161–170 of 209 posts
Of all questions I've asked on Stack Overflow, 50% were eventually answered by myself (and some became pretty popular after that) and 5% was answered by someone else. 45% is still open. Good to see them back to a focus. I guess hiring could be a good cash cow but all of the sub communities are a bit much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about termination: - week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify hi…
A three months notice before quitting seems pretty excessive IMHO. I can kindof understand it from the perspective of the company that would need to find a replacement, but for the worker, it seems ridiculous. Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.
Often times, especially in IT, when people are let go, it's often important for security reasons just to have them stop working immediately, and that worker is still going to get his salary.
When employees quit, it's not 3 months mandated, that's just the limit. You just work out your transition with your employer. Most job changes usually happen within just a few weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "forced labour", it's just a contractual term. You certainly _can_ quit on zero notice but you've breached contract and it will cost you. If you look closely at US startups you'll usually find the founders and senior staff are on "notice required" contracts of several months.
If you make the breach cost infinitely high, how is that not a modern form of slavery?
Why would you fire people on such a short notice? No need to hand over things? No interest in providing at least some time to look for a new job? EDIT: To clarify that a bit, I am interested in what the upsides are except for possibly saving some money. An orderly shutdown usually seems preferable to me over quickly killing the process, for both sides.
Correct. Remember ROLES are made redundant, not people. If the role no longer exists then by definition there's nothing to handover.
If there is a handover then there better also be a big chunk of cash to the departing worker in return for waiving the right to sue, because if there isn't, it's tribunal time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same in France and the majority of EU countries.
Three months seems like way too long to know you're being laid off but I guess maybe the purpose is that it gives you time to find new work? In the US, it's just assumed that the ex-employee will be as malicious as possible and so it's best to get rid of them fast as possible.
Think of it more like a severance package and it makes more sense.
Of all questions I've asked on Stack Overflow, 50% were eventually answered by myself (and some became pretty popular after that) and 5% was answered by someone else. 45% is still open. Good to see them back to a focus. I guess hiring could be a good cash cow but all of the sub communities are a bit much.
Your first paragraph says more about you than about the site.
I think an interesting path for stackoverflow would be to provide live channels for technology support and conversation. A bit like public slacks. I remember a few technologies that officially said something like "support is provided through custom stackoverflow tags", but it didn't bring more functionalities. A company trying to launch its new technology (i can imagine asp.net core for example) could have an associa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m quite surprised to hear one must give their employer notice. Doesn’t Poland or the EU have laws against forced labor? In the US, for example, all employment by private corporations is “at will.” Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.
It's not "forced labour", it's just a contractual term. You certainly _can_ quit on zero notice but you've breached contract and it will cost you. If you look closely at US startups you'll usually find the founders and senior staff are on "notice required" contracts of several months.
- You can do it in mutual agreement (see below).
- You can quit directly but you generally forgo any company benefits (like build up bonuses) and you might/most likely not have rights to state-supported unemployment benefits (70% of your last paycheck).
As an employer:
- You can either in mutual agreement (in which case the employee usually also keeps his/her rights since the contract does not end abruptly).
- By court order but this usually requires extensive documentation on malpractice of the employee.
Notice time usually is at least 1 full month in most cases, can be shorter if the employment is not time-fixed or by agreement. All notices are for both employer and employee.
I do not know exactly but if you have build up "vacation days" you usually cannot use those in your last month and forgo those, unless you agree with your employer in some sort of scheme. "Going in sick" will get you reported in which case a investigator will check you out and you most likely will forgo your sickness benefits. (I've had this once already, but not for contract finalization but reporting it really late. The guy was very surprised to see someone actually sick when he checked it out so I guess abuse happens often.)
There are some contract termination clauses (money mostly) in some contracts I've seen but as far as I know they are not enforceable in any way (since that equals servitude by power). Thinks like immediately handing back lease-cars and laptops under force of fine are though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A three months notice before quitting seems pretty excessive IMHO. I can kindof understand it from the perspective of the company that would need to find a replacement, but for the worker, it seems ridiculous. Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.
> most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice The term "right to work" has nothing to do with employment status. It's political branding for laws that forbid mandatory union membership. It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force. I think you're confusing it w…
I think it's fair to say teachers have the right to be teachers without joining a teachers' union. I don't think enforcing that right "contributes to the decline" of unions. Organizational models should be able to handle that sort of freedom to choose.
To me, the question is why unions don't innovate in their organizational models and policies so that giving employees freedom to choose is moot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your first paragraph says more about you than about the site.
It's a bit of a humblebrag... but I think he's TRYING to say that meaningful StackOverflow activity seems to have stagnated in recent years, and he hopes to see an uptick.
I have a question that I was my own answer on. It was pretty obscure (pageant/cygwin specific) and when I finally found the answer I cited the 2 sources I used hoping it would save others time in the future with an easier google than what I went through