[matsemann]

Is this specific to US culture? And what about your work environment makes it such a risk?

Where people are laid off here (Norway), they're still employed by law for 3 months. Most companies don't force you to work all that time, but it's pretty common to finish up your tasks, do offboarding etc for a few weeks. Never considered it an issue. Maybe it's a high trust society thing?

[joe_mamba]

>Is this specific to US culture? And what about your work environment makes it such a risk?

It's called garden leave, it's popular everywhere, especially if it's a big international company with diverse workforce, sensitive to IP rights, since there's been plenty of cases of people taking company IP on USB drives to the new employer, like that Indian guy who took IP from Valeo to Nvidia and got his home raided by the police because the Valeo guys saw him share it on a Teams call lol. Same for companies in finance or that handle sensitive information. Norwegian trust doesn't fly anymore when it comes to multinational corpos.

Companies run on liability and risk mitigation. If something bad happened once (IP theft or sabotage from someone they let go), then they have to prevent from ever happening again, not keep blindly trusting people while letting it happen.

[vidarh]

It is not that common in Norway. It has at least been argued in the past that working your notice period is not just an obligation to employer if they want to enforce it, but a right for the employee on the basis that being walked out can affect your reputation by implying possible misconduct exactly because it has generally been uncommon in Norway.

I haven't worked in Norway for a long time, so haven't kept up to date on the current legal position. The typical argument used to be that if there were concerns over IP theft or sabotage, there were other ways of protecting against that - and indeed, insider risk is something companies need to deal with whether or not someone has been fired.

[joe_mamba]

> working your notice period is not just an obligation to employer if they want to enforce it

And what if they don't want to enforce it? Which is what I was talking about.

[vidarh]

Garden leave isn't for when you don't want to force people to work out their leave, but when you want to force them not to, and as the very next clause of my comment pointed out ("but a right for the employee"), it's not a given you can just do that in Norway. Most of the time, employees will be happy to be told they don't need to show up. Sometimes they aren't. There have been lawsuits over attempts to force people on garden leave in Norway.

[matsemann]

What's stopping people's from doing that while employed? I think if you treat your employees with respect, they don't feel the need to this kind of retaliation.

[joe_mamba]

So stealing IP, breaking the law and your contractual obligations, should be allowed if you feel like your employer isn't valuing you enough?

That guy was a six figure paid SW engineer, who stole IP for the opportunity to jump ship to an even better paid gig at Nvidia, not a minimum wage fast food worker who couldn't take it anymore.

Scammers will always be scammers and will use any excuse and opportunity to get ahead, no matter how much you trust, value and pay them, they'll always want more from you even when you have no more to give. They'll bankrupt you gladly if they can get away with it, out of greed, envy, spite and malice, I saw this when my parents ran a small business.

In globalized multinational companies, you can't defend from this using mutual trust and respect, only by strict IP protection, law enforcement, fines and jail time as a deterrent.

[matsemann]

> So stealing IP, breaking the law and your contractual obligations, should be allowed if you feel like your employer isn't valuing you enough?

Please don't straw man me. Discuss in good faith, and don't invent things I didn't say. I never said anything remotely close to that being allowed. I said that it could happen even if you don't terminate all their accesses the moment they're let go. And the fact that some people have to worry about it reflects on how the employer behaves or the trust in the society.

[joe_mamba]

>Please don't straw man me. Discuss in good faith, and don't invent things I didn't say.

I'm not. That's just the only logical takeaway from your comment saying: "I think if you treat your employees with respect, they don't feel the need to this kind of retaliation."

How else would you interpret it, rather than a veiled threat that if employees don't get their way then they'll steal or sabotage you? Please explain in detail. If you feel you're not treated the way you want to, then quit and find another job, don't steal or sabotage your employer.

> I said that it could happen even if you don't terminate all their accesses the moment they're let go.

Yeah, but it's WAAY more likely to happen AFTER you give them notice of termination since breaking relationships be them romantic or employment, can cause people to do illegal things like steal from their employer or murder their spouse in an impulse of revenge, when they hear their relationship is being terminated. All this is documented from decades of police and legal records, and companies know this, so they take preventive measures.

>And the fact that some people have to worry about it reflects on how the employer behaves or the trust in the society.

Companies worry about it because some people are gonna be evil thieves no matter how well they're treated.

If you want to get better treatment then negotiate better, talk to lawyers, organize in unions, vote, go protest, pester your representatives, but don't break the law or steal from your employer in revenge, as that reflects badly on all workers, and the economic, legal and societal costs of a few thieves will be distributed on the honest ones in forms of more workplace surveillance, higher cost of doing business, higher insurance premiums, etc all of which have a negative upstream effect on wages and employment opportunities.

[matsemann]

You're kinda proving my point, though. It seems you live in a low-trust society where it's eat or be eaten, and where employers and employees regard each other with disdain. So your only way of interpreting my statement is that it's a "threat". But it's not, it's about mutual respect and good relationships.

Which is what makes it hard for you to fathom it doesn't have to be that way you experience. When my company laid of half it workforce two years ago, everyone stayed for a few weeks to help in the transition, with the same accesses as before. Because we were treated nice all the years working there, and with respect during the process, it was absolutely no ill feelings or any risks of people doing what you describe.

So again, please read and answer comments in good faith. It's your mind that's not open enough for alternatives here, please bear that in mind - don't use your own closed mindedness to misread my comments.

Edit: your other comments in this thread shows you absolutely loathe your employers. I feel sorry for you having had those experiences, but don't assume they're global.

[vidarh]

I have had this (garden leave) specified in contracts in Norway too - it's not strictly a requirement that you're allowed to serve out the full 3 months, but the default unless specified is 3 months. In the cases I had it in the contract, the contract generally framed it as if some other perk (like shares) served as consideration for giving my employer the right to put me on garden leave.

[graemep]

It is common in the UK for people in certain jobs. I think the commonest reason is to make it harder for them to take clients with them.