You give two weeks notice as a courtesy to the employer. Whether or not that employer gives you the same consideration is based on a whole other set of factors.

It is professional and many companies ask for 2 weeks notice. But as Randy points out, it's up to the employer to decide. But usually, they have some type of standards, like, Loan Officers for example, you wouldn't want a loan officer leaving to the competition and let them stay for 2 weeks and have them telling all your customers that they're leaving and where they're going. Back office personnel is usually different, so many times they will stay.

Whether they pay you the 2 weeks or not is another story. For banks that don't, personally, I think it's tacky and in a small town, not a good idea for your repuation. In my sitatution above, I fully expected them not to keep me for the 2 weeks as I was going to the competition and I was part of the senior management team. But, everyone else that had ever quit since the bank opened (and I can tell you for a fact since I was the first employee the bank had and was privy to that information) was paid their 2 weeks notice or allowed to work. And 2 people that were fired were even given severance & benefits for a period (and these were front line employees, not management), yet because of a certain officers anger at my quitting and due to some things I brought up to the audit committee, I was the only one asked to leave and not paid. To me, that was wrong. But short of contacting an attorney, which I am investigating, there's nothing you can do except know that if you give your 2 weeks notice, always plan on the possibility of not working and not being paid. Keep that in mind with benefits as well if your benefits would have rolled into the following month, but you quit before and they accelerate your resignation date.

are you in an at will employment state?

and if they've let you go now, you should be able to reach out to the new job and say "hey, i'm available earlier than expected". I've had this happen, never had one say "no, go ahead and wait the 2 weeks. Most jump at the chance to get you now.

I know a few people who went through a very similar experience ItNever. They did exactly what Happy opined on. Some started earlier, while others enjoyed their extra two weeks off.

I've never heard of giving two weeks without being paid. That's just insane. If I work, I expect to be paid.

I gave a 6 weeks notice and worked everyday of that 6 weeks..... Finished up projects, effected a smooth transfer of duties until they could hire a replacement, etc.... Wanted to leave with a good impression and not sour grapes. took a long weekend off between jobs.

If you were not allowed to work out your two weeks due to issues brought to an audit committee, would a whistleblower situation apply? You might be able to make a case the immediate dismissal was in some ways retaliation.

The Whistleblower should apply - and I know the policy because I wrote it! I've spoken to one attorney, he wasn't really interested, I need to make a few more phone calls.

I'm not quite sure what the brouhaha continues to be about since, well again, you didn't want to be there. That is why you quit.

They asked you to leave a situation that you were not enjoying being in and had just made it clear to them that you would not be sticking around in. Chances are you are leaving for better pay anyways and as Happy pointed out, you now have the opportunity to start the new job earlier, and thus have two more weeks at a better rate than you were making.

How is this all a bad thing?

Non-interest on the part of the attorney should tell you this isn't worth your time or effort. Whatever you think may be gained monetarily will be eaten up in exorbitant attorney fees.

I'm with Jay and Happy on this. You'd given notice. For whatever reason, they decided they didn't need you to work the full two weeks you'd offered. It's time to focus on your new job and leave the past behind.

It's not about 2 weeks notice and being paid or not being paid or moving on. There are multiple things going on that I'm not about to post online. There were reasons the attorney I spoke with wasn't interested, and it has nothing to do with if I have a case or not, that was never the issue, I have a case, with plenty of documentation, and it's not the 2 weeks notice, it's many things built up over several years, the 2 weeks notice simply proved a point. I haven't decided if I want to pursue something or not, it's a sacrifice I don't know I want to makde. If you read my other posts in this thread you would see that I clearly stated that not paying an employee out when you've had a policy to pay is tacky and bad practice. An employer should have a practice and stick to it.

fwiw, I read the thread through again before I posted. Sorry if you feel I misunderstood your posts.

While I understand that there may be other things, you yourself say it's built up over many years. Going back now is likely going to be viewed as heresay and not hold much water. Sounds to me like you're trying to prove a principle which is an uphill battle.

As for having a practice and sticking to it, sure that would be nice and some places do. Posters agreed with you that it was tacky and bad practice not to. But there's no law that says a bank has to keep or pay you just because you gave two weeks notice.

I've been burned by employers in the past too. Once the initial anger died down, I chalked it up to 'life was not meant to be easy...or fair.' If my suggestion that you walk away and leave the anger behind is not what you want to do, then don't. Only you can decide if the financial and mental toll of pursuing this is worth it.

Good luck on whatever you decide to do.

what is in your best interest...moving ahead and focusing on the new job and the opportunity it provides? Or remaining angry over what you view as injustice and trying to get a dig in to your previous employer who you have already quit?

At best, you will expend great time, effort, and expense, to receive 2 weeks pay. I just don't see an upside to pursuing this.

Imagine you're in court, and the defense attorney asks "so, you have documentation of all of these alleged wrongdoings that go back a number of years. Why, if these troubled you so greatly, did you wait until you were leaving the bank to bring them up?" Gonna be hard to recover from that one...

I have no idea why I am even responding to this. This discussion went off on a side note from the original discussion. And as I said before, the 2 weeks notice isn't the issue, rather the icing on the cake. I know exactly what time and effort I would expend. Trust me, with the documentation I have, I have no issue defending anything. And I didn't wait until leaving to bring anything up, it's all documented. This isn't being burned by an employer, I wasn't burned, I left. It was my choice. I have no reason to be angry. Leaving there was the sweetest thing I've ever done. It's about things that I saw, was put in the middle of, asked to do. I did was I supposed to do, reported things to the appropriate board committees and a whole lot of CYA. It's my choice if I want to do something more about it. I can't go into specific issues here on a public forum, so I just have to leave it with what I've said.

Back to the original topic. For the employee, as I said before, know what your employers policy is, do they ask for 2 weeks notice or not. Give your 2 weeks, but have a back up plan in case they decide not to keep you and not to pay you. Remember about benefits if your a small group employer because benefits may end the date of your termination, so you may end up without benefits beginning the day after you resign.

From the employer side, have a policy and/or practice and stick to it, choose to keep or not keep and what types of job classifications will stay and which will go. If you have a policy to pay even when you ask someone to leave, then be consistent.

lock requested