Microsoft's Treatment of Google Defectors

Miguel de Icaza (Note, this Miguel is not the Ximian developer, just someone whose small life is fulfilled by trolling under someone else's name) writes "Here is a story revealing just how threatened Microsoft is by Google. While senior partners can expect the full chair experience, some lowly staffers who are putting in their notice are being escorted off campus immediately. Why? Because they've put in their notice to join Google. In Microsoft's eyes, Google is Enemy No. 1. Anyone leaving Redmond for the search leader is a threat. Not because they'll scurry around collecting company secrets — as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies. Departing employees, however, might tell other 'Softies how much better Google is. If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer which doesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up. So if you're planning on leaving Microsoft for Google, pack up your belongings and say goodbye to friends ahead of time. There'll be no cake and two weeks of paid slacking for you."

not that uncommon

If you're leaving these days it's not uncommon to get escorted to the door... and it's not uncommon to be a perp walk, which sucks. It undermines the fabric of trust in the workforce generally and damages individual psyche specifically. Microsoft isn't unique in this regard, though the article does seem to indicate it is Google-specific.

If it is Google-specific it underscores Microsoft's pettiness, and maybe a little stupidity. They should enforce a consistent policy. Unless an employee has shown himself to be a bad seed, treat him (or her) with respect.

I experienced the perp walk (layoff) after 21 years with qwest. It has garnered nothing but ill will since. The net balance of this kind of treatment is surely negative. You can handle this kind of policy with dignity. Most don't.

While I doubt too many Google employees are leaving for the crumbling Monarchy that is Microsoft, I wouldn't be surprised if Google has similar policies and procedures.

Re:what's the big deal?

Its not SOP. I've been through many companies, not a single one treated me or other employees this way. If someone wants to damage the company, why would they give you a chance to throw you out? They'll just do it before they put in their notice. Respect your employees and they'll treat you in kind.

Re:what's the big deal?

Its not SOP. I've been through many companies, not a single one treated me or other employees this way

In the typical over-simplification of slashdot, in only ten posts this issue has become either total trust by employers (your point of view) or an insulting perp-walk (OP and other's view). In reality it IS standard procedure in many companies to pay resigning emplyees through their notification period, but to ask them not to report to work during that time. It isn't insulting - I've had it happen to me, and I prefer it.

I've also had an employer who tried to wring every last drop of work out of me by making me work to 5:00 PM on the last day of notice. I found the second approach much more demeaning - as if I were some sort of rental human. To show how insulting that can be, they docked me two hours of pay when I left early at 3pm on my last day of work even though I was a salaried professional.

Re:what's the big deal?

No, it isn't.

Everyone who intends to take anything with them is probably smart enough to make copies before telling you they're leaving. Likewise, any damage they might do can already be set up.

The only situation where being escorted off is when the company fires someone, or when he resigns surprisingly (including to himself) in a fit of anger. In any other situation, anything you're trying to protect yourself from has either already happened, or won't happen even if you just let him go peacefully.

Re:what's the big deal?

Unfortunately this is not always true. I worked in a computing lab at the University of Tennessee in the 90's. We had a girl who came in to do backups every evening. She put in her notice one day, served it out, still making the backups. After she left, she logged in with the still-unchanged root password and trashed our systems. And it turned out the last few "backups" she made were blank. I guess she was pissed about something; we never firgured out what.

Re:what's the big deal?

Maybe you referred to her as a "girl?"

Re:what's the big deal?

Everyone who intends to take anything with them is probably smart enough to make copies before telling you they're leaving. Likewise, any damage they might do can already be set up.

True. But if they have done as you suggest, and not taken enough care when deleting the private files on their disk to defeat a specialist data recovery company, then you have a slam-dunk lawsuit against their new employer. You may also find out what they were offered before your other good people are head-hunted. And if they have a company-provided cellphone, the contact details on that are gold dust.

So you really don't want to leave them alone with their PC or phone.

Re:what's the big deal?

My guess he's self employed and has split personality disorder.

Re:what's the big deal?

Have you never watched the Jetsons?

Re:what's the big deal?

When deciding whether to terminate someone immediately or let them serve out their two weeks, obviously there's an issue of trust (and as you said, they could have already taken stuff). But it's ALSO an issue (more importantly) of the perception of the SURVIVORS.

By escorting someone out, it could be an intentional signal to the other employees that you take this rivalry seriously. Or by letting them work the two weeks, it could be a signal that you are employee-friendly and there are no hard feelings. But the main concern really needs to be about how the remaining employees feel. There should be little concern about how the departing employee feels - except that it's often not a good idea to make enemies.

Company burning bridges

I've got a friend who worked at a software company for a number of years and was involved in a lot of projects. He gave his notice and said he could continue working for up to 4 weeks to help transition projects if needed. He had timed things to be leaving after wrapping up the project he was working on. Really tried to be a nice guy about it. And he was switching to a job that did software in a totally different field -- no common customers, no related technology.

The management didn't quite see it that way. He was asked to wait in a conference room while they conferred. They had security put his personal possessions into a box, turned off his access, had HR come review all his NDAs and threaten him, and then made a public announcement (over the paging system) that he was no longer an employee and was being escorted out. And then gave a 2 security guard escort to the parking lot, and followed him until he drove off the lot.

He tried to keep it all in perspective -- he was a bit shocked at how he was treated since he thought he had a good relationship with the company, and had wanted to leave on good terms. His new employer was happy to let him start early.

Funny enough two weeks later the old company called him. Could he help fix a problem a very important customer was running into? They said if he came in and helped he could pick up his final paycheck at the same time (nice veiled threat). He was cool about it. He said that his new job was taking up all this time and he didn't have any time currently, but that he might be able to offer some advice to the current staff over the phone. Oh, and they could mail him his check. Yeah, that went over like a lead balloon. Lots of threats, cursing, and such. Wish he'd recorded that. His new company gave him Group Legal as part of his benefits, so last I heard he was using that to attempt to get his final paycheck. And he's incredibly happy at his new company.

Re:what's the big deal?

Here in Switzerland, 2 months notice MINIMUM is required by law. Most companies write up 3 months for most regular jobs, and 6+ months for senior/executive positions.

And most of the time, you'll spend this time wrapping up your work. It's HIGHLY unusual to be suspended immediately - usually only if you stole company goods or something like that.

When i've switched jobs, i always spent the time productively, completing documentation, instructing my follow-up, etc. pp.

American working culture always looks very strange to me :)

Re:what's the big deal?

It's not so much a working culture. It's more like watching one of those nature documentaries where the slower and weaker animals are getting run down and eaten, or wander into quicksand and drown. If you're lucky. In some areas, it's positively Dickensian.

Re:what's the big deal?

Just FYI, here in the US, the law basically states that the company can fire you for any (legal) reason at any time, and therefore employees also have the right to quit at any time for any reason. The 2 week thing is a general courtesy understood throughout the workforce, but not required by law.

Re:what's the big deal?

Of course comparing it with involuntary servitude is ridiculous. It's a contract. As long as there is mutual consideration, calling it involuntary makes no more sense than calling any other contract term involuntary. Certainly noone can force you to serve out the time, but you can expect consequences if you don't, just as with violating any other contract term.

Note that in all countries I'm aware of that have longer notice periods a) it can be waived by mutual agreement, b) you can usually remove it from contracts as long as you provide sufficient consideration - typically that consideration must be greater to the employee as it's assumed the employee negotiates from a position of weakness unless it's a very high level position, c) it's mutual - that is, you have legal protection to ensure you at the very least get paid for the full notice period even if you get fired, and often to guarantee you actually is guaranteed the right to go to work during that period (though it's getting more common for workplaces to negotiate for some types of employees to leave immediately while still paying them).

In Norway the typical notice period is 3 months, and an employment contract that says elsewhere needs a LOT of care to be valid unless it's part time/fixed term contract or seasonal work. Basically, the employer would need to offer to compensate you for it, and just offering to pay for it regardless likely wouldn't be enough, as you have right to work during the notice period, not just to get paid.

And while certainly some of the motivation is gone while serving out your notice period, I've personally never seen someone be unprofessional about it - people do stick around and do their jobs properly, because it's what they were contracted to do. As the other poster I find US working practices completely bizarre.

Re:what's the big deal?

Switzerland has a lower unemployment rate than the US. 3.3% compared to 4.7%.

Re:what's the big deal?

But the story is that MS is not doing this for security, they're doing it to prevent 'defectors' taking others with them. I really can't even begin to get inside the thought process of whoever had this idea - who seriously thinks "Hmm, good employees are leaving because they think another company is a more pleasant place to work, we'd better make sure the secret doesn't get out" rather than "Hmm, good employees are leaving because they think another company is a more pleasant place to work, we'd better see if we can find out what we're doing wrong and perhaps work on fixing it".

Re:what's the big deal?

So Microsoft is now treating employees the same way they treat customers?

Re:what's the big deal?

I've been in both types of business. I find that the higher the level of trust that they've had to have in you, the less likely you are to get booted immediately. If you're in charge of data integrity and security on a financial system, a position of high trust, you're not going to get railroaded like you would if you're an applications developer.

The job I'm in now, I should get "perp-walked" when I put in my notice (I have way too much systems access), but I doubt I will be, because they'll be desperate for me to train someone, and catch up my documentation. It's a trust position, though a number of people over me probably don't trust me...If I were them I wouldn't trust anyone, due to the amount of backstabbing they've been dealing in.

They're not always rational...It'll be interesting to see.

Why give notice, then?Resign effective immediately

Giving notice is a courtesy to the company and it must be earned.

>>If you're leaving these days it's not uncommon to get escorted to the door...

Then, if this is standard practice at your company, do not provide notice. Just quit, walk out, and never look back.
Clean out your office over the preceeding week, then simply say to your manager on the last hour of your last day "I quit, effective immediately. I'm not coming back tomorrow, and I did not give notice because of the poor way this company responds to those who resign (e.g. "perp walk"). Goodbye and good luck." Or just send them an email over the weekend. It might sound harsh but if they truly respond this poorly to resignations, you have nothing to lose anyway.

The funny part is, I'll bet the clueless executives have had at least one profanely expensive "retreat" this year where they listened to expensive consultants's opinions on boosting employee morale and/or commitment.

Agreed, but still a violation of trust

I agree, it is very common. I think most HR consultants advise companies in competitive industries to escort fired or quitting employees to the door immediately, giving them no chance to do any damage. The thing is, I still think it's wrong. It's a unilateral violation of the trust contract between employees and the employer. Employees are trusted with the most sensitive information and assets of the company while they are working there, and it would be easy to abuse that trust. Any employee who is planning to leave, or who getting the vibe that they could be laid off, could be stocking up on sensitive info or doing other damage if they wanted. What stops them? Nothing but mutual trust and the value of personal reputation. When the employer violates that trust contract by treating the employee badly and showing that they have no trust, that is being communicated not only to the mistreated employee, but to everyone else who still works there. Only future badness can result. As an emmployer, I'd rather demonstrate trust in my employees and take the chance of an occasional hit from a bad one.

Re:Agreed, but still a violation of trust

It's a unilateral violation of the trust contract between employees and the employer.

A sense of trust and loyalty between company and employer used to be common. It was a recognition that the relationship was mutually beneficial and voluntary. But that has been lost with many large companies recently. The relationship now is closer to that of master and servant.

A couple years ago I left the Siemens leviathan, for a small fifty man company. I've never been happier. Better pay, better respect, interesting work. My work takes me inside lots of other companies, and I see the same thing there. Smaller companies have happier employees doing more interesting work, while large companies are full of melancholy drones.

Re:not that uncommon

Anyone leaving Redmond for the search leader is a threat. Not because they'll scurry around collecting company secrets -- as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies. Departing employees, however, might tell other 'Softies how much better Google is. If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer whichdoesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up.

Is it just me or is this totally wild, baseless speculation? They provide no source to back this up...who's to say they're not doing it for a different reason?

Microsoft is simply bland..

I have never worked for Microsoft and to be honest, I'd probably never want to. I think the key problem for Microsoft is that nothing they do is exciting anymore.

I think Vista has really damaged Microsoft. Not in terms of revenue, since a sale of Windows XP is still a sale for Microsoft. No, the damage is in morale. Vista was an absolute disaster for morale. They worked for a couple of years only to ditch it and start again from the Windows 2003 Server source-code. Nothing they put in to Vista was in anyway something you can get developers energised about. Every feature had nightmarish committees which destroyed any hope of motivation. They even developed anti-features like SecurePath that nobody cares about.

I read somewhere that Microsoft developers write something like 1,000 lines of code a year. Last-year, I contributed around forty times that to our source control at work. When you're paid so much to do so little - that has to destroy morale too. Most developers I know like to work.

Vista is a symptom of a much deeper problem. Microsoft doesn't know how to be sexy. it doesn't now how to to be secure and it doesn't know how to please it's users. Worst of all, it doesn't know how to make it's huge base of developers happy!

All of this makes Google a very attractive place. If all your talent walks right of your door, it isn't too long until there is no way whatsoever to fix any of the problems I've just mentioned.

Put more succinctly, Microsoft sucks and Google rocks.

Simon.

Re:Microsoft is simply bland..

I read somewhere that Microsoft developers write something like 1,000 lines of code a year

I forget if it was here on /. or somewhere else but I recall reading a story of a person hired at MS whose job was to revamp the shutdown/suspend/sleep features of Vista, mainly involving the menu options available to the user. After 6 months or so he left in disgust because of all the bureaucracy involved. He attended dozens of meetings, had something like 6 different groups providing input on requirements, menu design, etc. (but nobody actually responsible for resolving issues/conflicts) In his time there he ended up only writing a few hundred lines of code, and attended just about as many meetings.

I would love to find that article again. It was very interesting reading.

Re:Microsoft is simply bland..

As requested:

The Initiating Story: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html [joelonsoftware.com]

The Inside Story: http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html [blogspot.com]

Slashdot Coverage: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/27/1728231 [slashdot.org]

Microsoft do more than that

If you think MS R&D is bland, it's because you're just uninformed.

Take a look at this for instance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECPOXUQB5k0 [youtube.com]

Re:Microsoft is simply bland..

I'd like to add to this. I worked there for 5 years and left a burned-out husk ;) but the company did offer huge variety. Think about it - where else would you be able to work on databases, consumer internet apps, graphics device drivers, compilers, console games, etc. All in the same company. Any area you are interested in, Microsoft has a group doing it. Plus they have a fair amount of financial stability, which does count when you have dependents.

Anyway, I'm no Microsoft apologist but if you want to work on technology, they can offer that. As for endless meetings without getting much done. Here's some news - LOTS of places are like that. My first job at a government contractor, I think I wrote one PERL script of about 20 lines in a year. There are pros and cons, you career shouldn't just be a "Microsoft sucks" knee-jerk reaction.

Re:Microsoft is simply bland..

The thing that people forget is that Microsoft is big. Really, really big. You're right that the botched Vista release has probably reduced the cachet of the Windows division... but Microsoft Games right now is super-hot and kicking ass. Microsoft Office has just finished redesigning almost the entire UI of Office in their new release, and it's been received pretty well. (No matter how it was received, though, the pure risk involved in doing that deserves taking note!) Microsoft Hardware has always been pretty good at putting out good products, and Live.com right now has the best image search on the web and is rapidly advancing on Google in nearly all areas.

But even then you can drill down. I said I was impressed that the Office division completely re-designed their UI-- then again, look at Office Live. They're putting out a product that virtually nobody wants, and selling it in a crummy way. And I'm sure you could go down another level and find a group within Office Live that's really kicking ass if you did the research.

Point is, Microsoft has 70,000 employees in the Redmond/Seattle area alone. They're freakin' huge. If you read an article saying IBM printer sales were down, you wouldn't assume that iSeries midrange computers are going to tank also. Remember the same applies to Microsoft.

If you were working at Microsoft Games, you wouldn't think your job sucked based on how Windows was received.

Writing code is easy. Debugging it is hard

Just counting lines of code can be highly misleading:

1. IIRC that was a flawed metric anyway. That was final number of lines of code, divided by developpers, divided by time. It just isn't the same as what you seem to think it means. E.g., lines of code changed or refactored or whatever, would not be counted in that number.

Judged by that kind of a flawed metric, my contribution to some projects would actually be a negative number of lines of code per time unit. E.g., each time I moved someone's copy-and-paste code to its own method and replaced it with a call... well, let's say it was in 3 places, 20 lines of code, replaced with a method and a call each. That's minus thirty-something lines of code in a quarter of an hour by that metric. Am I the worst programmer ever, or what?

I'm sure CVS counts them for yours, though. So you're not comparing the same number.

Now I'm not saying that that alone accounts for that kind of a difference, but it's a start.

2. Just writing code is easy. It's debugging it that takes a lot of time. So the limiting thing is really how well you want that code to work. Going from, say, 90% caught bugs to 95% can easily double your development time on the whole... and thus halve your average lines per year.

Yes, I know, it's MS, but they still have a policy to not ship with known bugs. (Though obviously the unknown ones are more than enough in their own right.) So they'd inherently have less lines of code per year, compared to, say, Google which is officially a perpetual beta.

3. Lines of code / time doesn't scale linearly as the program complexity and team size grow. In other words, you can't just add man-months.

I thought I was so smart too in college, when I could write a program or module of several hundred lines of code in a day. But then that was the whole program, that was the whole complexity, and I was the whole team. That's the easy scenario.

Now move to something the size of Vista and it's just not the same thing any more. Now you suddenly have to deal with stuff like how your code works together with Tom, Dick and Harry's, what they want from your code, and what you need from theirs. There's a lot of overhead just to synchronize it all, document it all, learn other people's APIs, and deal with the increasing level of mis-understanding each other's interfaces.

Now I'm not saying that MS is necessarily the paragon of efficient coding anyway, but I am saying that a lot of people waving that number around... just aren't qualified to make that judgment. They've never actually worked on something that size, and that total team size. I've seen teams hit a wall and get bogged by the fact that each time one guy changes something, it broke some other guy's code, long before being anywhere near the size of MS or of Vista.

4. Well, I also don't like that metric because I've seen people actually abuse it. Not all lines of code are born the same.

E.g., my good coleague Wally would have topped that metric easily, because the guy just copied and pasted everything in sight to make it look like he's doing something. Not only he had whole open source projects pasted into his code tree, but also such surrealistic stuff as: a Swing (standalone GUI framework) file chooser dialog hidden deep in the source code of one of his EJBs (server-side thing.) That thing didn't serve any purpose. It was just there to inflate the number of lines of code he supposedly produced.

Replacing that monstrosity with something smaller and simpler, not only cut down the size (hence, less average lines of code per year for the team, ya know), but also made it run around 40 times faster.

You can also inflate the number of lines of code arbitrarily by just liberally mis-applying patterns. Just have everything get packed in a decorator, made by a factory, which is a singleton, register it with a manager, etc, etc, etc. The number of lines of overhead can be grown arbitrarily, without actually adding any functionality. And past a size wit

Paid slacking

Actually, getting escorted out the door gets you two weeks of paid slacking at home! I would consider it an insult if I weren't important enough to be shown the door in a paranoid fury.

No Cake? :(

There'll be no cake

And now the flood of portal jokes.

NOT Miguel de Icaza

Just to clarify, the submitter is not the real Miguel de Icaza. The real one uses the Slashdot ID miguel [slashdot.org].

"Put in their notice"

While that is the right thing to do, why on earth would you tell your current employer where you are going next?

Re:This is an excellent example of...

How does it benefit Microsoft?
What makes you think it was a rational decision? Not all business decisions are rational. Far too often they are driven by a desire to control, frighten the employees and/or stroke the egos of managers.

Any company would do this

Why is this a problem? Its just MS playing it safe, if I told my employer that I was leaving for our biggest competitor I think I wouldnt be allowed to sit around for the next two weeks out of concern that I could be gathering information. While 80% probably wouldnt there would surely be some who would. I can think of a half a dozen times off the top of my head when non-MS engineers I knew were "shown the door" when they informed their employer they were leaving for a competitor.

And since when is Amazon a second tier company? I've been there and know people that work there, it seems like a great place and from what I hear the compensation is very competitive with MS, Google, and whatever other company you think is a trendy "first tier company".

Totally useless attempt at damage control

Sorry, but even if I were to be escorted off the premises after giving notice it wouldn't prevent me from talking to coworkers. I've kept in touch with coworkers from a number of previous jobs. In todays high-tech marketplace it's very common. I get from, and send to former coworkers e-mails about new job opportunities. I have IM and e-mail accounts for a number of people going back 4 jobs or more. Then there are sites like LinkedIn, Plaxo, etc. that let you keep track of former employees.

If I worked at MS, gave notice that I was going to Google, and was immediately escorted out, I'd be much more inclined to e-mail my former co-workers and let them know what happened. I'd also willingly give them details about working at Google if they asked.

jumping on the bandwagon here

I've been twiddling with computers for a long time now. For me, Microsoft has always been like Churchill's definition of democracy -- it's the worst operation system (for the general public) except for all the others that have been tried. Yeah, macheads could argue that the OS* flavors are great but so many people would never even bother taking a look due to the premium price paid for the hardware. And Linux on the desktop? That was as far off as fusion power plants. Nothing Microsoft did was particularly elegant but you just sucked it up and dealt with it. What other choice did you have?

Well, it seems like Microsoft has really gotten itself in a bind. I think it's certainly possible for them to reverse course and right things for the company but I don't think it's plausible. Not that they're going to evaporate tomorrow, just that they've peaked and are entering a shallow and prolonged decline. Why is this? Because the very kind of corporate culture change that would allow Microsoft to get lean and agile is an affront to the power structure. I love Orwell's quote on this sort of thing: "The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." In this case, substitute "marketplace" for "battlefield."

The poster above nailed it when they said that Microsoft's products aren't exciting and thus the company itself is not an exciting place to work for. Why is it that Microsoft has to buy innovative companies instead of spinning off ideas from internal skunkworks? Because the corporate culture smothers innovation in the cradle.

So now we're seeing a mixture of interesting trends. Ubuntu has really made desktop Linux practical for the average Joe, I'd say 90% of the way there. That last 10% is up to the 3rd parties, bundling drivers so that a non-tech can go to the store, buy a widget, take it home and have it work right out of the box. We've got ridiculously low-priced laptops, both the OLPC and that new one from Asus. We've also got more encroachment from smart phones, PDA's, etc. These are all devices that are taking over activities that used to be wedded to PC's, big, bulky desktop machines running Windows. We've got open source office applications that can run native under Windows or Linux. They will only improve in time. Google is spitting out innovations left and right.

While making future predictions in the computer arena is a fairly silly thing to do, I'll go out on a limb and say that Microsoft is in serious trouble here. In order to overcome these dangers, the Microsoft kakosarchy will have to go away. Otherwise I think we're looking at a long, slow withering.

But *is* Google really that good?

I don't want to cite references, so just take this as anecdotal, but judging from comments from people who've left Google, and some other Silicon Valley commentators, I've recently been getting the impression that working at Google isn't really that great (at least, no better than MS). Supposedly there are too many people for too few profitable projects (remember where 95%+ of Google's revenue comes from) and thousands of people are, allegedly, working on projects that are going nowhere. I've also heard that since the IPO, a two-tier kind of environment has built up between the rich, old employees and the new ones.

Re:A project going nowhere?

Having worked on "nowhere" projects, I'd say the essential point that you are missing is that people working on a "nowhere" project go nowhere. Or are laid off. Nobody sponsors a non-profit project out of the good feelings it gives them.

If you aren't part of the profit, you are part of the loss. And losses get cut.

Be thankful you are working on something people believe will be profitable. Many, many things Google is looking at have almost no hope of ever seeing light of day, much less being profitable.

Headline/title is misleading!

Microsoft's Treatment of Google Defectors

From this heading alone, I'd conclude that defection is the other way round. That is to say, the defection is from Google to Microsoft.The story suggests otherwise.

But again, I could be wrong.

this might seem obvious but...

why not just avoid telling the company you are leaving where you are going to? ..or just use the same trite line companies use whenever they fire a CEO: "leaving to persue other opportunities" or "taking a sabbatical" or whatever.

Dumb

I can understand why a company might escort you off the premises after they lay you off - to avoid you stealing stuff and generally trying to get back at them. But when you resign you've already stolen everything you intend to (unless you're particularly disorganised), so what's the point?

I HAVE IT!!!

Why don't you just lie?

Like... you know... when they ask you... you tell them that you are going to work for McDonald's, or that you are dieing from AIDS or something.

My favourite would be a rare form of Ebola virus. Make sure to cough from time to time.

Sshhh

Why would you tell your soon to be former employer that you are going to go work for one of their competitors? Just say you are going to go work for a startup that you hope gets bought out by Microsoft.

I've seen employees escorted out and had to escort one out at a previous job. It's a humiliating experience even under the most benign of circumstances.

why would anyone tell them

I tell today's young tech people get stupider and stupider. You don't tell, they ask you say, "That's not the issue, thanks." But if you're going to brag all over the place then you're a retard.

Unproductive 2 weeks of wrapping up???!!!

they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up

Said like a lousy manager, or one who doesn't appreciate what people actually do, or somebody who never worked in a large enough organization to appreciate the true cost of attrition, or I don't know what...

Excepting the departures of Truly Useless People, those last two weeks are somebody's last chance to find out that which you don't know about that which you are about to inherit. I am so sick of watching stupid managers and stupid successors squander that invaluable last chance because they act like scorned girlfriends or just don't understand the true value of even people who would leave, and the undocumented knowledge they carry in their heads.

I've never met a leaving person who wouldn't be helpful in his own succession. Most, in fact, are incredulous as to how little anybody seems to care about the invaluable knowledge they are walking away with, and how much more difficult their successor's lives will be for the ignorance.

Shape up, managers and everybody else. Those defectors leaving your ranks should be more valuable to you in those last two weeks than in any other two weeks of their employ.

Um... so?

Quick question: how many people here work or have worked for Microsoft? What about Google?

How many here actually have a snowball's chance in hell to work for either of these companies?

Why does Slashdot care so much about the goings-on of the elitist clique of software developers fostered by both companies? Is there any chance this will actually effect any of us, or is this simply the Slashdot equivalent of reading People magazine?