SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Employees and employers alike have the right under at-will employment laws in almost all states to end their relationship without notice, for any reason, but the two-week rule is a widely accepted standard of workplace conduct. Now Sue Shellenbarger writes at The Wall Street Journal that employers say a growing number of workers are leaving without giving two weeks' notice.
Some bosses blame young employees who feel frustrated by limited prospects or have little sense of attachment to their workplace. But employment experts say some older workers are quitting without notice as well. They feel overworked or unappreciated after years of laboring under pay cuts and expanded workloads imposed during the recession. One employee at Dupray, a customer-service rep, scheduled a meeting and announced she was quitting, then rose and headed for the exit. She seemed surprised when the director of human resources stopped her and explained that employees are expected to give two weeks' notice. "She said, 'I've been watching 'Suits,' and this is how it happens,' " referring to the TV drama set in a law firm.
According to Shellenbarger, quitting without notice is sometimes justified. Employees with access to proprietary information, such as those working in sales or new-product development, face a conflict of interest if they accept a job with a competitor. Employees in such cases typically depart right away—ideally, by mutual agreement. It can also be best to exit quickly if an employer is abusive, or if you suspect your employer is doing something illegal.
More often, however, quitting without notice "is done in the heat of emotion, by someone who is completely frustrated, angry, offended or upset," says David Lewis, president of OperationsInc., a Norwalk, Conn., human-resources consulting firm. That approach can burn bridges and generate bad references. Phyllis Hartman says employees have a responsibility to try to communicate about what's wrong. "Start figuring out if there is anything you can do to fix it. The worst that can happen is that nobody listens or they tell you no."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:03PM
I'm not surprised at this at all.
Power in any negotiation is defined by what happens if a party decide to walk away without a deal. For example, if you are shopping for something pretty to put on your mantlepiece, then you hold all the power because you can always manage just fine without one. If, on the other hand, you are shopping for food, and this is the only store for hundreds of miles, and you're hungry and without food, then you have very little power because your alternative to buying food is starvation.
And that means that in most employment negotiations, the worker needs the job more than the company needs the employee: Most workers without jobs are close to losing homes or cars or other important stuff if they don't find a job soon, whereas an employer can usually afford to be short-staffed for a while. The desperation of the employee causes them to bend over backwards for their employers.
An employees' defense against this effect is significant savings, so your alternative to working is spending down your savings a bit more. That's one reason capitalism works hard to try to convince people to spend whatever they have.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.