[evgen]

It has its downsides, but the benefit of such a system is that it is easier to hire someone as well. It lowers the risk of hiring if you know that you can terminate employment just as easily, so the jobs market ends up being a bit more robust at the cost of a bit more volatility.

It should also be noted that for the sort of jobs we are talking about here there is a difference between being terminated 'for cause' (e.g. incompetence, theft from your employer, etc) and termination due to downsizing and the job itself being eliminated. In the latter case you will often get a package of benefits and the termination process is somewhat similar to the one you are familiar with.

[beevai142]

However, no notice and escorting people out sounds more like power fantasy than something with economic reasons.

[kyrra]

In the US, if there are mass layoffs at large company they need to give notice because of the WARN Act (100+ people) requires a 60 day notice. But many companies will just continue to pay those employees for 60 days but they aren't allowed on site (effectively fires, but still being paid)

[marcinzm]

I'd say it's more of a security concern than anything. The thinking being that you don't want a potentially disgruntled employee with little to potentially lose have access to your systems.

[oblio]

I was sure someone would say this. As a comparison: Romania is a relatively poor country, full of hotheaded invididuals ("Balkan" mentality). On top of that, we're apparently EU's #2 expat community in terms of total prison population. So both hotheads and also a lot of criminals (most likely thieves).

And yet we still allow our folks to walk unescorted for a few weeks inside the company premises.

After all, how many just-layed-off employees will want to steal or damage company property to top off their recent loss of job with criminal charges and a criminal record?

From the outside it feels like a bit of paranoia on the part of US companies.

I might be missing something, this is just my opinion as an outsider.

[evgen]

Let's consider the counter-argument and ignore any possibility for vandalism, theft, hacking, or other destructive activity by a recently terminated employee. Why would you want them walking around the building? What possible benefit is there to this? Why not just give them a hearty handshake, a thanks for your work, and tell them that they will be paid for the remainder of the termination period but don't show up at work tomorrow.

As for the paranoia part, it is definitely a bit of paranoia on the part of the company management but paranoia for a reasonable reason: there are numerous examples in the US of someone getting laid off or fired and returning to the office with a gun. From the perspective of management, why take the chance? If there is any hint that the termination will not be pretty you make sure someone escorts the person out and you have shown yourself to be taking due consideration if something unpleasant happens.

[sangnoir]

> What possible benefit is there to this?

Non USian here: regardless of who gave notice, the lame-duck period is normally used for wrapping up whatever work/project the departee was working on and handing it over to a colleague or manager. People generally are more worried about getting bad references than office shootings.