quit my day job, need pointers fast

[molested_cow]

[
People actually do that in real life? If I quit, I have to give 4 weeks notice. It's in my employment contract. I thought is was in all employment contracts!

Most folks in the U.S. don't have an employment contract.

Oh my.

Well, not entirely true.

For most corporate jobs, if you want to quit, you submit in your letter and the company typically have to right to ask you to stay for about 2 weeks to make sure the work transition is done. It's up to you to negotiate with the company what the actual terms will be. However, if the company wants to fire you, it can be as swift as you finding out when the card key stops working when you try to enter the gate in the morning.

 

[Josh66]

Most folks in the U.S. don't have an employment contract.

Oh my.

Well, not entirely true.

For most corporate jobs, if you want to quit, you submit in your letter and the company typically have to right to ask you to stay for about 2 weeks to make sure the work transition is done. It's up to you to negotiate with the company what the actual terms will be. However, if the company wants to fire you, it can be as swift as you finding out when the card key stops working when you try to enter the gate in the morning.

I don't know about other people, but I signed a contract for every job I've ever had. Usually they were fairly simple, having more to do with how much money I would be making, and what day I would start than anything else.
Some of them have had a part in them saying that I would have to pay back any relocation money they gave me if I quit before a certain date.

I'm not contractually obligated to, but common practice is to give 2 weeks notice when you quit. Where I work now, they walk you out right after you hand that in. The only difference is that if I give a notice and they walk me out that day, they'll hire me if apply later. If I just walk in and tell them 'I quit', they won't hire me again.

It's mostly that they know you're not going to be doing much of anything in your last two weeks, so why pay you for it? I think they're also afraid that you'll try to talk other people into quitting too.

 

[usayit]

unless on a contract basis, the paperwork you signed as an employee is simply an agreement that has very little weight in a court of law.

My situation...

I signed an agreement with a company to work 12 hour shifts three days a week (36 hours). The pay was crappy but I took it because I was faced with notion of long term unemployment (with benefits ending soon). I negotiated that shift to allow me to take a second job that I had already brewing in the background. The paperwork I signed specifically stated the 12 hour 3 days a week workweek. Two years later, they changed my schedule forcing me to work 10 hours, 4 days a week.. squeezing me out of an additional 4 hours per week. Oh and I had to take the same salary and suck it up. It would have forced me to pay additional days on daycare AND end my second job. I took the signed agreement to HR and they basically said the paper was garbage and good luck in court. I took it through another individual who explained to me the whole "at will" clause and concluded that the agreement was worth nothing. I was left with two choices: Suck it up or Quit. That's basically the extent of "real" worker rights in the U.S... protection from servitude. Oh yes.. you can fight for other so called "rights" but for what? To go broke in legal fees and work a job as a disgruntled employee.

That same individual also pointed out the rather strange move by the company to change their employees of a certain function from non-exempt status (I had worked for the same company prior as non-exempt) to exempt/salaried a few years prior. As hourly employees, you are working hours.. no more .. no less. You don't have the flexibility of work schedule BUT you have the right to extra compensation if you work afterhours or extra hours. As an exempt/salary employee the company isn't under any obligation for that extra compensation... you are essentially paid to do a function. On the other hand, this company made it clear that it was part of you function to be there for the customer during your assigned "time" at work. So they managed to create an environment in which the employees enjoy none of the advantages of hourly employment nor salaried employment.... but you get all the disadvantages of both types.

That experience among other things that occured during the early 2000s made me realize that corporate america is a very ugly place. Its why leaving a "cool" boss in a tough position because you just simply quite seems like a really crappy thing to do... a good, fair, and thoughtful boss is a luxury many don't enjoy.


PS> wtf is wrong with companies who require references for employement BUT they themselves say its against company policy to give references out.

 

[Rekd]

My wife took the news pretty well considering she is a teacher and there is this big fight in madison with our new governor and the unions.

So your wife lies to kids and teaches them it's ok to lie in order to get your way? :twak:

 

[Josh66]

the whole "at will" clause and concluded that the agreement was worth nothing.

HA - All of our company policies have that at the end. Nothing that I actually signed had it though...

The only thing I had to sign here was a thing saying that they would pay me x dollars an hour to start, and my employment was contingent on obtaining a security clearance. There are plenty of people at work that don't have one, but based on what I signed, they could have fired me if I was declined. I don't think they make people sign that anymore... Or maybe they just had some special project in mind when they hired me. Who knows...

They did pay me $5000 to move, but I didn't even have to agree to pay that back. They make people pay that back if they quit before 18 months now, and I think they lowered the amount. I have heard of them actually prosecuting people for quitting without paying that back...

Other places had other 'contracts'... At one job, a group of employees actually had to sue the company for not holding up their end of the bargain. Actually, I don't think they had to sue - I think a letter from their attorneys threatening a suit was all it took.

 

[quiddity]

My wife took the news pretty well considering she is a teacher and there is this big fight in madison with our new governor and the unions.

So your wife lies to kids and teaches them it's ok to lie in order to get your way? :twak:

eh?

 

[Rekd]

Sounds like your wife is one of the striking teachers? Or is she one of the few who think it's a bad idea?

 

[quiddity]

no teachers are striking. it is illegal for teachers to strike.

 

[Rekd]

no teachers are striking. it is illegal for teachers to strike.

Hence the reason I asked if she was one of the lying teachers. They're striking by calling in sick. Such a great example they're setting for our children, don't you think?

So you gonna answer the question?

 

[quiddity]

their administration called school off for one day before a sick out was called. so no she didnt sick out.

 

[Rekd]

their administration called school off for one day before a sick out was called. so no she didnt sick out.

But she would have eh? (I just notice you're really dancing around this subject. It seems to make you uncomfortable.)

 

[Rekd]

So I'll take that as a yes: Your wife is willing to teach kids that lying to get your way is ok.

She's a keeper.

 

[kundalini]

I understand they have extended unemployment benefits.


Oh wait..... that excludes those that QUIT their current employment.

​

 

[Forkie]

no teachers are striking. it is illegal for teachers to strike.

Seriously? It is illegal for people to take political action just because they are teachers?

So I'll take that as a yes: Your wife is willing to teach kids that lying to get your way is ok.

She's a keeper.

Also, I don't think this is the place to pass judgement on other people's wives. Even more so when they are not a member of the board and are not here to defend themselves.

 

[Davor]

no teachers are striking. it is illegal for teachers to strike.

Seriously? It is illegal for people to take political action just because they are teachers?

So I'll take that as a yes: Your wife is willing to teach kids that lying to get your way is ok.

She's a keeper.

Also, I don't think this is the place to pass judgement on other people wives. Even more so when they are not a member of the board and are not here to defend themselves.

Of course, notice his location "Frozen Tundra"