that you did put in a 2 week notice (and some do ask).
And never assume that every single organization is too afraid to provide input on former employees due to potential lawsuits, besides dates of employment. That is pure nonsense. There are no laws against such things as long it is true (and even if it's not completely true, what are you going to do, file a lawsuit? ooohhh, those corporations are quaking in their boots).
Give your notice. What you describe is not, IMO, a case where they'd need to let you go on the spot (reputable companies will pay you out your notice period if they opt to not "accept" it).
The fact that your new manager is in Europe is a good thing - in my personal experience, they tend to be more hesitant to fire people due to differences in labor laws. I worked for a British company and my British colleagues gave 3 *months* notice per their work contract.
Totally agree with the advice to let the other person go first though.
I have a bit of a situation and would appreciate some advice on whether or not giving two weeks notice is the right thing to do here.
I've been with my current company for 15 months now. We are going through a merger and about 6 weeks ago, the leadership of my team in addition to several others were all let go, about half the team. This included my boss who was a huge supporter of mine. These positions were replaced by a Director that works out of London and some other staff that work for a third party company in Slovakia. Our entire team is located in Los Angeles, so the fact that we report to people this far away is odd and IMO will not work in the long run. Things in general are a mess now. The employees that remain are unhappy, not buying into the new regime and most are looking for new jobs.
With so many of my friends/colleagues gone, I have been working in conference room on a laptop with a female coworker instead of my office. With the reorg, we now report to the same person so it makes some sense that we work in the same room now. We work on the same projects and collaboration is essential. However, it does probably appear that some fraternizing is going on, though management seems okay with it. Work is still getting done and I am not romantically involved with her.
Both this woman and I have offers on the table and will likely be leaving soon. We both plan on giving our two weeks notice this Monday. Part of me does feel that management will not be okay knowing both her and I have given notice and are still "working" alone in the same room. I am concerned we will both give notice on Monday and be let go immediately after. I would prefer not to lose 2 weeks of salary before leaving.
I am on extremely good terms with anyone I would ever use as a reference from here. I have only worked under the new management 6 weeks and would not use them. Also the fact that they are overseas means we do not know the same people. Im also aware employers do not give out information about an employee other than confirming the basics.
Is this a situation where it is okay not to give 2 weeks notice? I could deal without income for a week, but 2 weeks is a chunk of change.
Even though a company doesn't officially give out certain information, the HR people have their ways of finding out. One HR person knows another, who knows another. Or a friend knows someone at the company.
Stop working in that room with your "friend." So that problem is solved. Work in your office.
Yes, you can be let go upon giving notice, because you have quit.
I would say to give two weeks notice, but wait a week to give it. Problem solved. Have a start date iwth the new company 3 weeks in the future. If you give 2 weeks notice, you can always ask to be released if they don't need you to stay the full two weeks. Since they are undergoing significant change, they may need to stay the full two weeks.
You and your friend should give notice on different days. Problem solved.
I would give the 2 weeks notice.
for three reasons:
1} it is the right thing to do
2} it keeps YOUR integrity.
3} it bothers you enough to ask about it here...
I have learned one's integrity can mean all the world!
Best of Luck to you
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
