[Arkadir]

Most of the reactions both here and on LinkedIn seem to miss a crucial fact: this story happened in Belgium.

In Belgium, employees must be notified in advance before they are let go: you send them a letter stating "your contract will end in 12 weeks", they keep working for you for 12 weeks, and then they leave.

Employees are usually expected to pass on their knowledge to other team members and wrap up their current projects before they leave. And they are getting paid for it.

This is not the story of a CEO who fired out an employee on the spot, then tried to get back in touch later because they found out they still needed him.

This is the story of a CEO who told an employee that they would be let go three months from now, then asked them to help after hours---something that they had done previously---only to find that they were not motivated enough to do it anymore.

And this is what makes the story interesting: it's not a ridiculous caricature that you can point and laugh at ; it has all the real-life ingredients that you can easily find in the average company.

- Employers and employees who assume that "professionalism" means volunteering to work beyond the scope of a work contract.

- Employers who forget that loyalty is an essential factor in the motivation of many employees.

- A CEO who made the tradeoff of not having a dedicated 24/7 support team, and whines when the inevitable outage happens and there is no one to handle it.

I believe the original author herself said it best: "So your best bet is to hire people who share your passion, willing to 'volunteer' on such occasions."

No one is passionate about staying long hours to fix a production server. But they might be passionate about building a product that can make them proud. Their product. And once they feel it's not their product anymore, the passion is gone, and they'll be home by 7pm with their cell phone turned off.

[fab13n]

I think most people from countries other than USA realized it was a 3-months notice.

I believe the story remains a caricature, for the following reasons:

1/ she terminated him because she determined there was no more need for his skills. Expecting overtime after that is admission that she was at best too early, and probably just wrong. Planning is one of the key competences expected from a CEO.

2/ she's surprised that he won't work more than he's paid for. That's a caricatural misunderstanding of how people relate to their job; from a farmer or a plumber it might pass, but coming from a CEO of HR-oriented companies, that's nothing short of crass incompetence.

3/ basic fairness: during employment, she kept paying him money because it was the only way to get some work done; she should expect the flip side: that he only works when it's the only way to keep making money. And he's not even slacking at work, is just doing no more than what he's paid for. This gives the whole story an "entitled brat" vibe IMO.

> "So your best bet is to hire people who share your passion, willing to 'volunteer' on such occasions."

That line kills me. Seriously, who's passionate about yet another online CV sharing app? Which probably has to be unbearably pushy with its users, since LinkedIn has long eaten everyone's lunch on this market? She's no Elon Musk, and the only things that could foster passion for her business are stock options.

That argument is always used by people in boring businesses, rarely by those who'd be legitimately entitled to use it--I guess those don't need to.

[6cxs2hd6]

I got the sense that the employee was being paid for the 3 months, and spending time mostly to look for a new job -- not to do actual work for the company.

As a result, the CEO probably thought it was reasonable to ask him to help out with an emergency. Although it was after hours, it was hardly "overtime" in the sense of being hour 41+ of work he did for the company. Probably more like hour 2+, in her mind.

I'm not saying her expectation was realistic, I just don't think it was a "caricature". I suppose I think you're not understanding her point of view, much as she didn't understand the employee's point of view.

[fab13n]

> I suppose I think you're not understanding her point of view, much as she didn't understand the employee's point of view.

I think I understand what a workaholic's feelings might be in such a situation, although displays of empathy with her seemed out of my comment's topic.

But there's an asymmetry here: it's not my job to understand how workaholics react, whereas it's doubly hers to understand how employees react, as a boss and as an HR professional.

[antjanus]

Thanks for clearing this up. It's funny how in the US, people rarely ever (only in high up enough roles) get any kind of a notification. Getting a 3 month notice is pretty awesome, at least you're not left out on the curb because of some layoff.

Outside of that, you hit the point right on and I think a lot of comments echo your sentiments:

- Any kind of "volunteering" for free, outside of working hours is preposterous as it is. Expecting an employee to continue doing so after given a notice is even worse. You're basically expecting favors after you told the employee they won't be able to cash out on those favors.

- And so, when the CEO has a 24/7 support of volunteers and used to it, and then cuts the volunteers, there won't be anyone there to handle it. I understand that Belgium sucks in terms of overtime (high taxes, finicky contracts) but if it's mission critical, you may want to have at least one person on your payroll that can do this. It's a necessary cost.

[cubancigar11]

This is not specific to Belgium. Most countries beside USA have a notice period of 2 to 3 months.

In fact, it is actually much worse for an employee to have such long notice periods. The most obvious one is already mentioned - boredom and low morale. But it has an interesting side-effect: Most companies have immediate requirements and cannot wait for months before it is filled. So they hire from a pool that is limited to people who have already been laid off. And obviously the employees are in poor position to negotiate any salary increase.

[edanm]

"Most countries beside USA have a notice period of 2 to 3 months."

Really? In most countries? I'm not so sure, even if we exclude "most countries" to mean "most First World Countries".

Do you have a source?

[logicchains]

Change "most First World countries" to "most Western countries"; Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are first world countries (at least in the sense 'first world' means economically developed).

[edanm]

And what happens in those countries in terms of notice period? I'm actually wondering specifically about those countries too. Otherwise, all we have left is the US + Europe, more or less, I believe.

[logicchains]

In Singapore it's 1 day to 4 weeks, depending on how long they were employed[1]. Taiwan is 10 to 30 days, depending on length of employment[2]. Korea is 30 days[3]. Japan is also 30 days[4].

I'm Australian, and it's also one to four weeks notice here, depending on how long the employee's been employed at the company[5].

1. http://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/employment-rights...

2. http://www.chinalawandpractice.com/Article/3142351/Issue/850...

3. http://us.practicallaw.com/6-508-2342?q=&qp=&qo=&qe=#a612243

4. http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/invest/setting_up/laws/section4/pa...

5. http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/183150/Contract+of+Employm...

[cubancigar11]

I have worked in several countries. It was based on my experience. Also, I have seen that notice period has gradually gone up in service based companies.

I know that HN core audience hasn't really seen that side of outsourcing, so the experiences might be different.

[dragonwriter]

> In fact, it is actually much worse for an employee to have such long notice periods. The most obvious one is already mentioned - boredom and low morale.

Unless the law prohibits terminal paid leave, this is easily avoided.

> Most companies have immediate requirements and cannot wait for months before it is filled.

So? Hire someone immediately. Having notice requirements for termination doesn't prohibit you from doing that. Internal policies regarding positions might, but that's a problem of internal policies, not externally-imposed terminal notice requirements.

[cubancigar11]

That is what I am saying. If you want someone to work from tomorrow, then you look for people whose notice period is ending tomorrow or has already ended. You can no longer poach employees.

Did you want to say something else? Could you please explain further?

[waylandsmithers]

> In fact, it is actually much worse for an employee to have such long notice periods.

You'd really prefer "Clean out your things and exit the premises by 11AM" over 2 to 3 months notice?

[ctdonath]

2-3 months of the employee having been completely demotivated, festering resentment, and likely not doing anywhere close to expected productivity (much less overtime as the author was surprised about not getting).

"Out by 11AM" sucks, but it's _done_, minimizes suffering, and you can move on with life. Trust me.

The social (not legal) convention in the USA is 2 weeks (with 2 weeks pay in lieu of work if the "out by 11AM" happens). That's about enough to, if on good terms, wrap things up for all parties involved and transition accordingly.

Giving someone 2-3 months notice, and expecting performance as though it's going to proceed and end as if it were "out by 11AM" (to wit: work full enthusiastic hours for weeks on end with no distractions, then pack up and leave one morning) is absurdly unrealistic.

[rmc]

What about the suffering of the employee? They have bills to pay, rent or mortgage to pay, and food to buy. 2 weeks paid notice when you're fired means you have to scramble to get a job. The company have months of time to play for when to fire you, but you only get 2 weeks before you stop getting money? No way.

[cubancigar11]

Of course not. I would prefer it to be around 2 weeks to 1 month.

But really, it depends on the job market. As an employee, let us say, a specialized laborer, I would prefer the notice period to be as long as possible because there aren't going to be any other jobs for me out there.

[rwallace]

Yes. Pulling off a Band-Aid is never fun, but if it has to be done, the total unpleasantness is minimized by getting it over with quickly.

[mcv]

> Most countries beside USA have a notice period of 2 to 3 months.

That much? In Netherland it's just one month.

[Joeri]

Those three months are an upper bound, not a requirement. If you are fired, then it can usually be assumed the employer would rather see you go sooner than later. You can usually negotiate a shorter term.

[ClayM]

You got the last part right. It's pretty unreasonable to expect anyone to have passion for a project that is no longer their's.

Hard to get people to go above and beyond the call of duty after you tell them they aren't needed.

[rmc]

In most develeped countries (except the USA), you can't just fire someone on the spot (unless they are stealing from you / beating up co-workers etc.). So the employee always has a notice period to work.