• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should an employee have to give a two weeks notice before leaving?

Should an employee have to give a two weeks notice?

  • yes

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • no

    Votes: 13 48.1%
  • Total voters
    27
DA60 said:
I more or less agree with this.

But my reason for giving 2 weeks notice is singular...reference.

I don't give a rat's buttocks about the company, nor should I.

They would fire me in an instant if they thought it would help the company...as they should.

This is business, not personal.

Waaaaay too many times I hear of people feeling loyalty to a company...nonsense.

Employers love it when you feel loyalty...it means they can get you to work harder for little in return. Politicians do the same thing...only they call it 'patriotism'.

Never work for the company...always work for yourself, IMO.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that sentiment, but that was never my experience. I'm retired now but when working, I was never fired and when leaving a job, I always gave my employer notice I was leaving. My last place of employment lasted 30 plus years and attitude towards your employer, in my view, has a lot to do with whether or not you enjoy working and whether or not your employer feels any sense of loyalty to you and a desire to promote and retain you. Employers, and I was one, can tell pretty quickly from an employee's attitude whether or not they will invest any time and money in retaining an employee.

Depends, I suppose, on what you want out of work.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate that sentiment, but that was never my experience. I'm retired now but when working, I was never fired and when leaving a job, I always gave my employer notice I was leaving. My last place of employment lasted 30 plus years and attitude towards your employer, in my view, has a lot to do with whether or not you enjoy working and whether or not your employer feels any sense of loyalty to you and a desire to promote and retain you. Employers, and I was one, can tell pretty quickly from an employee's attitude whether or not they will invest any time and money in retaining an employee.

Depends, I suppose, on what you want out of work.
Click to expand...

I believe that you show up for work on time every day, work hard, always treat others with respect and then go home the minute the work day is done...but never anything more.

I am not sure what else should be done.

You are monetarily compensated for doing a certain amount of work.

Now, you can do that amount of work. Or, you can do more work for the same compensation in the hope that this will help you get ahead faster.

Now, if you like the work and/or this is the field you wish to make a career out of AND there is room for significant advancement then I suppose it might make sense (assuming of course the employer actually rewards hard work...not all do).

But if you neither like the work nor feel there is much to be gained from working harder then the compensation calls for...then I guess you are then hoping that the employer will note your hard work in your reference.

Two potential problems with that; 1) what if the employer doesn't adequately note the extent to which you worked on your reference (which happens) and 2) what about quality of life? Is staying late and feeling more tired/drained after work, day after day, month after month worth the possibility of a better reputation?

I suppose that is up to the individual.


For me, unless you are self-employed (or LOVE your work - which is not most people), life is about friends, family, hobbies, bettering yourself, relaxing, learning...on your time off. Work (unless self employed - which I am, btw) is about producing the cash so I can do the other things...nothing more.

But each to his/her own.
 
99percenter said:
If an employer wanted to get rid of an employee, they would tell the employee not to come to work the next day. So is it fair that the standard notice an employee is expected to give is two weeks?
Click to expand...

No, it's not. If a company wants at-will employment, then it goes both ways. Neither the company nor the employee is required to give notice before severing their relationship. If a company wants to require its employees to give a certain amount of notice before quitting, then they should have to give the same amount of notice to someone being fired or laid off.

The two weeks also seems extremely arbitrary. I know for a fact that there is no way, barring exceptional luck, that my company could replace me in two weeks.

Nevertheless, I'd give two weeks notice if it was at all possible, simply to avoid burning bridges. If I had a great job offer somewhere else and they needed me to start sooner though, I'd leave sooner.
 
Last edited:
Here, it's generally a contractual obligation, you have to give two weeks notice before you leave, and an employer has to give two weeks notice before firing you.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate that sentiment, but that was never my experience. I'm retired now but when working, I was never fired and when leaving a job, I always gave my employer notice I was leaving. My last place of employment lasted 30 plus years and attitude towards your employer, in my view, has a lot to do with whether or not you enjoy working and whether or not your employer feels any sense of loyalty to you and a desire to promote and retain you. Employers, and I was one, can tell pretty quickly from an employee's attitude whether or not they will invest any time and money in retaining an employee.

Depends, I suppose, on what you want out of work.
Click to expand...

I worked for a Fortune 500 company that employed thousands worldwide; I loved my job and I was loyal to them. Bad-mouthing the company you work for is bound to get back to them, and putting it on a personal level, it hurts you more than it does them, because you can be replaced. Everyone has their bad days, but loyalty is a two-way street, and I found that attitude is just as important as job skills to an employer. My company treated me very well over the years, in both promotions, salary increases, and foreign language classes which they asked me to take, on my own time, and which they paid for, since it made me more valuable to them. In return I never worried about taking a day off when my children were in school plays or competing in sports events that I wanted to see, so it was fair. BTW, I gave them a months' notice when I left, which they appreciated, although they tried to talk me out of retiring early, which was a nice ego boost! :mrgreen:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
 
CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong but, even in America, doesn't an employer have to pay at least 2 weeks severance for an employee fired without cause?

Secondly, it's only natural and respectful, in my view, to give your current employer notice you're leaving so that they can have some time to replace you and so that you retain a good reputation with an employer you may need a reference from or perhaps even a job from sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're wrong.
 
US employers are not required to pay severance for firing people, nor are they required to give a two week notice. Both are courtesies that are left to the employer.

Likewise, an employee is not required to a find a replacement for themselves on quitting, nor are they required to provide a two week notice. Both are courtesies left to the employee.



I see no problem with this arrangement.
 
99percenter said:
If an employer wanted to get rid of an employee, they would tell the employee not to come to work the next day. So is it fair that the standard notice an employee is expected to give is two weeks?
Click to expand...

Companies will often tell them to leave when they put their two weeks notice in. Also, you can leave without notice but that company can tell another you did that (which looks bad).
 
I agree with others who've mentioned the "no burning bridges" concept - generally. I don't think it is necessarily wise to ever burn a bridge. Case in point (anecdotal): my current employer has over the course of my tenure with the company summarily "fired" a number of our clients and vendors for reasons I would only construe as emotional rather than rational. Yes, there was a reason for each of the firings, but in firing them he's now left his company with very few resources and even fewer opportunities to do business. Rather than swallow his pride, he exercised it to unwise ends imo. I've been with the company for about 6 years now and it's taken most of that time to repair a relationship with one of the key vendors in the area with whom he had issues prior to my arrival. Unfortunately, they are one of but 3 whose line of product is routinely specified for many of the projects on which we bid. In "firing" them he immediately reduced his opportunities for work by some 33% - and it DID affect our bottom line.

At the other end of the spectrum, my wife lost her job years ago due to an office closure. They did offer her an opportunity to relocate though, albeit out of state. We decided it would be a good time for us so we agreed. I told my boss at the time what was happening and why we'd made the decision we did, and that I was giving him 3 month's notice. He promptly let me go. Consequently, I'm soured on the notion that we somehow MUST give our employers notice, 2 weeks or otherwise.

So much depends on the circumstances and the players involved. I think it is GENERALLY prudent not to burn any bridges; you just never know what the consequences will be. At the same time, I can see situations where it simply doesn't matter, where it might even be the prudent thing to do. So I have no hard and fast rules here whatsoever. Judge each situation separately and choose the wisest course of action.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Should you give a two week notice or not?

Just because you quit without notice doesn't mean they will lie about you.

Just because you give a two week notice doesn't mean they will tell the truth about it.

It seems that you are implying that the only reason to give a two week notice is to save your reputation. Your reputation is your reputation. Every place I ever worked made it very clear that we were on an at-will employment basis. I could leave when I got sick of the place. They could fire me when they got sick of me.

Some people lie. Some people tell the truth. You can't stop it. Staying at a place when you have already given them the finger creates unnecessary tension. Bad things can happen during those two weeks.
Click to expand...

Dude, I am simply saying that if you are polite, get along with your boss and want a good recommendation then you should give your boss the courtesy of a two week notice. I am not making some idiotic blanket statement about what they will or will not do. I got great recommendations from past employers that I gave two weeks to. If you don't want to do that then don't.
 
Juanita said:
You should never burn your bridges...It could come back and bite you in the ass...
Click to expand...

True, that, but sometimes short-term satisfaction trumps long-term responsibility.
 
polgara said:
I worked for a Fortune 500 company that employed thousands worldwide; I loved my job and I was loyal to them. Bad-mouthing the company you work for is bound to get back to them, and putting it on a personal level, it hurts you more than it does them, because you can be replaced. Everyone has their bad days, but loyalty is a two-way street, and I found that attitude is just as important as job skills to an employer. My company treated me very well over the years, in both promotions, salary increases, and foreign language classes which they asked me to take, on my own time, and which they paid for, since it made me more valuable to them. In return I never worried about taking a day off when my children were in school plays or competing in sports events that I wanted to see, so it was fair. BTW, I gave them a months' notice when I left, which they appreciated, although they tried to talk me out of retiring early, which was a nice ego boost! :mrgreen:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Lady P.

Your comments explain why you were successful in your career - and it doesn't suprise me at all.

I failed to mention in my comments that my last employer, the one I was at for over 30 years, also was very accommodating when my mother was in her last years allowing me significant time off, with pay, and allowing me to alter my hours of work to accommodate her homecare worker's schedule as well. If I had been a person who only punched a clock and didn't give a little extra when needed, I'm not sure how I would have been able to handle the serious issues in my personal life at that time. I'm forever grateful and consider myself very well compensated even if I didn't get paid for every hour I put in over the years.
 
EdwinWillers said:
I agree with others who've mentioned the "no burning bridges" concept - generally. I don't think it is necessarily wise to ever burn a bridge. Case in point (anecdotal): my current employer has over the course of my tenure with the company summarily "fired" a number of our clients and vendors for reasons I would only construe as emotional rather than rational. Yes, there was a reason for each of the firings, but in firing them he's now left his company with very few resources and even fewer opportunities to do business. Rather than swallow his pride, he exercised it to unwise ends imo. I've been with the company for about 6 years now and it's taken most of that time to repair a relationship with one of the key vendors in the area with whom he had issues prior to my arrival. Unfortunately, they are one of but 3 whose line of product is routinely specified for many of the projects on which we bid. In "firing" them he immediately reduced his opportunities for work by some 33% - and it DID affect our bottom line.

At the other end of the spectrum, my wife lost her job years ago due to an office closure. They did offer her an opportunity to relocate though, albeit out of state. We decided it would be a good time for us so we agreed. I told my boss at the time what was happening and why we'd made the decision we did, and that I was giving him 3 month's notice. He promptly let me go. Consequently, I'm soured on the notion that we somehow MUST give our employers notice, 2 weeks or otherwise.

So much depends on the circumstances and the players involved. I think it is GENERALLY prudent not to burn any bridges; you just never know what the consequences will be. At the same time, I can see situations where it simply doesn't matter, where it might even be the prudent thing to do. So I have no hard and fast rules here whatsoever. Judge each situation separately and choose the wisest course of action.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you've said and you make a good point about giving your employer notice - sometimes they won't react well - but I still think it's the right thing to do. In many cases, your new employer wants and expects you to give notice, and if you end up being shown the door when you do, your new employer will often take you on right away so you don't lose out.

There are, actually, some pretty good reasons for an employer not to let a leaving employee stay working for a notice period, such as an employee trying to steal customers or secrets to take with them or sabotaging systems or customer relations. Here in Canada, however, even if they don't want you around, they still have to pay you severance to stay home during that notice period.
 
Singe said:
You think that's a contradiction? Finding something better doesn't mean that what I had was "wrong" or "bad." I hate analogies, but if you see that as a contradiction, this is the only way I can think of to explain it:

If I was driving a 2008 Nissan, and it worked perfectly fine... but won a Lexus somehow... I'd drive the Lexus, but that wouldn't mean that the Nissan had something "wrong" with it or was "obviously bad." See what I mean?
Click to expand...

LOL! No. But, I can see why you hate analogies.
 
Risky Thicket said:
LOL! No. But, I can see why you hate analogies.
Click to expand...
I hate when other people make them too, so it works out. lol I didn't think the idea of finding something better not requiring a current job to be awful was that difficult a concept. Won't be the last time I'm wrong.
 
Singe said:
Granted, if you don't want to give 2 weeks notice, don't. Unless a contract is involved, there's nothing stopping people from making decisions that can come back to haunt them. (...) It's simple reputation management.

In the end, it's more like 'care vs don't care' instead of 'fair vs unfair.'
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way, when people quit on me and gave less than 2 weeks notice, they get no recommendation. As someone who's hired lots of people in the past, if there's no recommendation from their prior employer, or the employer says they are good at what they do but left them in a lurch because they quit without giving notice, I didn't hire them.

You can do whatever you want - if you have a choice give 2 weeks notice. If you can't because you're starting another job right away, negotiate for less and explain why you have to give less so sometime down the not too distant road when you need a recommendation, you have one.
 
Depends. If a worker is being pink slipped because of cuts, 2 weeks doesn't seem enough time to adjust.
If someone endangers others, an immediate booting out might be in order.
 
DA60 said:
I believe that you show up for work on time every day, work hard, always treat others with respect and then go home the minute the work day is done...but never anything more.

I am not sure what else should be done.

You are monetarily compensated for doing a certain amount of work.

Now, you can do that amount of work. Or, you can do more work for the same compensation in the hope that this will help you get ahead faster.

Now, if you like the work and/or this is the field you wish to make a career out of AND there is room for significant advancement then I suppose it might make sense (assuming of course the employer actually rewards hard work...not all do).

But if you neither like the work nor feel there is much to be gained from working harder then the compensation calls for...then I guess you are then hoping that the employer will note your hard work in your reference.

Two potential problems with that; 1) what if the employer doesn't adequately note the extent to which you worked on your reference (which happens) and 2) what about quality of life? Is staying late and feeling more tired/drained after work, day after day, month after month worth the possibility of a better reputation?

I suppose that is up to the individual.


For me, unless you are self-employed (or LOVE your work - which is not most people), life is about friends, family, hobbies, bettering yourself, relaxing, learning...on your time off. Work (unless self employed - which I am, btw) is about producing the cash so I can do the other things...nothing more.

But each to his/her own.
Click to expand...
I agree with very much of what you've written, but I'd like to add something. I/we spend a lot of our awake-hours at work. Even in the unfortunate scenario where the work may not be something we enjoy, I've tended to find solace in establishing good relationships at various companies/jobs.

The 2-week notice thing isn't just for me or the company... the benefit to me is also with regard to those tertiary relationships. So while I agree that "life is about friends, family, hobbies, etc...", I have some great current friends that were former coworkers, and I'm glad I was never in a position that I had to screw them over by making them pick up my slack if I had just walked out on a job.
 
Singe said:
I agree with very much of what you've written, but I'd like to add something. I/we spend a lot of our awake-hours at work. Even in the unfortunate scenario where the work may not be something we enjoy, I've tended to find solace in establishing good relationships at various companies/jobs.

The 2-week notice thing isn't just for me or the company... the benefit to me is also with regard to those tertiary relationships. So while I agree that "life is about friends, family, hobbies, etc...", I have some great current friends that were former coworkers, and I'm glad I was never in a position that I had to screw them over by making them pick up my slack if I had just walked out on a job.
Click to expand...

I am not saying you should burn your bridges OR that you should not give 2 weeks notice.

What I am saying is that the decision should (IMO) be strictly made on what will benefit you...what is better for the company should be irrelevant.

Now, you make a good point about co-workers, IMO. And that is a factor.

But if I didn't think it wouldn't negatively effect my future or people I genuinely care about - I will quit any job the second I wish to...and too bad for the company.

If they can lay me off whenever they wish...then I should be able to lay them off whenever I wish.
 
washunut said:
I think in most major companies, severance is not a courtesy, rather it is part of HR policy.
Click to expand...

it usually contains veribage about disclosure about company business, contacts, and pricing. Also if a skilled position a non compete with veribage as to who they can work for the following time period
 
radcen said:
The not burning bridges thing... in the form of a two-week notice... is for YOU, not your employer.
Yeah yeah yeah, everybody knows you left for a reason, but it's a "wink wink nod nod" scenario where smart people play the game and don't give prospective future employers a reason to choose someone else.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




IOW, it's the game that most people play.
 
Juanita said:
You should never burn your bridges...It could come back and bite you in the ass...
Click to expand...

Unless you have to ford the river to leave, because the bridge has already been burnt...lol
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree with what you've said and you make a good point about giving your employer notice - sometimes they won't react well - but I still think it's the right thing to do. In many cases, your new employer wants and expects you to give notice, and if you end up being shown the door when you do, your new employer will often take you on right away so you don't lose out.

There are, actually, some pretty good reasons for an employer not to let a leaving employee stay working for a notice period, such as an employee trying to steal customers or secrets to take with them or sabotaging systems or customer relations. Here in Canada, however, even if they don't want you around, they still have to pay you severance to stay home during that notice period.
Click to expand...
This is true - many employees have, if only by virtue of being employees, access to the company in ways that if they wanted to, they could do the company harm, sometimes a lot of harm. Best not to give them the chance, or encourage any temptations they might have to do so.

Some companies will give severance packages here, many won't. But all have to pay unemployment, so I guess that's a form of "severance."
 
In a skilled job the 2 weeks notice is good so that an employee's peers have the opportunity to get some knowledge transfer before that employee leaves. For example, I work in IT. I am a Senior Systems Administrator. If I just took a new job and walked out the day I gave notice I would be screwing over my employer and my peers in my department by not bringing them up to speed on what I do and what I support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom