Good advice. I just had to do this recently and morale is pretty low where I'm at. Everyone was saying "so did you complain about <random issue from a laundry list>?". All were shocked when I said "no, I had nothing but good about the place. I side stepped every negative point".
The thing is, trashing a company as you leave never does anything positive. Maybe you can brag about it to your friends, but chances are they will be laughing at you, not with you. Most of the time the things you would complain about are something your boss knows about is trying to fix, so it just makes you look like a whiner.
They will also tend to take it personal. You're leaving, chances are they will to at some point. How would you like to sell yourself to that same guy 3 contracts down the road after dropping a turd on his desk?
I don't agree with this. I think the author can make the case that job hoppers aren't good employees in his experience. And maybe he can even say that job hoppers are generally bad. But human beings are quirky animals. Any statement about human behavior that contains the word "always" or "never" is almost certainly wrong.
I suspect that in many, especially larger, organizations excellent people need to hop to advance. Think about how co-workers and bosses react to a junior employee who quickly outstrips more experienced colleagues. Promoting someone junior rapidly past other people can cause resentment, or be structurally unavailable. The company may have policies about maximum annual raise, so an excellent person may advance in responsibility but not in pay. When taking a new job your position and pay are determined by your capabilities to a greater degree.
There are definitely alternatives to 'job hopping' including consulting/contracting to get rid of the stigma while essentially doing the same thing. Alternatively you can get a job with (or start) a start-up so you can have 'measurement and leverage'.
This criticism is a pet peeve of mine. People use "never" and "always" all the time and everyone knows (ok, almost everyone) that they don't literally mean "never" and "always". For example, in this case he means, "Don't make the mistake of hiring a job hopper because you somehow think this time it'll be different. You're almost certainly wrong, and there's no way to tell in advance besides, so don't bother taking the risk. There are other similar candidates without that risk."
'People use "never" and "always" all the time and everyone knows (ok, almost everyone) that they don't literally mean "never" and "always".'
I think it still makes a difference though. I mean consider the following two sentences:
"Job hoppers NEVER make good employees."
"Job hoppers ALMOST NEVER make good employees."
The former is much more strongly worded to the point of requiring overwhelming evidence that I feel you won't be able to find when dealing with human behavior.
In your criticism you've missed an important factor. The former sentence is better writing.
I also struggle with this when I write, but I try to catch myself and avoid going down that slippery slope. You can spend the time trying to make each of your statements precise so that no one can challenge it like you've challenged this one. Alternatively, you could choose to put something strongly, trusting your audience to see your point and find your readers are more engaged and eager to discuss your ideas.
That's highly debateable. And even if it's true, it's very much situational.
I think it depends a lot on the purposes behind your writing. Are you writing to persuade people? Then perhaps you should consider the more strongly worded phrase. Are you writing to inform people (as this author does)? Then you're likely better off prioritizing accuracy. Like Einstein said: "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
Mixing persuasive and informative writing is generally a bad idea (although informing people of what your opinion is is a bit of a grey area). At best, it convinces your reader that you're trying to persuade rather than inform and makes you lose credibility. At worst, it's unethical because it's stating opinion as fact.
I really don't like the idea of a new boss micromanaging my exit. It's none of his business.
If we've agreed on a start date and he doesn't trust me to show up on time, that means he doesn't trust me to live up to my commitments. What other trust issues might we have in the future?
I've given notices anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 weeks. In the longer ones, when I've explained my outstanding commitments and the consequences to my customers and colleagues, new employers have always understood. Taking care of people when you have little financial incentive to do so is a sign of an ethical person.
I'm sure it's more of an attempt to be sure you're going to be fine with leaving. If you sound like someone who is confident and will get this all done in a reasonable time frame, I doubt you'd get much push.
The important part is making sure the person has thought about their exit. If you know what you are going to do and are confident in your decision, great. Lots of people haven't really given it much thought and just try to muddle through and stay nice.
Very well, told him I was dissatisfied with the way employees were treated, with the way management was going and apparently the big smile was a dead giveaway that I had already made my decision and that he wouldn't be able to sway me.
So I guess my advice related to this article would be, if you're hiring somebody and he has to tell his boss that he's quitting, make sure he looks as enthusiastic as possible about the new job, to make sure the boss rolls over right away ;)
Hmm... it sounds like you didn't follow any of the advice in the article. Shows that there's more than one way to quit a job. What was his reaction when you said that you didn't like the way employees are treated?
I think he knew we were being treated unfairly, but yet he couldn't do anything about it. One of the problems of a large company like that is that there are so many layers of 'management' that nobody is left with any responsibility or autority (like treating employees better).
I wonder if this advice is informed by the author's experience in the UK. In the Northern California software/tech industry, 2 weeks notice is the standard courtesy. It's also, I've found, widely accepted that having someone who doesn't want to be there can be corrosive to team dynamics so both employer and employee have an interest in aiming for the minimum time needed for an orderly hand-off. That tends to be two weeks or less.
So long as your relationship with the company is pleasant, the "proper" notice to give depends on the specifics of the position and could be longer than 2 weeks. It's polite to give enough time so that you can transition your responsibilities to whomever will be taking them over. In senior positions I've often given 4 weeks notice, but I know some people who commonly give 6 or more.
Continuing to be a productive part of the team during that period of time is simply a matter of professionalism. It's true that occasionally one party or the other is incapable of continuing to work together, but that's pretty rare in my experience.
Assuming the employer/employee relationship is healthy, I give the customary 2 weeks, but always allow for up to 4 additional weeks of off-site 1099 consulting and communication.
This can be especially helpful when transitioning a large codebase, or really any suitably complex project, where some of the undocumented "lore" isn't readily apparent to either party until after the formal transition effort is already well underway.
I don't think it's a matter of being able to work together. It's just better that everyone move on. Two weeks is standard and expected in Silicon Valley. Also keep in mind that the workforce there tends to be pretty mobile (there are a lot of startups, after all) so this essentially defaults to a standard protocol. Nobody really needs to be told how to quit other than perhaps the first time. I'm sure other locations and industries have different expectations and conventions.
I've had a few jobs where two weeks notice turned into two weeks paid vacation. It was standard practice as they were routinely paranoid about sabotage.
Yep, that happens as well. In fact in many US states, certainly in California, 2 weeks notice can also turn into collect-your-things-and-go. But this relatively rare, given normal a employer-employee relationship.
For the record, in Japan the minimum notice period (for both sides) is 2 weeks by law. However, no company will fire you under such a short notice unless you do something egregious like punching your boss.
If you're leaving, most companies will expect at least a 1-month notice. Two months is common. Even if you're changing jobs that's not too long because the other company (if it's a Japanese company) will understand and actually expect it. On that 1~2 month period you're expected to hand over your tasks to a colleague.
If you're leaving for a reason other than changing to another company (like Patrick), then it's not uncommon to give a longer notice. For instance, many women still leave their jobs after marrying, or after getting pregnant, or when their husbands get transferred etc.
I've heard of key technical staff having a 3-month notice written out in their contract. Nine months is ridiculously long no matter what.
Wow. Where I am, the notice is 2-3 months and contractual so there is no negotiating it.
Personally, I would tell the person "Go ahead and go now, and we'll just continue to pay your salary to the end of the contract". If the person is really unhappy with the place, having them around bringing everyone down is going to cost a lot more than paying someone 2 months to not be there IMO.
Wow. Where I am, the notice is 2-3 months and contractual so there is no negotiating it.
How do you contract this sort of thing? If I wanted to quit and I had a contract like this, I would just stop coming to work, or I would come to work and do a bad job.
Getting fired probably reflects poorly on you when they call your former boss, though..
It's something similar in Sweden, though the contract goes both ways. They can't give less notice for firing you than you can for quitting, so it just damps the system somewhat.
It's pretty cultural. The contract is a two way street. Most people don't do what you describe because they wouldn't want the company doing it to them. People probably also worry about burning bridges.
Since it's a legal contract violating (by leaving) it could lead to lawsuits.
Similar in Ireland. Although 1 month notice is the figure. Usually the notice is specified in the contract. There is a legal minimum of 2 weeks (or more depending on how long the employment has lasted).
Although it's in the contract, you are always free to re-negotiate a contract, and if both sides agree, then you have a new contract
When I worked in Germany, I had to give _3 months_ notice. (It was related to leaving at the end of the quarter, but I don't recall the details). It made for a very uncomfortable atmosphere. I can't imagine what the reasoning was, maybe just that it simplified things for some bureaucrat somewhere in HR.
3 month to end of the quarter was more common in past in germany. And it goes both ways. Its actually to protect you as an employee. Its a contract thing. If you had wanted you could have changed that before signing. But its not unusual for reasons mentioned in this thread to let people go earlier. But both sides have to agree to that. Usually a pay-off is involved when youre fired and asked to leave erlier.
its something called "Kündigungsschutz". most contracts have these clauses and they are often effective after some kind of trial period (usually 3-6 months, depending on job and experience).
its a measure to support the employee but it works both ways.
"Kündigungsschutz" (employment protection) is actually something different. It basically means you can't be fired except for one of three reasons:
1. Reasons in your behavior. For instance, if you steal from the company.
2. Reasons in your person. For instance you have developed a back-problem and can't do your job anymore.
3. Reasons within the company. Like restructuring eliminates the job you were doing. And this reason also requires that the employer has to prove that you cannot work at a different place in the company. If the company wants to fire a lot of people for financial reasons it has to be "sozialverträglich" (socially acceptable) which means employees with children and older employees can't be fired unless all younger employees without kids are also fired. There are exceptions.
It is actually quite hard to fire someone in Germany, who wants to stay. It takes years and if the employer loses in court he has to pay the salary for the time of the judicial proceeding plus the employee is still not fired. Because of this risk and the associated costs for the employer it is common to have some compensation payed to the employee. Its usually about half of his current monthly salary (before tax) times the years he was in the company.
The employment protection is not negotiable but the "Kündigungsfrist" (period of notice) is, to a certain degree. I think 1 month is the minimum. Employment protection is applicable if the company has more that 10 employees and the contract is indefinite. Fixed term contracts are only possible for at most 2 years. After that the employment becomes indefinite automatically.
> It is actually quite hard to fire someone in Germany, who wants to stay.
Wow. In the USA, companies can basically fire anyone for any reason at any time (in my experience). And getting fired usually happens very quickly -- as in, that instant: "Please pick up your things and come with me. No, don't touch the computer, someone else will log you out."
The minimum one month notice does not mean you see your desk again, it just means you will be paid at least for one more month (plus what is reached in the settlement).
But an employee that really wants to stay can be on payroll for quite some time. But he cannot work for another company during that time. He has to be available.
But most people, I think, take the severance pay and move on. I did.
I've never even heard of anyone asking for 4-6 weeks from an exiting employee. In my experience, offering 2 weeks is the standard courtesy but most ex-employers will work to get you out the door ASAP so they can get on with things.
Sure they can. By definition, if you have a job, it is paying you money. Anybody can choose to save some of that money every month with the intention of taking a good long vacation in the future. It doesn't matter how little you make, you can always adjust your lifestyle to allow for savings.
So while it's entirely possible that you can't afford that luxury right this minute, that's entirely something you've chosen for yourself. And the interesting part is that you can do something about it.
With a few basic changes to your life today, you can afford to take 3 months off next year.
No, not anybody can. What if you have a family and are barely making ends meet as it is? It's very difficult to convince a wife that you'd like for the family to spend a little less so you can have a few months off next year between jobs.
Assuming you have a job in IT, how does one get to the point where he's only making ends meet, even with a family in the mix?
Assuming a low-end IT salary, you're still bringing in 5k+/month. Minus $2000 for tax, zero for your 10 year old cheap car, $1000 for rent, and another $500 for food, that leaves $1500 for conspicuous consumption or savings.
If you've chosen to use up that excess by upgrading apartments, leasing a car, buying a flatscreen on the Visa card, etc., that's what is eating up your ability to save money.
There's no reason to be living month to month on $60k+ a year. Unless that's what you've chosen to do.
You're missing a lot of stuff like gas, parking, car insurance, phone bills, internet connection, electricity, heat, water, diapers, kid insurance, kid clothes, kid medicine, kid entertainment (toys, books, etc), babysitter, day care, etc, etc. Your food budget is assuming the family is living on beans and rice.
Day care? The wife either works or she doesn't. In the latter case, day care is unnecessary. In the former case, you've got enough extra money for day care.
As for food, I eat far better than beans and rice, and I probably only spend about $150/month (ignoring restaurants). I'm a 100kg man who eats a lot. $500/month is easily plausible for a family which does not have large teenage children. (This of course assumes a non-working wife to prepare food from scratch, but again, if the wife works, more money to play with.)
Indeed. Budget it out however you like, but if you can exactly make ends meet each month, chances are you can make ends meet and have one dollar left over to save. Look a bit harder and you might find $50 left.
Start thinking that way, and keep at it for a while and suddenly you'll find you're not living month-to-month anymore.
Here's a recipe for living on one 'median' income:
* Pay your cars off.
* Get down to < $300 / month on food.
* Stop eating out except on special occasions.
* Turn the thermostat up / down in summer / winter.
* Cap mortgage or rent at $1000 / month.
* Live close to work
* Stop buying lots of crap you don't need.
* Build some savings
The key thing is, if you can manage on one income, a LOT of expenditure just melts away. Day care, gas for commuting to two jobs, much easier to eat at home, etc. etc.
Those things would be easy if it's just you. However, imposing those policies on the wife is another matter. It just devolves into fighting over money all the time.
One data point you are missing: if you fire the incompetent wife, in the USA by default she gets the kids too. Guess what kind of life they will have with just her raising them.
> Anybody can choose to save some of that money every month with the intention of taking a good long vacation in the future.
Hopefully this was some lapsus related to the assumed readership of this particular site, in which case it could be somewhat closer to the truth. But it sure as hell is not feasible for everyone.
Yeah, obviously if you're near or below the poverty line, it's a little different. I'd assume he was assuming people were programmers or the like.
And really, if you can't afford to take 3 months off, you also can't afford to be unemployed for every long (unless you have an outstanding severance package promised to you), which is bad for your financial stability. First of all, you may just not be able to find a job, and even if you can, it's possible that the ability to hold out for another month could have gotten you a much better job.
I'm just 17, but I can't imagine being in a longterm situation where I'm saving very little if I'm making a programmer's salary. Stability is a much more important "luxury" than eating out, nice stuff, cable TV, etc in my book.
I've never needed to lie about how soon I've been asked to start working. I've never needed to be that evasive about why I'm leaving, though it could happen. I'd have second thoughts about working for this poster after getting all this micromanaging advice slanted his way.
If you're really good, your boss is going to do everything they can to get you to stay. This is great advice on how to leave as quickly and painlessly as possible.
I usually thought that if someone is interviewing with you they probably made up their mind on quitting their job, so I didn't push it at all. But I've seen this happen, where it ends up taking 3 or 4 weeks because they're finishing up a project. I'm glad they finish what they started, but its true, I probably could have used them yesterday.
Unfortunately, in the United States the number one reason people do not retire early is that they are not yet 65 and qualify for Medicare coverage. Even well-off individuals are hesitant because of the potential for adverse personal medical events depleting their nest egg.
Yes, early retirement is not the same as quitting your job when young and presumably good health - however the fact that in the U.S. medical care is tied to the company you work for is a major burden on those who want to quit.
> however the fact that in the U.S. medical care is tied to the company you work for
That's not a "fact". One can buy health insurance and there are other ways to get it. (For young people, it's often reasonable to "go bare" or just buy catastropic coverage.)
Employer-paid health insurance isn't free - it's just (mostly) paid for with money that you don't see.
Would you argue that food/shelter/energy is an obstacle to quitting that someone should do something about? If not, what makes health care, which is arguably under more personal control, different?
If you can't afford your lifestyle without an income ....
It's never reasonable to "go bare" in the US, no matter how young and/or healthy you are. You never know when your gall bladder or appendix will decide to turn on you, or when a hernia will pop up (or pop out, as it were), or when an unexpected pregnancy will occur- to say nothing of bike accidents or other misc. injuries. One day you're feeling fine, the next day you're in the hospital with a ruptured appendix and end up with a $20,000 bill. Oh, you had a bad reaction to the anesthetic they used, and needed an extra day in the hospital? Make that a $25,000 bill. Thank you, come again!
Also, besides the immediate proximal financial impact of having to deal with any of those situations while uninsured, remember the pre-existing condition trap: while you're in the hospital getting that appendix out, you'd darn well better hope that your CT scan doesn't turn up anything else of interest (cancers, hernias, etc.), as anything they discover while you're uninsured will be most likely be excluded from whatever future health coverage you might end up with. Oh, wait-- that'll probably be a moot point, since insurance companies usually refuse to sell individual policies to people with pre-existing conditions (even to otherwise-healthy young people with minor conditions).
Catastrophic coverage is an absolute bare minimum to have, and, even then, make sure you really read the fine print. A lot of catastrophic or other low-premium plans have pretty major strings attached in terms of what they will and won't cover.
Another important point: simply by virtue of having insurance of some description, you will get different pricing than if you're billed directly as an individual. That's because insurers pay the claim and then settle it with the policyholder, so the healthcare providers don't factor in the same delinquency / nonpayment risk that they apply to people who just walk in off the street and presumably pay in cash. You may get invoiced 2-2.5x more for the same procedure than you would if the billing were going through some kind of policy, which is in itself significant, never mind the limits, deductible or possibility of rescission.
You can transition "pay yourself" from your employer's (or parents) plan without running into the pre-existing condition problem. Preexisting conditions are only a problem if you have a gap in coverage.
Besides, most people don't have preexisting conditions, so the ones that do are treatable as a special case.
Pre-tax vs post-tax is only relevant if you have taxable income, which isn't the case for "quitting work to do a startup".
I've got a suspicion that few of you have actually run the numbers, so I'll help.
I'm over 50, male, unmarried, and in San Jose and my reasonably comprehensive plan cost $325/month.
If you're 20-30, you could get the same for significantly less, and you'd be adequately served by a somewhat lesser plan. (I'd have a lesser plan if I was younger.) If you're somewhere else (not SF), or are married or female, you can do better.
Note that $325/month is significantly less than rent.
Health insurance actually isn't a significant obstacle for the vast majority.
I had one month's notice in my contract, knew I was leaving three months in advance and gave six weeks. Figured that was a good balance between giving a generous amount of time, and the risk of things turning sour or being asked to serve out one month only.
I found it quite a hard thing to do, not dissimilar to breaking up with someone. There was a lot of "it's not you, it's me"...
I just told my boss last week I was leaving so that I could join a startup! I unfortunately gave a longer notice than I would have liked to because I have my hands in a lot of the details around. I have the open door here at my current (for the time being) employer, so if it hits the fan (god forbid), I do have a job. I wish I had read this last week!! At least I start my new job in a couple weeks!
If the new employer is getting involved trying to make this as easily as possible, why not just give the present employer a call and work it out? The employee has their part in it already, why also make them into an emotional middleman?
Very informative article. Seems a lot of startup advice sites will gladly tell you to quit your job, but this is a great explanation of how exactly that works out.
The job market is heating up dramatically here in London so a lot of people are finding it hard to find good developers. My company doesn't want to see me go so I've had many teams come to me to try to convince me to stay and join their team. The reasoning I've given is "I want to work in an entirely new environment with new technologies and with new people" but it's difficult when you're being offered more money to stay. Hopefully I'm making the right decision :)
The thing is, trashing a company as you leave never does anything positive. Maybe you can brag about it to your friends, but chances are they will be laughing at you, not with you. Most of the time the things you would complain about are something your boss knows about is trying to fix, so it just makes you look like a whiner.
They will also tend to take it personal. You're leaving, chances are they will to at some point. How would you like to sell yourself to that same guy 3 contracts down the road after dropping a turd on his desk?