• (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    chubertdev:
    So I found out yesterday that one of my friends is having her insurance premium raised by 850%. I'm not sure how you can defend that.

    A) Quit trolling - you hate Obama, we get it. B) That figure is completely meaningless without know the actual initial value. C) Pics or it didn't happen - i.e. why should we believe you aren't making shit up (see A). My friend had their premium drop by 99% and got a personal blow job from Obama. Any one can say whatever shit they want.

    A) character assassination, that was pointless B) nope C) obviously, you don't care, and you're just a left-wing nutjob.

  • Dominic (unregistered) in reply to Paul Neumann
    Paul Neumann:
    I am an American and entitled to free speech.
    You're nothing but a filthy carbuncle festering in a corner.
  • Mike (unregistered)

    I've had two different companies withdraw formal offers, one after I had already accepted it. I've seen this happen to other people as well. As much as it is very important not to resign before you have signed the offer letter, this doesn't necessarily keep you from getting burned.

    Of course, if you have a signed offer letter and they pull the plug after you have resigned your current position, it's time to find a good lawyer...

  • John (unregistered) in reply to skotl

    Is there articles not on the front page? I only ever check the front page!

  • (cs)

    I was at a company where this happened, but it was our fault. My then-manager picked up the wrong resume out of the stack and sent it through the queue to start contract approval. Next day he realized it was the other guy he wanted, this guy was the total disaster he was trying to avoid.

    Somehow he convinced the third-party recruiter to take the fall for him, which is probably how he kept his job...

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to Don
    Don:
    Shoreline:
    As for HR "what should we tell him", as mentioned, that's their job, but at a guess they were just looking for Paul's opinion on the matter, and Bob was probably right there and able to hear half the conversation.

    This is not a problem with bureaucracy, this is a problem with a lack protocol or following it. HS should have turned Bob away and explained not to prematurely quit a job. Bob should not have prematurely quit his job. HR sound like they could have worded their question better: "Ok, I'll let him know. Is there anything further I should add to that?" I don't really think HR is much of a factor in this.

    Actually, they shouldn't have been onto Paul in the first place. HR define the headcount and deliver contracts. They hadn't delivered a contract. The only thing HR might have needed to contact Paul about was whether he had given any guarantee or answer to HS or Bob - and once that's settled, Bob can be told that unless he can produce a signed letter of employment from the company, that's end of story.

    HR passing the buck is becoming a scary trend among HR people lately. At my work, they don't really do anything; candidates are passed onto our third party contractor, offer letters are all template based from the legal dept, interviews are conducted by the team involved... essentially they fill in a few forms. They don't even handle the Christmas party anymore...

    HR is more for handling problem employees these days, and minimizing lawsuits. Keeping them out of the hiring process as much as possible would make more sense; they're only a part of it because they didn't want to let go of their old feifdoms when they expanded into new ones.

  • anitet (unregistered) in reply to Chad
    Chad:
    I think the real WTF here is the comments. Why are so many people confused by the events in the story? It's very clear what happened.

    This is why IT is hard, and software runs over time and budget. Some people can't read a story, and then pull out the important facts.

    That was my thought - it's a pretty simple story folks

  • Kemp (unregistered) in reply to Calli Arcale
    Calli Arcale:
    BTW, I had an emergency c-section that went pretty well in 2003. It cost over $15,000 (insurer negotiated rate; I paid $100 copay). I didn't need any transfusions or surgery beyond the c-section itself, and the baby was fine. NICU care can easily push your cost into six or even seven figures.

    That was a jaw dropper for me. Being able to get that sort of procedure and care for free on the NHS, I assumed that people would be paying thousands at most in the US. Do they really have charges in the tens of thousands up to millions for something like that?

  • a nony mousely yours (unregistered) in reply to Dan F
    Dan F:
    * Accepted the offer (which required I start within a week) * Immediately booked vacation from my old job (using up all the vacation days I had accumulated) * Started new job and confirmed that it was as they promised, and there were no management terrors or other hidden horrors * At the end of my vacation from old job, popped into the office briefly one morning to drop off my resignation letter, effective immediately.

    I know it was a jerk move, but companies only interested in the bottom line do not hesitate to to treat people this way. I don't really see workers as having any other choice.

    Note: This is an 'at-will' state. Employers can let employees go with no notice at any time for any reason. I take the flip-side to be equally true. I feel no obligation to an employer whatsoever, since they have the power to destroy an employee's life at any time.

    OK, understand why you did this - and a very smart move, too. Given the at-will employment crap in the US. Here in Europe, going on vacation and working for a competitor - guess this get you sued for breach of contract and the lot.

    Clearly it would not come into my mind to do something like this. Loyalty and the lot. Hail the US for showing the way though.

  • Ro (unregistered)

    Bob must have really hated his previous job to jump the resigna-gun before the formal offer :)

  • Shobo (unregistered) in reply to a nony mousely yours
    a nony mousely yours:
    Here in Europe, going on vacation and working for a competitor - guess this get you sued for breach of contract and the lot.

    Only IF you breach confidentiality AND you had a non-disclosure/confidentiality clause in the contract (granted, any sane company will add some) AND they can prove it.

    Other than that, as long as you don't harm the 1st company in any way you're free to take 2+ jobs or start a side business or whatever. EU law says a company cannot make a person work for them more than a certain amount of hours per day/week, but the individual is free to take up as many jobs from different sources as they can stand.

    There's also a distinction in EU between non-compete and loyalty clauses. Loyalty is mandated by law, applies only during employment and defined (roughly) as anything that would hurt the employer; but it's perfectly possible to have a 2nd job, even in the same field, and never hurt the 1st employer in any way.

    Non-compete clauses apply only after employment terminates and it's non-trivial for the company to make them stick. Since the EU law strongly favors the individual's right to work, the company has to limit the field, to issue a specific list of the competitors it means, a specific list of stuff the former employee cannot do, and to support the person (pay them a decent salary) in exchange for the period of non-compete.

    I should also add that notice periods in the EU are fixed, regulated by law, and mandatory. Employees MUST give 2 weeks to employer (4 if in management) and employer MUST give 4 weeks to employee. Leaving suddenly is impossible for employees and sudden termination is available for employers only in very specific cases (grave breach of internal procedures, confidentiality, work safety etc.) Which they have to prove to the government watchdog.

    Also, vacation days amount is fixed, global, and monitored centrally by said government watchdog for every working individual. So while you can take payed vacation from one employer and work for another during that time, you can't accumulate redundant vacation time from the 2nd.

    Last but not least, the watchdog monitors everywhere you work (main reason is so government gets their tax cuts from all employers) and in most places these informations are public (the fact you're working and for whom) so word eventually gets out.

    Getting back to the original poster's scheme: it would (kind of) work in the EU, but: he'd still have to work an additional 2 weeks for 1st employer when they got back from vacation (or cover it with paid vacation days, but it's unlikely to have so many, most countries top at ~25 days per year, and he couldn't make up for it at the next employer; or take unpaid leave, which 1st employer may not grant). If he can't cover with vacation he'd have 2 weeks of working 2x8 hours a day, which would not work out; vacation from 2nd employer accumulates after you start working, and they're not likely to give you 2 weeks vacation of any kind one month into a new job. Finally, both employers would become aware of the scheme at some point via official work records.

  • (cs)

    The real WTF is hiring people or having hiring freezes based on big company-wide decisions rather than a business need.

    Either they have work that is urgently required and Bob is the person who is needed to do it or they don't.

    What is the business implication if they don't hire Bob because it saves them a bit of salary and the work isn't done?

    If the work needs doing hiring, if not, don't.

    Unless the whole project is being shelved for a business reason I can't see a need to go back on it.

    But that happens in big businesses.

  • BeenThereDoneThat (unregistered) in reply to Iain 'Pumpernickel' Brown
    Iain 'Pumpernickel' Brown:
    Bob sends a big "Screw you" to his current employer then harasses the new employer when he isn't picked up. Sounds like Paul's team (bar Paul) dodged a bullet

    +1

    Captcha: "suscipere" - yep, Bob's actions do make him suscipere.

  • Brian (unregistered) in reply to Walky_one

    "1. We got a guy that was fired and told his recruiter some lies."

    What lies did the guy tell his recruiter? I assumed he was 'let go' once he turned in his 2 weeks notice. That kinda thing happens...

  • MrFox (unregistered) in reply to MoSlo

    Not really, this is why you have hiring firms, except here they din't do their job. Better not work with them again.

  • sickofit (unregistered) in reply to peanuts in a PayDay bar

    Man, there's always one, isn't there. Go read free republic or something.

  • Romojo (unregistered)

    Had something similar here - I was offered contract job at hourly rate <n>. Pushed them up to <n + 2.50>. When the contract came round for signing, it was back at <n>. Higher rate hadn't been agreed. My mistake, thought it had.

    To add insult to injury, just got renewed at <n> again. I asked about higher rate - "We don't give out rate increases after so short a time".

    Sigh.

    Captcha "Veniam". As in, Ad veniam, veritas.

  • lmm (unregistered)

    I agree that Bob was dumb not to wait for the written offer, but he shouldn't have to. If you've told someone you're hiring them you ought to stand by that - a gentleman's word is his bond and all that.

Leave a comment on “Jumping the Resigna-gun”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article