46

I read this question "Do I owe them a two week notice?" and the most popular answers with astonishment. It seems a lot of people consider it professionally necessary to give two weeks notice no matter how the employee was treated even in an at-will state.

What I (a European who has never worked in the US or any place with at-will employment laws) wonder is: If the employer expected to get two weeks notice, wouldn't they just put a clause into the contract requiring either party to give two weeks notice? So if this clause is missing in the contract I would think that the employer neither expectes nor requires two weeks notice and that abitcurious (in case of the question mentioned above) would be entirely justified in just handing in the resignation and leaving right away.

If it's professionally necessary to always give two weeks notice, why would any employer not put this clause into every work contract they send out?

But from the answers to that question it's obivous to me that I'm missing something - probably something about US work culture and/or law. What am I missing here? (Apologies if this is purely a law question - I had the impression that it's not.)

Update: It seems I've hit upon one of those culture issues where people from both sides of the Atlantic are incredulous that anybody would do things differently from them because "how's that supposed to work?" - and yet it does seem to work (on both sides of the Atlantic). Thanks a lot to everyone posting here for indulging my curiosity and taking the time to explain this.

AllTheKingsHorses
  • 3,142
  • 1
  • 17
  • 25
  • What does it matter where you come from ? You shouldn't expect the entire country's culture to change for you, you should adapt to it. We (the EU)'re not used to tip that much either, yet its entirely expected of you to tip generously and you'd be considered a monster should you not tip in the US – Иво Недев Sep 16 '16 at 10:02
  • 4
    I think this is actually a legal catch 22. If you demand your employee offers 2 weeks notice, you also have to provide 2 weeks notice on dismissal (for job completion or whatever). Maybe it's the case that companies don't want to feel they owe anything in exchange for this notice period... – XtrmJosh Sep 16 '16 at 10:06
  • 22
    @ИвоНедев: Where I come from may matter because what may be completely obvious to somebody born and raised in the US is not clear to me because I wasn't raised in that culture. I don't expect anybody to change their behaviour - I just want to understand the reasoning behind it. I have no personal stakes in this because I don't (and don't intend to) work in the US. – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 16 '16 at 10:16
  • Good explanations here: http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/72231/do-i-owe-them-a-two-week-notice –  Sep 16 '16 at 11:55
  • 3
    From most answers here it's obvious that Americans don't understand it either, they just keep doing it out of force habit : D – Agent_L Sep 16 '16 at 14:11
  • 2
    A contract is only useful if there are repercussions. If an employee up and quits, failing to give two weeks notice, what are the consequences? If the consequences are termination, what good does that serve? The employee has already voluntarily left the company. The contract would have to include some monetary penalty, or otherwise. What terms are you suggesting be included? – dberm22 Sep 16 '16 at 14:40
  • 4
    @dberm22 I would (naively) expect a monetary penalty - but I'm not a US lawyer; maybe there are other possibilities. Please note: I also wouldn't expect the majority of notice periods to be enforced by a lawyer "the hard way" (just like they aren't in the various European jurisdictions). Personally, I just think that explicitely stating mutual expectations (preferrably in writing) about important issues would help to make things clearer on both sides and provide some security on both sides. – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 16 '16 at 14:49
  • See this question as well: http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/75936/why-would-a-resigning-employee-be-immediately-escorted-out which shows that some employers will thank you for your professionalism to give 2 weeks notice by removing you from their premises immediately. Interestingly that thread doesn't mention pay for these two weeks. – gnasher729 Sep 16 '16 at 14:49
  • @gnasher729 Anecdotal, but last time my dad (works in banking) changed jobs back in like 2013, when he gave his two weeks was more or less immediately escorted out and asked not to come back, but they did pay him during the period – Kevin L Sep 16 '16 at 15:30
  • @MichaelShaw You typically sign a contract, and in it acknowledge that employment is at-will, in accordance with state law. At-will employment is in fact enshrined in law in most US states, although employers can offer contracts where employment is not at will but that seems rare. – Andy Sep 17 '16 at 01:07
  • Bear in mind that most jobs are not 'Professional' positions. And most questions about "2-week notice" are about positions considered to be 'Professional'. – user2338816 Sep 17 '16 at 12:59
  • As I understand it, in Indiana, either I or the employer had the right to terminate without warning. Nevertheless, when Raytheon decided to lay me off, they paid me two weeks even though they didn't allow me to work. They even locked my network accounts the night before, making turnover rather difficult! – WGroleau Sep 18 '16 at 00:17
  • @dberm22 - where I'm from the penalty is typically that I would be required to pay the company for any notice period which I fail to give them at whatever my normal rate of pay is. So If I normally earn $1k/week and the employment contract states 2 weeks notice, then I will owe the employer $2k if I leave with no notice. – brhans Sep 19 '16 at 17:50
  • @brhans What happens if you fall under a bus without giving 2 weeks notice? – user3067860 Jul 10 '17 at 18:33
  • @user3067860 - It's pretty much the same as if you sign an apartment rental for a year and there is a break-the-contract/get-out-early penalty clause. Unless you know of some way of enforcing a contract with a dead person I think the answer is pretty obvious. – brhans Jul 10 '17 at 18:38

7 Answers7

61

Most at-will employment in the US doesn't involve an employment contract. There are documents that get signed, of course, for non-disclosure agreements, tax withholding, benefit enrollment, etc. But you generally wouldn't have an employment contract as such. The closest you'll come for most people is an acknowledgement that you've read the employee handbook that lays out the company policies but is subject to change at any time.

Two-weeks notice is solely a cultural expectation. You're entirely free to announce at noon that you're going to lunch and then call at 1 and inform them that you won't be back. If you do that, however, your former coworkers will be less likely to have wonderful things to say about you if you need a reference or encounter them later. It's generally considered professional to at least offer your employer a couple weeks in which to transfer tasks to others and make sure that tasks aren't dropped.

Could an employer draft a document requiring two weeks notice? Sure. But it probably wouldn't do much good. If there were penalties to not giving notice, the agreement would almost certainly need to impose some sort of reciprocal burden on the employer. From the employer standpoint, since 99% of your good employees are going to give notice anyway, the agreement wouldn't accomplish much other than to impose some sort of obligation on the employer. And despite the image we have, Americans aren't anxious to involve lawyers which would be necessary if a company wanted to enforce some sort of penalty for not giving notice. So you could have an agreement. It just wouldn't have any practical benefit to the employer.

Justin Cave
  • 44,576
  • 9
  • 136
  • 166
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Jane S Sep 17 '16 at 21:13
  • 1
    Wow. As a European, this is just a really hard thing to wrap my head around. The whole thing of having so little set in a contract. In the end it just all boils down to a difference in culture, though. – Jasper Sep 23 '16 at 19:06
  • I had an employer who put the two week notice period in the handbook. It said something like: if you didn't get two weeks notice, you would be ineligible for rehire. Seems like a small punishment, but then "eligible for rehire" was one of the few questions they would answer for a reference request (along with dates and final title). – stannius Jan 10 '19 at 18:16
19

If it's professionally necessary to always give two weeks notice, why would any employer not put this clause into every work contract they send out?

This is actually a somewhat complicated question. I'll do what I can to cover at-will employment states.

First off, the USA has an adverse reaction to anything that has the appearance of slavery; forced employment certainly falls under this view. A second thing that impacts this is how contract law works in the USA.

All contracts, in order to be valid, require "consideration" for both sides otherwise they are unenforceable. Some state supreme courts have ruled that continued employment or the normal employee salary can not be used as consideration; others have taken the opposite opinion.

This means that an employer which has a new hire sign a "you will always give 2 weeks notice" document may have to provide some other form of consideration to the employee for that above and beyond the normal salary. For non-critical employees, you'll never see this happen as the benefit to the company simply isn't there. For crucial ones a company will sometimes offer a monetary bonus to the employee to encourage them to stay those 2 weeks or longer.

Certainly owners of companies that are being acquired usually sign an agreement to provide continued service to the new owners for a certain period of time at a certain rate in order to facilitate the hand over. However this is quite a bit different than a normal employment contract.

Even if an employee signs that document and simply walks out one day leaving the contract unfulfilled then the only recourse the company will have is to not pay that extra bonus. For those states where continued employment is consideration - well, the employee again can still walk away and only to give up those last few weeks of pay - which they were giving up anyway.

Point is, the company can't take this any further. No court in the USA is going to force someone to actually show up to work because to do otherwise would give an appearance of slavery. Further no company would want to be involved in the tremendous amount of very bad press that would occur when having workers sign such a clause.

At the end of the day, the notice period is just professional courtesy. Yes, it's generally one sided in the employer's favor but it's not required and, in my opinion, not that big a deal to ignore it.

NotMe
  • 23,390
  • 5
  • 70
  • 104
  • 1
    Continued employment is (sometimes) not consideration when you are already employed. However, a new job is consideration, and so if they had you sign the agreement before or soon after you start, then it would be enforceable, even without additional consideration. – stannius Sep 16 '16 at 15:26
  • @stannius: it's state specific. I believe wisconsin said it is consideration - others have said it's not. Ultimately it doesn't matter as the person can sign it, then simply walk out. The only thing the company can do is not continue to hold their end of the bargain which is in providing the, now unwanted, job. – NotMe Sep 16 '16 at 15:34
  • 5
    Suppose the company can legally enforce requiring the employee to stay for the 2 weeks. How much work do you think the employer is really going to get out of the employee who is being forced to stay? What kind of quality will the little work that is accomplished actually be? Having the 2 weeks be a choice made by the employee is of far greater benefit to all parties than making the 2 weeks a legal requirement. – Dunk Sep 16 '16 at 16:08
  • 1
    @Dunk If it's part of a legally enforceable contract then the employee would have known about the requirement beforehand and doesn't have any cause for poor work or lack of work. Taking that road because they feel like it could open them up to further litigation, e.g. not performing in good faith or the company could show evidence to a court in an attempt to withhold the last two weeks of pay from the employee or severely dock it. – TylerH Sep 16 '16 at 20:56
  • @TylerH Court is expensive. What you describe sounds unenforceable in practice. – Navin Sep 16 '16 at 23:41
  • @Navin Court is expensive for individuals. Companies often have significantly more resources. And "unenforceable" doesn't mean expensive, it means courts won't enforce it. – TylerH Sep 16 '16 at 23:46
  • 2
    @TylerH Court is expensive for companies too. There are many other things businesses would rather spend their money on than suing a former employee. – Andy Sep 17 '16 at 01:15
  • @Dunk If you have to give notice to uphold your good reputation, the same can be said for putting in effort during your notice period. If you don't, your former employer or colleagues probably won't have anything nice to say about you... – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 17 '16 at 09:38
  • @Dunk What you're saying is, essentially, "This couldn't possibly work because of X, Y, Z." Well, it does work throughout Europe so, obviously, X, Y, Z don't usually happen. – David Richerby Sep 17 '16 at 11:41
  • 3
    In Germany I doubt it's enforceable to make an employee show up but the employer can sue for damages due to breach of contract. Should work the same way in the US. And since that threat is there the employee will dutifully show up. He will have expected that to be necessary before quitting. He will not be resentful since nothing unexpected has happened. – boot4life Sep 17 '16 at 15:05
  • I'm no expert in German law but as far as I know not showing up for work is one of the (not so many) legal reasons to fire somebody without a notice period and would be (here we are again) regarded as highly unprofessional. – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 17 '16 at 17:23
  • Of course. I'm just answering to the idea that a contractually agreed period would be meaningless in practice. "Even if an employee signs that document and simply walks out one day leaving the contract unfulfilled..." – boot4life Sep 17 '16 at 17:33
  • 2
    About the slavery argument: While I appreciate that people hold that view and hence it's relevant, it sounds like a hell of a strawman to me. "It would be bad to require employees to keep working for two weeks, they should be free to quit if they don't like how they are treated. So instead, they should suck it up "voluntarily" for two weeks if they don't like how they are treated (see linked question) because doing anything else would damage their reputation." Of course, you never said it would severly damage their reputation - that's just my impression from the answers on that question. – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 17 '16 at 21:16
  • @DavidRicherby - I didn't say it couldn't possibly work everywhere. I don't think it could work in the USA because of different customs and cultures. In Europe, my understanding is that the notice period is required by law. The culture is accustomed to it. In the US, the notice period is by custom and norms. For better or worse, Americans for the most part don't like to be told what they must do. They want to be free to choose (although that ideal is slipping away). Thus, the cultural norm works in the USA because it is perceived as a choice, but being forced to do it probably wouldn't. – Dunk Sep 20 '16 at 14:52
  • 5
    "First off, the USA has an adverse reaction to anything that has the appearance of slavery; forced employment certainly falls under this view." As opposed to Europe, where slavery is A-OK? This bizarre sentence detracts from your overall answer. Requirements in a contract are not "slavery." –  Sep 22 '16 at 05:20
  • @NotMe OP is from Europe, and therefore the comparison to Europe's views in particular on slavery are relevant. I highly doubt that Kyralessa believes India does not exist. – Notso Jan 17 '19 at 13:51
  • 2
    @AllTheKingsHorses: It's not just slavery, it's also "involuntary servitude", which is quite a bit broader than slavery. The Supreme Court has interpreted it somewhat more narrowly than you might expect, but it may still be applicable to an open-and-shut case of "your contract requires you to go to work today, or else we will sue/prosecute you." – Kevin Mar 14 '21 at 20:01
16

I don't know which countries in Europe you've lived or worked in, but I can make comparisons to experiences my family have had in Germany. Hopefully, you'll get a better understanding of the professional environment in the US.

In the US, companies don't typically invest as much in their employees. For example, companies don't like to give extensive training to new hires. They would much rather hire someone that has received training/experience from another company (which is why recent college grads have difficulty finding jobs). In Germany this is the opposite. Companies there would rather hire someone inexperienced right out of school, provide them training, and keep them forever.

By investing little in their employees, it becomes much cheaper to fire someone. In combination with at-will contracts, companies can afford mass lay-offs whenever they are losing/not making enough profit. Adding terminology regarding time constraints would be detrimental to the company in this sort of environment.

That being said, changing jobs is fairly common in the US. People frequently move across states, and even the country, to find new lucrative employment (moving twice the distance from about the UK to Italy for a job seems insane for my German family). With all this going on, references become pretty important. Giving your current employer some time to make arrangements before you leave is the respectful thing to do. Your employer will recognize this, especially since they couldn't afford to do the same for you (vindictive employees). This is more likely to lead to a positive reference which could land you that next job.

As a side note, the companies I've worked for don't necessarily like promoting people. If someone leaves, they typically like to fill the position with someone new. For a lot of people, the best way to get promoted is to find your promotion with another company. If you want that new position, you almost need a reference from your current one.

SomeGuy
  • 189
  • 3
  • 7
    Well.... Thanks for the terribly depressing reminder that our society is just simply broken in the most fundamental ways. – ThatGuy Sep 17 '16 at 01:33
  • Hm... references are pretty important in Germany as well (and an arcane topic in itself, see here ). But I don't see how this all plays together: if you give notice, you ideally do it because you've already got another offer (which you got without the reference from your current company). Only then will your current employer give you a reference, right? So you don't need it for the new job but maybe for the one after that? – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 17 '16 at 09:33
  • 3
    @ThatGuy I think not - you trade security for flexibillity. The german model can be very harmful if the economic situation changes and people cannot follow the changing situation. As an employee, I dislike my extremely long notice periods (3-4 months). It is difficult to change to a new employer, who would like to start you tomorrow and even if he agrees, you sid 3 months in oldjob, doing nothing new. – Christian Sauer Sep 17 '16 at 09:56
  • 1
    @ChristianSauer I was referring to the fact that, in the US, the only way to get ahead these days is to find a new employee. – ThatGuy Sep 17 '16 at 10:19
5

Your assumption that most employees in the US have a contract is wrong. We may have a one page offer setting the initial start date and salary, and mentioning benefits and employee handbook; but no formal contract.

Therefore any expectation for two weeks notice is by custom.

The role of the two week notice is to train somebody else, or to prepare turnover documents, or to finish the assigned shift schedule. It isn't to let them find and hire a replacement and have you train them.

It isn't months long which would seem to be designed to make is too hard to leave.

mhoran_psprep
  • 72,299
  • 8
  • 131
  • 233
  • 6
    In my book, if the company mutually agrees to not have a notice period, they should be prepared for employees quitting on the spot. The employee must expect to be fired on the spot too, right? – daraos Sep 16 '16 at 11:22
  • I dunno. I certainly signed a formal contract; that's what the Intellectual Property Agreement and so on were attached to. But that may be less comments n in smaller businesses or in other industries. – keshlam Sep 16 '16 at 12:33
  • 1
    What you've described in the first sentence is exactly what employee contract is. The question: why it does not specify notice period still stands. – Agent_L Sep 16 '16 at 14:10
  • 3
    It only addresses the start date and salary. everything else is in the other documents. The salary, handbook are not static, and benefit documents change annually. Unless the government requires it they can be changed without requiring an negotiation. – mhoran_psprep Sep 16 '16 at 15:01
  • 1
    Employees are fired on the spot. Happens all the time and I can;t imagine why any company wouldn't want to do that for any person they are firing as it is a risk to the business to keep them there. – HLGEM Sep 16 '16 at 15:32
  • Custom and practice can give rise to an implied contact term – Pepone Oct 03 '16 at 13:34
3

Most US employees do not have contracts. The ones that do, abide by the contract. Giving notice is expected, but not required. If you leave your employer without notice, it is considered bad form, and could damage your reputation with future employers.

Also, employers will ask "how much notice do you need to give" to see if you're honorable or not. If you say anything other than two weeks (or longer if you have contractual commitments) you may have just killed your chances as the employer may think that you'd leave them in a lurch at some future point.

Old_Lamplighter
  • 159,693
  • 108
  • 436
  • 585
1

Depending on your job, you might have several projects running in which you are involved or have things in your mailbox / desk that need to be transferred to others or completed by yourself.

Thus, if you were to leave immediately, this would put the company (your manager) in the difficult position of having to check everything you did for open ends. Inevitably this will lead to problems and or things that are not resolved properly.

As a result, it is considered polite to use a period after your resignation (after the company knows they have to create capacity for your open projects) to facilitate the transfer and make sure everything keeps running smoothly.

EDIT: read the question wrong, this doesn't answer the original question. Apologies.

Maikel124
  • 29
  • 2
  • 4
    While reasonable, this does not answer the question, which is: If employers expect a notice period, why don't they put it into the contract? – sleske Sep 16 '16 at 10:07
  • You're absolutely right, apologies! – Maikel124 Sep 16 '16 at 10:08
  • 1
    @nocomprende No European professional understands that, hence the question. – Agent_L Sep 16 '16 at 14:08
  • 1
    @nocomprende One-sided standard is just a form of exploitation. Eg tipping the waiter who did a lousy job exploits the customer, and then it's an excuse for the restaurant owner to exploit all waiters alike. If Liberal Arts can't teach people to recognize this then it has failed in quality, not quantity : ) – Agent_L Sep 16 '16 at 14:27
  • @nocomprende Last time I checked on US social standards there was no decision involved. Customer is obliged to tip at least 10%, period. Even if the service is lousy. That is a common basis for what constitutes "professional behavior" or "skill" or "courtesy" for customers. Common basis is defined and taught, but it's not necessarily right or good. Just like FGM is a social standard, but an evil one. – Agent_L Sep 16 '16 at 14:58
  • @nocomprende If you think that topic of dozens of thousands of people being harmed for life cannot be mentioned just because their mutilation happens in particular body area, then we indeed need to part. And don't you EVER dare to mention any moral or cultural issue, because you have no morals at all. – Agent_L Sep 16 '16 at 15:06
  • 1
    @Agent_L you don't HAVE to tip at all in the US. If you don't you'll be seen as a jerk and probably wouldn't get good service if you return, but I've certainly had service bad enough where I didn't leave any tip at all. Its expected to tip, not required. – Andy Sep 17 '16 at 01:21
  • @drewbenn No, it doesn't. I'm well aware why a notice period is a good idea for both sides (I've worked only in countries/companies where two weeks is on the very short end of the spectrum). What I don't understand is why - since it's such a good idea - an employer who expects two weeks notice would not put it into every contract (if it isn't already covered by law, which it isn't in at-will states). – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 17 '16 at 09:10
  • 2
    @drewbenn: so why do companies not reason that if they ever let an employee go without two weeks notice, then they have suddenly left that employee hanging, and the next employee will want to know if they're going to do it to them? Thus it's part of the employer's corporate reputation? Is it that employers are more fragile creatures than employees, less able to handle surprises, or is it a power imbalance that means companies don't have no reason to care about their reputation? – Steve Jessop Sep 17 '16 at 21:23
-1

I would suggest one likely reason is that if they did that, then there would have to be a reciprocal agreement not to let them go without notice. Only a company that is foolish wants to keep on board people they are letting go whether being fired for cause or in a layoff. Too many of those people have the ability to significantly damage the company.

HLGEM
  • 142,324
  • 26
  • 258
  • 516
  • "then there would have to be a reciprocal agreement not to let them go without notice" - well, of course? Paying people (for two weeks) who you don't "need any longer" would be the price to pay for reducing the risk of people just walking out. But if the vast majority of employees doesn't just walk out anyway, even if treated poorly, I can see that employers just don't have to. – AllTheKingsHorses Sep 17 '16 at 09:23
  • If you can't plan layoffs two weeks in advance, something is going wrong. Firing somebody for gross misconduct can still be done with immediate effect; firing for anything else can wait two weeks. This is another answer of "It couldn't possibly work like that" which ignores the fact that it does work exactly like that in many other places. – David Richerby Sep 17 '16 at 11:45
  • I am not saying they couldn't keep the people I am saying they don't want to as people who have been laid off are risk to the company. It was asked why the US does this and that is one reason why, – HLGEM Sep 17 '16 at 12:09
  • Would the reciprocal agreement have to allow them to hang around an "significantly damage the company", or would it be sufficient in US contract law to pay them two weeks in lieu of notice, and that constitute a sufficient reciprocal agreement? Of course there are companies to whom two weeks pay for a worker who isn't working is "significant damage", and those are the most likely to want to lay people off. And since employees self-police this by giving terrible references in retaliation, any tiny risk of a cost to the company isn't worth paying for something they get free :-) – Steve Jessop Sep 17 '16 at 21:16
  • 3
    ... but I'd be quite surprised if "if we required two weeks notice then we'd have to let Dave, who we've just laid off, keep the keys to the company safe for two weeks" is the case in US law, since that's not the case in other countries and is clearly pretty undesirable all around. Just pay Dave and send him on his way. So are companies saying, "aargh! security! can't do that!" as a smokescreen, when the actual reason is "two weeks pay"? Which might be a perfectly legitimate business decision, not to pay so much for something you can get free, but admitting it makes the employer a jerk. – Steve Jessop Sep 17 '16 at 21:27
  • @SteveJessop you normaly just get PYLO pay in lieu of notice – Pepone Oct 03 '16 at 13:35