[Ralfp]

Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about termination:

- week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years

This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify his employeer on same basis that he or she quits. This introduces amount of games to recruitment process, where company frequently not only has to make bet by deciding to hire somebody, but also make sure that they'll wont be outbid during the three months that have to pass for person to change employeer

[sklivvz1971]

All that stuff doesn't really matter... If you have 3 months notice, it only means they'll come up to you and offer you to pay you those three months and you don't have to show up at all. And you sign a contract that prevents you from suing.

Most worker rights, in the end, become a matter of how much money they'll pay you to leave if they want you to leave.

Yes, one could--theoretically--fight back and not accept the money, but that only means you'd be a pariah in the company. What's the point of staying if the company wants you to leave and offers you a package? Take the money and get a new job in a couple weeks...

[ATsch]

Well, where is the disadvantage here? As far as I can tell, instant layoffs are bad because you without any income at short notice. If you have three months where you still receive pay to search for a new job, you have gained a lot of security.

Besides, I doubt Poland has arbitration clauses, so the workers would be free to sue. It would not be pleasant to stay in that job either way as you correctly pointed out though.

[sklivvz1971]

The disadvantage is morale. It's much easier for the company to regain momentum if the chord is cut cleanly and swiftly.

That said, I'm not sure if it's true or effective, but having worked at Stack Overflow for years I'm pretty sure this was done to spare overall misery.

[BrandoElFollito]

Same in France and the majority of EU countries.

[JBlue42]

Three months seems like way too long to know you're being laid off but I guess maybe the purpose is that it gives you time to find new work?

In the US, it's just assumed that the ex-employee will be as malicious as possible and so it's best to get rid of them fast as possible.

[edp]

If the employer is worried for security reasons, they can send the employee home but must pay his salary for 3 months (in France at least, I don't know for other EU countries).

[Veen]

It’s called gardening leave in the UK

[rando444]

The same assumptions are made in the EU, the only difference is that the employee is let go, but still continues to receive his salary for some months.

Think of it more like a severance package and it makes more sense.

[BrandoElFollito]

This is supposed to protect both the employee and the employer.

The employee to give him some time to find a new job (he is entitled to some days off during these 3 months to interview).

The employer to (at least theoretically) force the employee to still work to prepare a handover, docs, etc.

What happens in practice depends on the case : these 3 months may be shortened via a mutual agreement, the employer may force the employee not to come to work (but still pay him) and other arrangements are possible.

[antiphase]

This only applies to permanent workers though. Contractors or temporary staff may be employed on much shorter terms.

[majidazimi]

I'm a student assistant at SAP in Germany. Even I (as a part time hourly-paid employee) have a one month notice period.

[flanbiscuit]

And you have to do it on the first of the month right? Because the one month doesn't become affective until the first of the month so if you quit mid-month then you actually have a month and a half left at the company. At least this is what I was told by a friend who lives and works in Berlin as a tech recruiter.

[jaredklewis]

I’m quite surprised to hear one must give their employer notice. Doesn’t Poland or the EU have laws against forced labor? In the US, for example, all employment by private corporations is “at will.”

Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.

[the_duke]

It's very similar in most EU countries I know.

Responsibilities go both ways.

No one can "force" you to continue working somewhere, of course, but you may lose compensation for extra vacation time and could be liable for financial damage you cause for your employer. But I've never actually heard about that being an issue.

It's very common to just mutually agree to part ways right away.

And of course there are provisions both ways that allow immediate termination, like gross negligence from the employee or the employer not paying out your salary.

[pjc50]

It's not "forced labour", it's just a contractual term. You certainly _can_ quit on zero notice but you've breached contract and it will cost you.

If you look closely at US startups you'll usually find the founders and senior staff are on "notice required" contracts of several months.

[consp]

In the Netherlands (EU example) as en employee:

- You can do it in mutual agreement (see below).

- You can quit directly but you generally forgo any company benefits (like build up bonuses) and you might/most likely not have rights to state-supported unemployment benefits (70% of your last paycheck).

As an employer:

- You can either in mutual agreement (in which case the employee usually also keeps his/her rights since the contract does not end abruptly).

- By court order but this usually requires extensive documentation on malpractice of the employee.

Notice time usually is at least 1 full month in most cases, can be shorter if the employment is not time-fixed or by agreement. All notices are for both employer and employee.

I do not know exactly but if you have build up "vacation days" you usually cannot use those in your last month and forgo those, unless you agree with your employer in some sort of scheme. "Going in sick" will get you reported in which case a investigator will check you out and you most likely will forgo your sickness benefits. (I've had this once already, but not for contract finalization but reporting it really late. The guy was very surprised to see someone actually sick when he checked it out so I guess abuse happens often.)

There are some contract termination clauses (money mostly) in some contracts I've seen but as far as I know they are not enforceable in any way (since that equals servitude by power). Thinks like immediately handing back lease-cars and laptops under force of fine are though.

[jaredklewis]

> If you look closely at US startups you'll usually find the founders and senior staff are on "notice required" contracts of several months.

Yes, but at least California courts have found these "garden leave" provisions in contracts are not enforceable. [1]

As for the rest of the United States, I'm not sure, but it seems like somewhat unsettled law as such notice requirements are quite rare in the US.

1. " And it turns out that companies also cannot require their employees to provide any specific length of notice, even when they offer to compensate them at 100% of their salary and benefits for the duration of the notice period. California courts have found these mandatory provisions to be an unenforceable restraint, as well." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/understanding-californi...

[future1979]

If you make the breach cost infinitely high, how is that not a modern form of slavery?

[pjc50]

It's not infinitely high? In practice the worst it's likely to be is "actual damages" - costs directly incurred by you quitting. http://employeradvice.org.uk/what-to-do-when-staff-quit-with...

Modern slavery is things like confiscating the passports of your immigrant workers so they can't escape.

[Karunamon]

Because the contract is voluntarily entered and the penalties for breaching it are purely financial.

[jakub_g]

All Europe operates in a similar way, the difference is only the notice period, which is shorter (few weeks) in some countries like UK or Netherlands, and longer (~3 months+ once you've worked for a while) in other countries like France.

Of course many companies find that it's not flexible enough for them, so they abuse the system and illegally hire low qualified workforce as "independent contractors" on civil contracts instead of work contracts. Search for "zero hour contracts" for UK, but it's rampant also in Poland, Italy and other countries where unions are not strong and employees' rights guaranteed by law are not enforced.

[lin_lin]

Living in the UK, my last job required three months notice to leave on paper. In reality they accepted a month which is standard enough.

[walshemj]

Its because employment laws descend from those governing Masters and servants as does the USA's

[colejohnson66]

A three months notice before quitting seems pretty excessive IMHO. I can kindof understand it from the perspective of the company that would need to find a replacement, but for the worker, it seems ridiculous.

Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.

[lstyls]

> most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice

The term "right to work" has nothing to do with employment status. It's political branding for laws that forbid mandatory union membership. It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force.

I think you're confusing it with "at will" employment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

[humanrebar]

> It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force.

I think it's fair to say teachers have the right to be teachers without joining a teachers' union. I don't think enforcing that right "contributes to the decline" of unions. Organizational models should be able to handle that sort of freedom to choose.

To me, the question is why unions don't innovate in their organizational models and policies so that giving employees freedom to choose is moot?

[fjsolwmv]

Same reason that people who live in the US don't have the freedom to choose whether they want to be governed by the US government. Social contract

[humanrebar]

But on a more concrete level, union fees go to campaigning, lobbying, and donations to candidates the union members may not support.

I don't think it's part of an American social contract that you would be forced to tangibly support candidates who have (by some accounts) immoral positions on abortion or immigration (to pick to polarizing issues).

[rando444]

For the worker it's actually great. It means that if the company wants to fire you they still need to pay your salary for at least the next three months.

Often times, especially in IT, when people are let go, it's often important for security reasons just to have them stop working immediately, and that worker is still going to get his salary.

When employees quit, it's not 3 months mandated, that's just the limit. You just work out your transition with your employer. Most job changes usually happen within just a few weeks.

[walshemj]

Its normal for professional jobs and most eu residents someone only having 2 weeks notice would probably think oh so your a janitor or toilet cleaner