[laichzeit0]

That's incorrect. The actual tl;dr would be "don't give people notice if you need them".

He's technically still employed until the end of the notice period. How does "firing" work in the USA? Do you literally pack up your desk and walk out the moment you're "fired"? That sounds, well... illegal?

[zrail]

Typically, yes. Most states in the US are "at will" states, meaning both the employer and employee have the right to end employment at any time. It's customary to give your employer two weeks notice that you're leaving, but it's by no means a legal requirement. There's no such custom when the employer takes the action.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

In smaller companies there typically is. I've only been terminated once (not for cause) but I was given two weeks notice and told I could take some time off if I needed to go on interviews, etc.

In most larger companies, I agree. Typically, you have to leave the same day and they must (by law) pay you through the end of your current pay period.

[Dewie]

> It's customary to give your employer two weeks notice that you're leaving, but it's by no means a legal requirement. There's no such custom when the employer takes the action.

That seems incredibly unfair. Sure, by law neither party is required to give notice, but a sufficiently ingrained social more can be just as much of a burden (for the employee, in this case).

It's brilliant, though - lull employees into an informal gentleman's agreement, then pull the rug out from under them if things don't work out. If verbal agreements aren't legally binding, then the employee can't even appeal to the law, since the law is fair. And maybe the former employee blames herself for not agreeing to get this in writing, instead of blaming the overall culture of this kind of asymmetric relationship.

[rondon2]

I don't see how this is a burden on the employee. If he gives 2 weeks notice, he still has the option of not finishing the 2 weeks of work. You can give two weeks notice and if the employer treats you poorly anytime during those 2 weeks you can stand up and walk out the door.

[Dewie]

Like I said, the burden is in a form of a social more, not any concrete law. If employees are expected to give their notice, and put up with their employer in the same way as they have for the normal duration of their employment, then that is a burden since the employer does not have the same social expectation when they are letting the employee go.

The employer can say You wouldn't walk out on us now, would you? That would be a dishonourable thing to do (probably in a less direct way). An employee doesn't seem to have that same kind of social more leverage.

EDIT: This includes the circumstance that you mentioned - the employer is being somewhat unreasonable - since they can still guilt the employee into pushing through it. Another thing to consider is that, while the employer might not be treating the employee worse than he used to, the fact that the employee feels that he has to stay for the extra two weeks may be an inconvenience to him. He may have things that he want to take care of, etc.

[moron4hire]

That is how firing works in the US. I guess it is rationalized that the fired person might do something vindictive.

I have responded by not giving notice when I quit. I see quitting as "firing my boss". Notice is for suckers. I do not give where I would not receive. I only gave notice at one job in the last ten years, and that was because the only reason I was quitting was because I was moving.

[rondon2]

For large companies in the U.S. Yes, you come into work and you manager tells you that he need to speak with you and hands you a packet of information explaining that you will get X weeks of pay if you sign it and asks you to leave the office. You have the option to not sign the packet and to sue the employer if you feel that you were unjustly fired.

[smileysteve]

More like tl;dr "Don't expect employees to go above and beyond if you have limited their opportunities to here and now"