Can You Be Sued for Quitting? 1057
An anonymous reader asks: "I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor. I had a great relationship with my employer and wanted to leave on good terms, and I hadn't signed any non-compete or employment agreements . I felt my old company had just gotten too large and I didn't like working there anymore, so I gave them two weeks notice in writing. They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building. Has anybody ever heard of this happening? Do they have any legal basis for suing me?" It shouldn't have to be said that seeking professional legal representation, in such a situation, is the first thing one should do.
I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps your former employer might be better advised to spend the money and effort having a consultant come in and find out why they are losing people - a professional job satisfaction survey, say. If you have found that the work environment has changed enough to motivate you to seek employment elsewhere, then others are likely thinking the same thing. Maybe their threat of a lawsuit is a form of coercive message to other workers that they had better stay... or else!!
anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything (Score:5, Interesting)
I propose the poor guy sues his company. before it has time to sue him.
IANAL, but I'm sure a pro can find a few nicely worded offenses commited by this company (Breaking the freedom of choosing its employer, being considered as a serf belonging to the company while slavery has been abolished for some time, moral prejudice for unneeded sufferings, cruelty (in group), libel (?), being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is), intimidation, unheeded meddling in someone's affairs, etc
Anyhow, if they want to play dumb, he should just play harder...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The company management is clearly poor. The lawsuit is a good indication of this.
Bad management is probably why the work environment is crap. Which is why people are choosing to leave.
Chicken and egg.
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:4, Funny)
IANAL and all... (Score:5, Informative)
Shit List (Score:5, Funny)
For your own sake, keep these private. Fireproof box with a combo or a key you *always* keep with you is okay.
When something goes bad for you, decide how you want to treat it. Do you want to pull out something from the "good book" or from the "bad book".
If you get threatened, you can easily turn the log over to a lawyer for a quick browse. Something as simple of 15~20 minutes of overtime (why does the boss call at 4:58PM for a chat about an e-mail I sent at 9AM) every week over a few years can leave a company with massive fines. Every racist/sexist joke you hear is handy too.
Even if nothing ever goes wrong, maybe one of those jackasses will run for office one day. Then, you can call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party. Maybe get a nice retirement bonus out of it. Or you could just end up dead like one former President's old buddies. Hmm...
Re:Shit List (Score:5, Funny)
Bob from accounts looked at me funny. I'm sure he knows my secret.
Tuesday 30th:
I hear the directors laughing in the boardroom. They know too.
Wednesday 31st:
Arrived at work to find a crow standing on the window ledge outside my office window. I think this is a sign.
Thursday 1st:
The assault rifle, handgun and stun grenades are safely stored behind that old Vax in the machine room.
Friday 2nd:
Goodbye cruel world.
I actually keep a journal... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been helpful, mostly because it has enabled me to thread together events in time that I might not have otherwise seen if I wasn't keeping track. My effectiveness has been improving...but it is also becoming more and more apparant that this is one of the most disfuntional organization I've ever worked for.
On the plus side, I've picked up some useful skills on how to function in a dis-organized environment and learned some new FEA software along the way. All very useful things to bring to my next gig.
Keeping an objective journal (not a "shit-list") is a good idea.
Re:Shit List (Score:5, Insightful)
We are a tight group and we get things done.
However, if you make a wrong step, it can all turn sour in a minute.
Don't ever mistake the place you work for anything other than a symbiotic relationship. Don't ever mistake the people in the next cubicle for your friends. If you start something that devalues their stock or makes them work harder to pick up your slack, then you'll be out in the cold.
It pays to keep ammunition for those times. It might just literally save your life.
And, if it's never needed, then it's no blood no foul.
Re:Shit List (Score:5, Insightful)
There are things called friendship and trust.
If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.) It is wrong to think that such a secret list will have no deleterious effect unless you actually decide to deploy it.
This is the same myth that 'private life' and 'public life' are separable entities. They are not. What you do secretly affects the way you think, which affects they way you act, which affects how you treat others. It just isn't possible to do something in private without it subtly (or not so subtly) affecting the public aspects of your life.
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's usuaully used as a scare tactic. At least with what we've seen in public news. Its a scare tactic to keep people from doing something like making a parody of strawberry shortcake (Eh hem).
Suing someone for their livelyhood when you have no legal ground to do so is just plain stupid. Anyone who needed to work and was being tried to prevent that would surely challenge the plaintiff. Who wouldn't challenge that? What was The Planet thinking? Actually, don't answer that.
I hope this makes people think twice before hosting with The Planet or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers........
sig removed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It happens often enough. An old obscure band I referended before called Dumptruck [furious.com] was with Big Time records, an indy label. After their contract expired they decided to move up in the world to another label, Big Time sued them
Smear campaign? (Score:3, Funny)
I hope this makes people think twice before hosting with The Planet or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers........
And that, right there is the crux of this article. Have you ever noticed that every other time there's an Ask Slashdot that complains about an employer or other professional relationship, the offending party isn't named?
Not only does the article contain the name of the employer, but the submitter linked to them, along with a couple Wikipedia articles describing documents the poster didn't sign. It's like he wasn't looking for advice, and just wanted to announce to a million geeks that Company X is bad.
Th
Re:Smear campaign? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this actually happened the way OP described I would guess the VP of Sales (which in my experience isn't all that high of a position in management, and certainly not one to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the company, but I could be wrong) was just being an ass. Threats of lawsuit are pretty common in this country, and most remain just that-- idle threats. Perhaps the VP of Sales heard the CEO say "I ought to sue him for leaving" in the heat of the moment and took it literally; that kind of thing happens all the time.
Except...
The "anonymous reader" was thoughtful enough to name his former employer in the link, in effect smearing the company's name on a website read by hundreds of thousands of people (many in their industry) daily. Assuming this wasn't made up to begin with, the identity of the "anonymous reader" should be easy for the company to discover. If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.
Just out of curiosity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, and assuming of course that everything he wrote is true, what exactly would that better case be? "Your honor, he told the truth about events that he personally witnessed, and in a public forum to boot!"? Or maybe "He directed more traffic to our web site and potentially posted our Google page rank, with malice aforethought!"?
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In most states, the labor laws clearly state that employment is at-will. He can leave whenever he wants and they can fire him any time they want and, barring employment or non-competition contracts, they have no means of precluding him from working
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think the cloak of silence around companies that do evil things to their employees is awful. They should be named. It should be out in the open, and people should know. Maybe employers would work harder to find managers who were worth the salaries they were paid if their management's screwups became public knowledge. Especially for something like this.
If what this anonymous reader says is true, I can't see how the company could win any kind of lawsuit. Sure, it might make them more likely to try. And if they did I'm sure a judge would be happy to award the defendents significant damages for the company trying to waste their time and the courts time with a frivolous intimidation lawsuit.
do not discuss law on slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an international forum, being used to discuss a state-specific legal issue. People from all over the world, and from all different states will discuss what the "law" is without realizing that they may not be discussing the same thing. Thankfully, this post had the decency to mention the jurisdiction, but what percentage of the people reading *and posting responses* are from Texas?!?
Next, this post would be 100x more interesting if we learned the outcome of the situation. So what if somebody's e
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Its a pain in the ass, it'll cost you some money, but they don't have a case so don't let it stress you out. The new company will need to deal with the suit on their end, the likelihood is their attorney can handle your suit as well.
Its happened to me twice, I think the total it cost me in legal expenses was $500 and a few hours to show up in court.
You may have good luck counter suing. Blog about it, too. Make sure potential customers of theirs know how they treat their employees.
The important thing is to not let it stress you out.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
And that statement makes about as much sense as "In Germany you can shoot anyone for any reason." Sure, in America you can sue anyone for anything, but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.
What's the basis of the lawsuit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work for a Fortune 500 company a few years back that attempted the exact same stunt to a coworker that quit, they were hoping to scare him accepting employment from a much smaller consulting company which happened to compete with them. In the end, the big Fortune 500 employer never sued, but the ex-coworker sued them for defamation and won a real nice 6 figures out of those a$$holes.
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said the above, not all lawyers are created equal. Get one who knows what he's doing about employment law. Our local bar association has a lawyer referral service and will give you the names of lawyers with the correct specialization. Call your local bar association and see if they have a similar service.
Re:Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Call Bar association
2. Get reference for lawyer who know stuff about your case
3. Talk to lawyer.
4. Counter sue
5. Profit!
You may still have a non-compete in place (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally speaking, you should always try to have a written contract of employment so you know where you stand with regards your employment. Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.
If you were in a particularly senior position and/or handled sensitive information as part of your job, then it is likely that there would some form of non-compete in place. If you are able to, check your staff handbook (if any) and try to obtain a copy of a contract of employment from a friend at your old workplace to see if there is any mention of a non-compete clause. If there is, then it makes your position weaker unfortunately.
IAAL and I think the only people that ever win in court are the lawyers. It is in everyone's interests to avoid going to court if at all possible as it will be a waste of time, money and effort.
Perhaps you could try writing to the employer? Explain reasons for leaving, that you want to leave on good terms, wish them well etc. Say you were disappointed to hear that they are considering taking action against you and would like them to explain the basis for doing so.
Worse case scenario is that they go ahead. Best case, you find out that they were never consider taking action in the first place or they realise they are being silly and move on.
(Standard disclaimer: Whilst IAAL this should not be considered legal advice. See a local lawyer if you feel the situation warrants it).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As movie producer Sam Goldwyn (and many others) said: "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
Texas is a work at will. (Score:4, Informative)
However you could possibly sue them if they broke the employee handbook, that is generally considered a contract and breaking that has lead to million dollar lawsuits. However most companies settle out of court because of the bad press relations with future employees; how would you feel if when researching a company you find a message about that company firing people when they have given thier leave notice? When companies don't want soon to be former employees hanging around they normally just pay them the money for the remaining weeks and escort them out the door.
As for the lawsuit, time to hire a lawyer. Unless you were some grand person in thier company they probably don't have much of a recourse. You should get a lawyer and see if in Texas you can sue the other company for preventing you from performing in another job and see if filing for unemployment will hurt your case(it may strengthen it since confirms with an outside source that they fired you).
Unions (Score:3, Interesting)
[ Most of the employers are actually happy with the unions as well, the unions tend to prevent strikes and make the salaries fluctuate less, which makes long time planning easier. ]
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not where I live. Firing people is easy, with a few exceptions (like pregnant women). High unemployment benefit has meant that the unions have not demanded "job security" clauses. Since it is much easier to fire people than in most other EU countries, employers are much less reluctant to hire people, and companies can easily adjust to changing market conditions. This also gives us one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU.
I had a similar experience... (Score:4, Informative)
Texas is an at-will employment state. It allows either party to terminate employment for any reason or none at all. Employment agreements and non-competes still exist, however, and are often one-sided so one should be careful about working for people like that. (I once got a job offer from just such a company and their non-compete and other employee policies just made me feel creepy so I turned them down flat.)
The lawsuit is most likely an attempt at preventing him from being hired at a competitor's site. If the poster is truthful about the conditions stated, the employer's suit doesn't have merit and is merely a form of intimidation. This leads back to the other concensus which is the management at the bigger company is just not good. "Executive Hubris" is a term used is a previous Slashdot discussion and perhaps this is yet another example of such. I should hope that other employees at the bigger company are taking note of management's attitude...
There's got to me more (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the company escorted him out of the building they are not trying to leverage him to stay, so they must be trying to recover some damages. I'm not saying the company is right, I'm just saying that a large company with a legal department wouldn't waste their money on a lawsuit unless they had at least a CHANCE to get some money.
For example.......
Did he recently get a promotion that included relocation, which carried with it a minumum commitment? Something else? What's the rest of the story OP?
Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am deeply disappointed that this blatant smear was even posted in the first place.
SLAM-DUNK! (Score:4, Informative)
If you are working in Texas, you the priviledge in that Texas is a "employment at will" [nrtw.org](PDF) state. The implications are that you can work, or not work, when you want to. That doesn't mean your boss has to keep your employed, but it means they can't stop you from leaving either (and unions can't stop you from working, too).
From the PDF link above:
(emphasis mine)
If I were you, I would have your lawyer look into whether this company has a history of such litigation. If so, I would have your lawyer counter sue, for a lot of money, for legal harassment. This is in light of the "employment at will" and previous behavior.
Nice! (Score:5, Informative)
1) Can they sue you? Sure they can try, but will it hold up in court? Probably not.
2) Will you have to defend your self? Sure, so get a lawyer NOW!
Now for the fun part
3) (IN Texas) By verbally notifying you of their intent to sue, (I hope you have a witness!) they are now financially responsible for the cost incurred in your preparation to defend your self should they not follow through with it. This means that if it was a scare tactic and they had no intent of suing you, they have to pay all your lawyers fees!
I know this because I used to run a large anonymous service. Every time I received a letter threating to sue me, my attorneys eyes would light up! It was like a bonus check for him
He would put in all the work preparing a defense (and some people can make BIG threats) then when he found their intent was not to sue, we would sue them.
I hope this helps!!
Oh, and if you are leaving does that mean that they have an opening.
Texas is an "employment at will" state (Score:4, Insightful)
However, that doesn't mean they can't sue you... this will force you to spend money on legal representation and make your life a little miserable even if the suit is ruled to be baseless. If it is and you've got a halfway decent lawyer, you might be able to get it dismissed with prejudice and your legal fees covered.
So why are they suing? Clearly they are burning any bridges with you, and aren't expecting to try to get you back. Unless you are independently wealthy, it's unlikely even if they succeeded that they would be able to collect enough in damages to make this worthwhile. This leaves two explanations I can think of: petty revenge, or to intimidate the rest of the employees. I'm betting on a combination of both, with a heavy dose of intimidation.
-R
At Will Employment works both ways (Score:3, Informative)
Did you take company documents with you when you left?
Did you have special access to trade secrets, business plans, etc?
Did you make any implicit agreement to stick around?
For example--If the policy manual says you can submit education expenses (get some license or cert) but you have to stick around for 1 year afterward--you agreed to stick around when you submitted the expenses.
Of course, anybody can sue anybody else for anything, and does it all the time.
The issue is not necessarily whether they can win the suit or not--you're probably being set out as an example for any other employees that might be thinking of jumping ship.
Thank you for raising an interesting question on
Battle stupidity with stupidity (Score:5, Funny)
I Am A Lawyer and I Say ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving notice is dangerous (Score:3, Interesting)
extremely dangerous. If I have root on a number of production servers and access
to a data center, I've often felt that giving notice leaves you wide open for
blame if you share root with others. If you give notice and things start screwing
up, it'll be your fault, bank on it. And if Joe IT across the hall doesn't like
you, its trivial for him to screw things up deliberately and lay the blame at your
feet. It's also feasible that if there are severe ill feelings from management
because you're leaving, what better way to screw you over than to arrange for some
sabotage (real of pseudo) and blame it on you.
Not a chance.
When I decide it's time for me to leave, I gather my things and leave. Great time
to use up all those vacation days or unused lieu days. If not, sue me. I have a
lawyer, a really good one, here's her card.
mike
Re:ianal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references.
Good will... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't "have to" do anything in most (perhaps all) states. I don't know the breakdown, but the vast majority of states are "at-will" states unless there's a contract involved, meaning either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason.
There is neither a need to give notice nor is there a requirement for employers to pay you for that time if you do. They're only required to pay you for the time you actually work. If your friend got a "3 month paid vacation" by giving 3 months notice, it just means his company's HR department forgot to terminate his employment and the payroll department never caught the mistake. That's pretty unlikely at most companies.
Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references, and there is absolutely nothing any company can do to force you to stay at work in an at-will state. You're not in jail, you have no obligation to your company if you want to quit. Your company in turn has no obligation to you.
Look at it this way. Your company does not have to give you two weeks notice to fire you, nor would they. Why would you need to give two weeks notice to quit? Neither side is obligated when employment is terminated, and it doesn't matter who is doing the terminating.
That is, of course, provided you're not under contract or a non-compete, which are both different situations.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe my theory is based on anecdote, but look at it like this: you stand to lose nothing from turning in notice. Ok, so people may not be nice to you any more. Who cares? In two weeks it'll be a memory. Unless you just have an axe to grind and want to screw over your former co-workers (because the company itself won't care much) just turn in notice. The courteous thing is often the right thing. I guess I sound like Jiminy Cricket now
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:4, Informative)
Depending on which state you live in, you may be breaking the law. Generally, the legal questions you are entitled to answer as an employer are -
1- From which dates did employee work
2- Job title/responsibilities
3- Rate of pay
4- Re-hire status - either they would or wouldn't re-hire you
So legally you could tell them the re-hire status is negative, but you usually can't give the reason why. One of my former bosses was sued by a former employee for divulging all kinds of information he shouldn't have.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:4, Informative)
You can state facts. including bad ones but you just gotta watch your step.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:5, Interesting)
While that is not technically correct; many companies, in the US at least, have policies against saying anything and will merely verify employment. They don't want to be sued, whether it is by an ex-employee who has a different interpretation of the "facts" or by another company who hired someone you said was great but turns out to be a criminal. It's simply safer to say nothing in the US' litigious society.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:4, Informative)
Linky [kwgc-law.com]
I wouldn't be surprised if many larger companies have policies that they provide only a bare minimum of information so as to protect themselves from disgruntled ex-employee lawsuits.
And think of it this way. If the person no longer works here, why do I care if someone else hires him? He's not my problem anymore. Providing bad references is vindictive, serves no purpose for the company, and only adds risk. Even if I say "He's great, I'd hire him back in a heart beat!" and he does a really bad job at the next company, I could get into trouble there, too. It's less risky for the company to keep track of such things internally so they do/don't hire back people but not share that with others.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked for a very large company, and they had several rounds of layoffs for about four years. During the fourth year, my "number came up." The layoff was handled very well, IMHO:
- The company gave 2 month's notice (I believe they were required to by law due to the number of people being laid off at that time).
- Everybody who was laid off did not have to show up to work during those two months, but were still on the payroll with full benefits, including medical and 401k with company match.
- The severence package over and above the two months on the payroll was an additional month's pay in one lump sum.
- Terminated employees had one year to exercise any stock options they had before the options expired.
- The company contracted with an outplacement agency to hold a couple of job fairs for [former] employees and help them with their resumes. From one of the job fairs, I have my current job.
- If they found a new job before the two months was finished, employees were allowed to start working at their new jobs without affecting their "employed" status with the company or their severence.
All in all, I'd have to say that I was treated much better by the company when I was being laid off than when I was actively working thereYMMV
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:4, Interesting)
I was laid off from my last job due to corporate financial problems. This was during the post dot.com bust period, where jobs were hard to find. My employer helped me juggle vacation time and such to extend my employment as long as possible -- thus extending my families medical benefits. Since then I have gone back as a contractor, many times, to help the person who assumed my responsibilities.
Given that both sides behaved honourable and professionally, both sides are very happy and comfortable with the outcome.
If you take pride in yourself, then you should behave in a praise worthy manner, no matter how unprofessional the other side behaves.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I work we are required to give three months notice.
This leads to what I like to refer to as the 'abusive relationship situation'. This is where once an employee gives notice their life is made HELL until they are out. The abuse comes from peers and all levels of management. Peers think you are a traitor for leaving them with the workload and having to train up someone new, and management resent you for leaving, prolly 'cos they never had the guts to.
The situation is so bad that some employee's accumulate as much PTO (Paid time off) as they can, so they can submit their resignation and be on PTO up to their terminal date.
It is really sad that we don't celebrate our colleagues perusing their ventures, like we should.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
And frankly, even from a moral point of view do you want someone walking around talking about how much better a job they are moving too?
A policy that requires people to stay 3 months is idiotic and self-defeating. Granted their may be extenuating circumstances (hard to fill position, very arcane knowledge, etc) but a blanket rule like that isn't a great idea.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just because you don't have any work ethics, no one else should have any ?
What about temps ? Do you want them gone asap after hiring because they may be looking for their next job already ?
Re:ianal (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it is the oposite: just because I have work ethics, I do not expect anyone else to.
When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.
When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.
But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work -- and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.
Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities: hey, if you do great work then I want you here. If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around? Even something as simple as a twisted ankle turns into an insurance claim and Workman Compensation issues; costs that I do not want to incure over someone who I know will not be working for me in 14 days.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
I've quit three times, and given three weeks notice each time. Each time I spent the first week tying up loose ends, and the second week not doing much. (In fact, on monday of the last week at a big office, my boss told me "Don't do anything important".)
Now, each time I've moved to a new job that was in a substantially different field than the one before, so there was little danger of either taking secrets or other employees with me. I feel like it worked out pretty well both for me (I got a chance to say goodbye to everyone I wanted to personally) and the company (they knew I wasn't leaving anything unfinished).
Coincidentally, we've got a guy here who's last day is today (he gave notice weeks and weeks ago, he's rather senior). He's still working, which makes me very nervous, because it shows it's going to be a big scramble when he goes. I feel a week's salary is a small price to pay for the assurance the transition is going to be smooth.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Some large companies make it a policy to release people as soon as they give notice, maybe because large companies are less personal and are at a greater risk of having people leave on bad terms. Others may not. It depends on how you want to run your business. There are good reasons in either direction and a good manager balances those with the needs of the business.
The Parable of the $22 commission (Score:5, Interesting)
Now I can tell you the parable of the $22 commission.
There was a company. The sold big dollar equipment. $30,000 or more per sale. They had 5 or 6 people in the filed. And back at the company. They had one guy who handled all the after market stuff. They sold about $350,000 a year in after market stuff.
This guy, had a sick relative in the area, had just moved to town, and was willing to work for anything. So they started him out at $22,000.00 a year. He told them he would work hard, and talk about salary after a year. He went to work, went through 20 file cabinets of old records and cold called everyone who had ever bought a piece of equipment from the company. Asked them if they still had it around or used it. Got some of them to start using it. Would call some people and say "hey, it has been 3 months since you ordered, I am having a slow week, help me out."
Bottom line, after 3 months, he outsold, everyone out in the filed, by selling $300.00 of stuff at a time. He also sold 10 or 11 systems in that time...but he did not get credit for those, only the "in the field" reps got credit. Turned after market from $350,000 into better than $1,100,000. Not bad work for the year.
So the year is up, they offered him a raise, of 50 cents. Yes, from $22,000.00 a year to $23,000.00 though he could demonstrate that he made the company an extra million a year in after market and equipment sales.
So a competitor heard about him, and offered him $36,000.00 per year starting pay, promised to have him at $48,000.00 inside of two years, PLUS profit sharing and his commissions. He took it. Gave two weeks notice and offered to train his replacement. Well, they fired him on the spot.
You know what, he was cool with that. So he got his pay, But for what he sold that month, he should of had a commission check of about $270.00. We had talked, and he was going to leave his old customers alone, and just build his business by cold calling from their old files at the new company.
Well, they sent him a commission check of $22.00. When he complained that he sold "x" that month and it should be about $270.00 they told him he did not work there any more and that was just to bad....
At that point, he decided, Over that $250.00 he would take every customer he could. Now I will note, he had almost a photographic memory. he Knew all the prices on the products, what the markups were, and most of his own customers. He had no problem at all moving them over.
So the company he had worked for, in addition to losing him, by being cheap. Also lost, what has amount to several million dollars in sales over the course of a few years, because they thought screwing him out of $250.00 was a funny thing to do. And make no mistake, if they would have given him that $250.00, he would have left them alone. It went from "ethical" to "personal" with the way they had treated him at that point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not ? The ones who will slack off before leaving would be dumb if they told you about it.
and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.
In that case, you better hire a good hit man instead. Or how else do you want to keep them from talking to their colleagues outside of work ? Maybe they have their cellphone numbers, maybe they're eve
Re:ianal (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it you don't have anyone with specialized knowledge...
I'm planning on leaving my job in about a year (starting school), and I know that the amount of specialized knowledge I have would make me nearly impossible to replace within a short time frame. As a result, I'm going to give a month notice for them, and also start pouring out every bit of relevant knowledge into a comprehensive handbook for my eventual successor. It will probably take most of that month to write, but it will buy them years of productivity.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Interesting)
He isn't saying that he's doing the equivalent of firing someone after they give their notice. He's letting the person go home and is paying them for the two weeks. This is very standard practice among companies and benefits BOTH sides. The employee isn't in the office POSSIBLY giving sub-standard work, affecting morale, or remaining a liability for their last two weeks of work. If the employee is evil, they're now deprived of the opportunity of causing problems.
Absolutely, two weeks notice is a courtesy. And employers appreciate that. But not all employers have a need to utilize the employee for those two weeks, and if you can get by without them, it is in your best interests to do so.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if I were purely motivated by self-interest, wouldn't I want a source of good references for the future? Why burn bridges?
Re:ianal (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no.
If you have that as part of a contract, then yes, they can do (almost) anything you signed off on.
If "at will" and you have vacation hours (and sometimes even sick time) as part of your compensation, they damned well better pony up for it when you leave. And no, you don't need to give notice, sign anything at the exit interview, o
Re:ianal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Better still, where's the "ironic" mod points? Aside from that, this is terrible advice. Why burn your bridges? Put in your two weeks notice, then during that time do your best for your current employer. That way if your current job does not work out, or you find yourself desiring to return, it would make it much easier for you, as your employer will remember what you did for them in your final days.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Two years later I found myself unemployed with a low bank account and a couple of mouths to feed. The job market was crappier then than it is right now. They took me back in. I have no doubt about what would have happened if I had acted like an asshole.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off. He went into a long explanation of how telling an employee he's getting canned causes all sorts of security problems and low productivity etc etc, to which I pointed out I would give him as much notice as I thought he would give me.
I don't think he liked that, but he understood where I was coming from. Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit. Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit. That can only lead to this sort of behavior.
I hope this fellow gets a nice settlement from a countersuit, he deserves it.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Funny)
I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off. He went into a long explanation of how telling an employee he's getting canned causes all sorts of security problems and low productivity etc etc, to which I pointed out I would give him as much notice as I thought he would give me. I don't think he liked that, but he understood where I was coming from. Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit. Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit. That can only lead to this sort of behavior.
A decent company will solve that dilemma by giving you a decent severance package. This is especially true if you're simply laid off as opposed to being fired for Xeroxing your ass.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
For security purposes, I understand why a company would not want to give you notice of a lay off and instead say thanks for your service. However, a reputable company would give you at least two weeks severance pay... which is kind of like a two weeks notice, but better: You don't have to work for the company, they are paying you not to work, and you have two weeks (or more) pay to hunt down a new job.
N ice guys finish first (Score:5, Insightful)
May be if would not be such a cynic if you read some of the articles by Robert Axelrod of Univ of Michigen on "Evolution of Cooperation", "Complexity of Cooperation", and BBC shows like "Nice Guys Finish First" by Richard Dawkins.
Re:N ice guys finish first (Score:4, Funny)
Re:N ice guys finish first (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
I always try to leave a place on a somewhat positive note, not bitching and moaning the whole way out. I don't tend to join places where they're completely incompetent or assholes, so I show the colleagues I leave behind the respect that I think they deserve.
What goes around comes around, too. I've never had someone just walk out on me and leave their projects hanging. People who work for me and feel they need to go work elsewhere almost universally have done so without just ditching me. They usually give me a couple weeks to a month.
Treat people with respect and you tend to get respect. Treat people like shit and they tend to treat you like shit.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ianal (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Employment laws can vary state to state.
This has to be the worst Ask Slashdot ever.
JUDGE: How does the defendant plead?
AC: A couple of guys from Slashdot said they don't have a case, so why do I have to plead?
JUDGE stares in disbelief while shaking his head and mumbling "It's going to be one of those days"
Re:ianal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Informative)
If I were his lawyer I'd countersue for malicious prosecution, tortious interference with business relationship, and hell maybe intentional infliction of emotional distress depending on the facts of the case. A lot of states also have attorneys' fees statutes for frivolous actions, so I'd ask for attorneys' fees too.
Unfortunately the company would probably fold after one letter to their corporate counsel, so whatever lawyer this guy gets likely wouldn't get the pleasure of bringing this to trial.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Funny)
Goddamn lawyers.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL either, but this guy is (in Texas): http://www.brownemploymentlaw.com/non_competition. shtml [brownemploymentlaw.com]
But, by firing you a week early, they've fired you. In Kansas, the state in which I've been fired a couple of times, I can tell you that you should at least file a claim with the unemployment office so that their unemployment insurance rates will go up.
And as for the two weeks notice ... it depends on the company you work for as to wether that was a good thing. As an employer, I certainly appreciate the notice and always have amicable relations with employees who are leaving. As an employee, I've never felt compelled to commit sabotage after giving my notice.
When I left my first real job, after six and a half years there I gave them four months notice. I wasn't sure where I was going or what I was going to do, but I knew I was leaving. So I told them. About two months short of that, I decided to start my own business in direct competition, so after sitting on that idea for a month, I told them. I was told that they were going to accept my resignation early. I told them, "Bullshit. You're firing me. If you think that I haven't had ample opportunity to mine whatever resources I'd want to steal, than you're an idiot. I've hated you for at least the last four years, and those conditions haven't changed. I'm leaving in one month unless you are firing me right now." And so I got fired. But it was stupid on their part, because even though they knew I was going they hadn't prepared for it and they nearly crippled themselves for a couple of weeks. Though, I suppose, there's no way to really prepare for a highly-trained employee to leave, and even if you have two weeks to hire someone the transition is never smooth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
these guys really should have shown him the door when he first gave notice, for security reason,
then paid him for two weeks to avoid complicating the un-employement insurance,
Done it all nicely and thrown in a pleasant exit interview with coffee and donuts for good measure.
The Vice-President of Sales throwing him out the door, that in itself sounds hockey; I'd probably said something like "Sir, meaning no disrespect, but do you actually have the authority to fire people and remove them fr
Re:too short? (Score:5, Informative)
1. In the U.S., two-weeks is the customary length of notice for non-contract employees. A common phrase is, "They can't fault you, you gave them your two-weeks." Of course there are exceptions for people who are extremely unique in their position, but two-weeks is the customary time frame, and employers must pay you for those two full-weeks even if they choose to not let you stay after you give your notice.
2. I believe in the Google issue there was actually a contract saying one could not go work for a competitor, or start your own company in the same field (or some variation of such). Those are pretty common, but has nothing to do with two-weeks notice but what you do after you leave the company. These don't always hold up well - especially if the person didn't have any proprietary knowledge that will benefit the other company.
3. To the OP, all I can say is your company already screwed up by threatening a lawsuit. Unless there is some big info being left out, of course, they cannot sue you for quitting your job, UNLESS you signed a no-compete contract. The VP tells you this? There is some shady stuff right there - no one but HR should even discuss such things.
Sounds like you are getting out just in time. Again, if the situation is as described, I don't think there is anything to worry about - sounds like a couple of people who don't know what their legal rights are and aren't were trying to scare you. Now you just need to decide - do you just wash your hands of the place, or make sure that the jerks who tried to pull this crap on you are known for what they are.
I just have a feeling, though, that SOMETHING isn't being fully disclosed here.
AE
Re:too short? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft did sue Google, but they settled out of court, and Lee works for Google today.
Even if the guy being sued did sign a non-compete without realizing, they still can only sue to block him from working for a competitor. They can't sue him just for quitting. And depending on what Texas courts think of non-competes, they might still be on thin ice. Here in California, courts have generally held non-competes to unenforceable. I have a non-compete, like most other tech workers, and the major reason courts have generally held them unenforceable is that (especially in a narrow specialty like mine), a two-year non-compete clause would be tantamount to forcing me to leave my chosen career completely and work for a lot less money in some other industry.
Add to that the fact that the standard employment agreement states that you have an at-will relationship with your employer. They can terminate your employment at any time, for any reason, or for none. Likewise, you can quit at any time, for any reason, or for none. If an employee is going to be at-will (yes, you can still sue for wrongful termination in some circumstances, I know), companies can't expect to have it both ways. If they can do whatever they want with respect to their employees' employment, employees likewise should be able to do so.
I agree with that idea, both because I'm an employee, and because I have fairly libertarian principles regarding the free market for goods and services. My job skills, like my house, stocks, car, or any other assets, should be worth whatever the market will bear, to offer to any bidder, without restriction. If a company can keeps its employees happy (and that takes a lot more than salary; salary may not even be the top thing; I'd rather make a medium salary at a great place to work than a top-of-market salary at a bad place to work), they'll stay there and work. If it can't, they'll go elsewhere. Maybe to a competitor. That's fair. Employees should have the same relationship with a company that customers do: make them unhappy and you'll lose them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:too short? Not in CA, USA (Score:3, Informative)
72 hours. That's all. Just enough time so you can't quit on a Friday after work and never show up again.
Check your local laws, but I'll bet it's similar anywhere in the US of A.
With respect to the Google case, there was a non-compete clause in the worker's contract
Re:too short? (Score:5, Informative)
In Germany, the standard is four weeks to the end of the month or the 15th of the month, unless your contract states something else. If I were offered a contract telling me I had to wait three months until I can walk away, I'd ask them to have their heads examined. Also, companies want to get rid of people *quicker*, that's why there is so much discussion in Germany about changing the work laws to allow companies to fire people with no delay whatsoever.
Notice there's a difference in whether you're quitting or you're fired. You can always quit with four weeks notice, but if they want to fire you, it depends on how long you work at the place. A coworker has been fired after 11 years at the company and they had to give her four months notice.
There go my mod points, but this was SO wrong I had to jump in.
As a side note - I've got so much overtime and vacation left that when I find a new job, I can leave the same minute and they still have to pay me for eight weeks. (Of course I will offer to freelance at a fair rate to not endanger my projects, but that's only because I don't want to leave my coworkers stuck in the shit.) So there are your "three months notice".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too short? (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't have to guess. Texas is a dead giveaway...
Re:IANAL Either, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In most cases, the ONLY way to ensure the effectiveness of a non-compete is to continue paying the person for the full term of the non-compete. I.e., if you don't want me to work for a competitor for the next 12 months, you have to pay me for the next 12 months instead.
Now - you CAN legally bind the person from not sharing confidential information or inside understanding of your business... but proving that is much tougher.
This is not a legal opinion (IANAL), but it IS a summary of legal advice was given to my wife (HR Manager) regarding employees of her company leaving.
MadCow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So maybe the "Large Hosting Company" should have been left anonymous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My state and employer are both that way, so I'm quite aware of how that works...
Now the problem if he i