How legal Is This

[rah]

Ok, respect was pushing it Even though I believe that companies that give out respect usually get it back.

But a companies reputation on how it deals with employees is important because it affects the bottom line.
I've worked in places where when the company screwed over an employee, others decided it was time to leave before it happened to them. And when asked by new potential employees they scared a few away. That hurt the bottom line. I'm saying that companies would do well to understand the impact of how it deals with employees. Turnover costs.

[rah]

and JR, Illinois is an "at will" state

http://www.illinoisprobono.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=316

And as a boss, I've always tried to treat my staff with respect. A manager is only as good as his staff.
I've experienced low turnover on my staffs over the years. I'd like to think this is a result of how I've treated them. Granted upper management has made me do things I normally would not, but if your staff trusts and respects you, they will understand. They won't agree but they will understand.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Did you just lose a staff member you cared about? Want to talk about it? Here, have a tissue

Actually... I've lost many over the years. In my speciality, the young to mid level talents are very mercenary... that's just the way my business is.

I've repeatedly been put in a bad position because somebody has left us.

Just stressing again that it's a two way street, and to be fair, the power to leave or fire should be equal... which it is.

[Flubber]

So in "at-will "states is there NO notice requirement ? Thats what I am taking from the idea that the one week per year of service was "not legally required". I also think one week per year is pretty crappy. You work for 5 years and then suddenly have 5 weeks to find a new job-- heck the interview process for a single position can be that long . . .

In Canada, the longer notices are based on common law. A very senior person in a senior position could get 18 months to 2 years as a payout. Heck, I was in a job 8 months and got a 6 month kiss-off when they folded the business unit they had recruited me to join. It wasn't "respect" or "loyalty", it was simple business. Essentially they settled rather than going to court.

[-Jrabbit]

I stand corrected on "at-will" -- I must have mis-remembered a previous post in this thread.

The relationship between a manager and staff is human, but should not be confused with the relationship between a corporation and it's employees. This is, in fact, exactly where most people make the mistake. It usually takes something drastic (like seeing a productive, well-liked, fast-tracker get canned) to help people see the truth.

By maintaining the (technically false) impression that the company cares, you increase employeed retention rates and thus, your own value to the company. It's all good.

But at the heart of things, it's all about financial self-interest on both sides of the coin. That includes good relationships, because you never know when you'll need a reference and where you'll run into a former boss or co-worker.

[rah]

It's only respect if an individual manager makes it that.

One company that I was forced to part with after 13 years, didn't do it right. Even though I was given a generous package, many on my staff thought i had been dissed. As a result over 75% of my former staff turned over in less than 4 months. They figured if it could happen to me, it could happen to them.

It cost the company over 10 million dollars (an estimate from one of my buds in accounting) A costly price that could have been eliminated if they had just pretended to show a bit more respect. It's not about whether it's really respect, only the perception of it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ming


Actually... I've lost many over the years. In my speciality, the young to mid level talents are very mercenary... that's just the way my business is.

Hmm "mercenary" does have a certain negative implication. While you go on to say that its just the way business is, the use of that word indicates that you don't really view those young talents leaving very positively.

I expect people to seek better opportunities. being on my 5th job as a lawyer in 12 years, I don't believe much in loyalty anymore. I would like to find a position I can stay in long term but frankly I have learned that you need to look out for yourself.

Originally posted by Ming

I've repeatedly been put in a bad position because somebody has left us.

Thats tough. I have always given ample notice. In one small legal department ( 2 lawyers), I gave THREE MONTHS. No its not all altruistic . . . I just believe that treating people well can help you in the long run

Originally posted by Ming


Just stressing again that it's a two way street, and to be fair, the power to leave or fire should be equal... which it is.

However, the impacts are frequently not equal. I think the impacts on a fired employee frequently exceed those suffered by the jilted employer although I can think of key personnel where occassionally the reverse would be true

[Flubber]

Originally posted by rah


One company that I was forced to part with after 13 years, didn't do it right. Even though I was given a generous package, many on my staff thought i had been dissed. As a result over 75% of my former staff turned over in less than 4 months. They figured if it could happen to me, it could happen to them.

Big mistake . . . We say an 18 year guy get terminated here recently and the company did it right to the extent it could. The day after it happned the entire department was told what had occurred and although very little was said, the message was given that "Joe is being well taken care of and is working with HR to help with the transition"

Joe also confirmed to his friends that he was being "well looked after".

People still wondered about it but no one is even moving towards leaving because of it

Canadian notice requirements actually would mean that most people would NEVER leave if they thought a layoff was coming. When new jobs are relatively easy to find, many people WELCOME a layoff.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Flubber
Hmm "mercenary" does have a certain negative implication. While you go on to say that its just the way business is, the use of that word indicates that you don't really view those young talents leaving very positively.

Nahhh... it's just a good description. They are in it for the money and titles. Nothing wrong with that. I give good references for many of them. Sure it sucks when they leave, but it's the nature of the beast.

I expect people to seek better opportunities. being on my 5th job as a lawyer in 12 years, I don't believe much in loyalty anymore. I would like to find a position I can stay in long term but frankly I have learned that you need to look out for yourself.

Yeah... people do seek better opportunities. So why do people feel it's ok to screw a company by leaving, but that's unfair when the shoe is on the other foot

Thats tough. I have always given ample notice. In one small legal department ( 2 lawyers), I gave THREE MONTHS. No its not all altruistic . . . I just believe that treating people well can help you in the long run

If people gave three months, the transitions would be real smooth... but two weeks, which is typical, basically allows the time for somebody to brief people on the status of projects... not train them.

However, the impacts are frequently not equal. I think the impacts on a fired employee frequently exceed those suffered by the jilted employer although I can think of key personnel where occassionally the reverse would be true

Yeah, I've seen it both ways as well... But I've seen some people who have stayed with a company because of the intertia that JR mentions, and then end up getting a far better higher paying job because they were fired.

Again... it's a two way street.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ming
Nahhh... it's just a good description. They are in it for the money and titles. Nothing wrong with that. I give good references for many of them. Sure it sucks when they leave, but it's the nature of the beast.

Exactly. In fact one of my co-workers knows for a fact that after 2 years (when she gets her last basically automatic raise... as long as she gets a 'meets expectations'), she's gone. Now, of couse, her team leader and the boss don't know this, and all her experience will be lost as a result, which they'll have to replace. But, that's her plan. Mercenary is a good term. She's in for the experience and is thinking of transfering to another government agency after those 2 years (which is why she wants to max out on her automatic promotions here).

[Ming]

In the media world... jumping companies is the pretty much the only way to see significant pay increases. So the youngsters stick it out for a year or two, jump ship for a big percentage increase, and repeat the process.
If you stick with the same company, in most cases, after the first few years, you start getting your 5 to 10 max increase... where another company will pay 20 to 40% (or even more) to get you to join them.

[KrazyHorse]

If employee turnover is such a big hassle then why aren't more companies in that situation willing to give its employees raises commensurate with their market value? Is it simple stupidity/short-sightedness?

[rah]

I blame it on the BEAN counters. Often looking for a quick boost to the bottom line because that's how they're incented. Until longterm thinking is included in incentive plans, nothing will change. I'd like to see a turnover clause in incentives. You can bet that once it's part of it, thinking will change dramatically.

I was at one place where the employee/member ratio was used as a bonus component. Careful what you ask for.
The company started highering more consultants and laying off employees to get the ratio lower. It would have been much cheaper to just keep the employees but it would have hurt their bonuses. So bad business decisions where made.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ming




If people gave three months, the transitions would be real smooth... but two weeks, which is typical, basically allows the time for somebody to brief people on the status of projects... not train them.

I gave 3 months becuase it was convenient for me and gave me time to sell my house. Also, in the circumstances my leaving on short notice would have really shated my new boss. It was a 2 member legal department and my previous boss had retired effective one month before. (I liked the new guy but with him being relatively young, I had nowhere to advance). The new guy was still learning his own job and quite frankly had little idea about most of what I was doing.

The 3 month notice allowed them to hire a new person who had 3 weeks with me ( she gave one month notice at her job). I think at least partially because the way I handled things, I still enjoy a fantastic relationship with that agency and their two lawyers.

[rah]

Good for you.

Not burning bridges can be important.
The company I'm currently working for is a good example.
Over the last 27 years, this is the fourth time I've been employed by this company. Twice as an employee and twice as a consultant. My current stay is the longest. The first time I left it would have been easy to burn my bridges. I was young and stupid. It would have cost me a lot of future money.