Two Weeks Notice Question

Finally got fed up with being underappreciated, underpaid and overworked so I'm going to quit. I've never done this before so I need to ask this.
Do I need to submit my resignation letter to HR separately in addition to submitting it to my boss?

Some may see it differently, but no I never have and don't think it’s necessary, unless there is something specific about it in the employee handbook. I suppose I might if I really didn't trust my boss for some reason and I thought there could be an issue with paying out of vacation time or something like that. Otherwise written notice to your boss should be sufficient (most respectful to go and speak with that person while giving the written notice).

Just my opinion. I would like to know if there are other thoughts on this.

Thank you for your help.

That is pretty standard. The boss should share that info with HR. Usually the employee only lets HR know directly if there are problems.

It sounds like you are having issues with your job all around and may continue to have issues once you hand in your resignation. I would recommend making sure that you keep a copy of your resignation. Once you have spoken to your boss and handed in your resignation I would then document the date, time and anything that was said at that time and going forward. As poster West Coast Comp commented "about issues with paying out of vacation time or something like that" may happen and you have your written records from the time it happened and you are not trying to remember. I’ve seen once where there was a discrepancy in the timing of someone’s resignation and it affected their severance pay and unemployment benefits.
Sorry so lengthy – Good luck both now and in your new career venture

Did they advance you two weeks pay and have you leave the day you resigned?

Anon - be prepared for them to have you leave the day you resign and not pay you for your 2 weeks notice. Understand when your medical benefits are paid up through and/or when they will end after you leave. I gave a 2 week notice at another bank in the past, they weren't happy that I was leaving and maybe to proove a point, let me go that day without paying me through the 2 weeks. That certainly solidified the fact that I didn't want to work there, but just be prepared.

It's not always about proving a point. When I get a a notice from an employee, I thank them, but then ask them to leave right away, and pay them for the full day. For one employee, it was because I already had issues about keeping them on task, as well as their office conduct (voicing displeasure, speaking out of turn) and did not need then polluting the remaining staff during thier two weeks. Very seldom is anyone as productive and helpful in their notice period than they were prior to giving thier notice... why pay for work youare often not getting?

Other times, it is a security issue... I do not need to give you any more access to customers in order for you to try to influence or move them to your next employer. I don't need to give you anymore access to bank records, access to programs, forms, bank created items (if you have not already made copies of for yourself), to give you the chance to do so and take with you to you next employer. Also, if you are not going to be here in a month, you do not need to be privy to most things either anymore that you will no longer have a need to be involved with.

And I also do not pay you for the time you are not here (except of course accrued owed vacation time). I don't believe in parting gifts when you make the choice to move on, except my honest thanks and appreciation of the work you did while here, and the sincere wish that your next opportunity takes you further in reaching your professional or life goals.

I think that if you give a 2 week notice and you are not allowed to work it out, that you should be paid that time. What's the point of the 2 week notice if you are going to be let go right then? Giving the notice is to help the employeer try and replace you or give you time to train someone else.

It also depends some on the position you have with your current employer. I recently changed banks. I was prepared to leave if they asked and my new employer was willing to let me start early if that happened also.
I was not asked to leave and also had to deal with 2 exams my last 2 weeks (probably 1 reason they kept me). I however did not appreciate that the CEO(my boss) asked me not the let the examiners know I was leaving, so in turn did not send a notice to my fellow employees that I was leaving either.
I did make note of this in my exit review.
Also be aware of your 401K/retirement if you have one. When are you fully vested and if the bank matches when is this done.

Sorry so long, I just know with everything that happened it confirmed that I made the right decision on my job change.
Good Luck to you in your new endeavor also!

I completely understand your point of view from the other side of things. But the point the rest of us are making, I think, is for this person who has never done this before is to watch for the pitfalls that could happen.
If you look at most employee handbooks it is required, by the employer, to give two weeks notice, at least.
Not everyone leaves on negative terms. Some leave on positive terms in the hope to return.
PS Just Jay Do you have an HR Dept and an Employee Handbook? What do they say about you sending an employee home the day they give their two week notice and only paying them till that day if your handbook says something else?

Of course we do! And I have always followed bank policy, with HR's blessings.

"Of course we do! And I have always followed bank policy, with HR's blessings." Jusy Jay

I'm glad to hear that.

It amazes me that you think it is a parting gift to be paid when someone gives you 2 weeks notice and YOU decide to let them go that day and only pay them till that day.

Remember it is a courtesy to the employer when an employee gives any type of notice other than Today is my last day.

Hi Anonymous,
Are you still reading these posts? I hope through all them you have gotten some insight on what to do. As one poster said, check your handbook.
Good Luck
MEP

And one other thing to think about... as those two weeks wind down, I have noticed that the leaving employee generally runs out of work to do... so what ARE they doing on the institution's dime??

I think a lot this depends on the position and if you're leaving on a good or bad terms. However, you should always give two weeks notice. If your bank decides they don't need/want it, then you can move on earlier.

If 2 weeks notice is given and worked, you should be paid for it. If 2 weeks notice is given and the bank says we'd like you to leave today, you get paid thru today. If 2 weeks notice is given and you're asked to work only 1 week, 1 week is paid. There is no right to be paid for time that you don't work, even if the proper notice is given.

The normal standard, not just in banking but everywhere, is 2 weeks notice. I have seen some businesses that require 4 weeks, and also interviewed at one company that said if i were to be hired and leave within 3 years of the hire date, I would owe them money for what they invested training me (this was in the mid-80s, it was $7k if leaving in 12 months, $13K if 12-24 months, and $22k if 25-36 months). I politely declined the offer.

Anyway, back to topic, you get paid what you work. Also, if you are in the bonus pool and leave before bonuses are paid, you get no bonus.

Poor ethics.

true, no bonus...but that leaves a bigger pot for the rest of us poor schmuks that have to pick up the work...

Bob, I disagree. It's not poor ethics. It's sop in many businesses for just the reasons JJ outlined. While he may not have said it as nicely as you might like, he was factual.

The original poster is giving notice because he doesn't want to work there anymore. A disgruntled employee hanging around for two weeks on the company dime is most likely to do more harm than good. Why would you want to pay for that?

What exactly is unethical there? Not allowing a poorer performing employee staying on? Encouraging productivity? Protecting the bank's customer relationships? Protecting the non-financial and bank developed assets?

Once you have made a choice to move on that is fine, and a notice is customary and expected. I have given 2 to 4 week notices, and each time fully expecting to fulfill my time given, but also practicle enough to realize there are certain and good reasons that while appreciated, they will ask me to leave right away. I have never felt entitled to be paid for time I am not in their employ.

When that happens, no one should expect that they are entitled to their (now previous) employer to also give them a paid time off at the employer's expense, while you take the time off an wait for your next gig to start.

In every bank that I have ever worked, the head of the department decided whether the person should stay or go on the day of delivery of the two week notice. If they decided that they should go - we paid them for the two weeks and sent them on their way.

If I worked at a bank that followed your practice, I would just quit showing up for work one day and let you figure out how to pick up the pieces.

Everywhere I worked if you gave your notice and the bank decided it was best to have you leave right away, you were paid for the period of the notice.

In all my years in the industry, as much as I wished I would be asked to leave early I never was and usually ended up working late every day making sure the bank was in good shape before I left. They got their moneys worth.

When anyone on my staff was leaving, if we had them stay, there was plenty of work they could help with for that time including training others to be fully up to speed to fill in until a full time replacement was hired.

I have worked at the same job since 1970, so I have no first hand knowledge of right and proper, I have seen where I work people give a I'm Leaving after today notice, or I am giving my 2 weeks notice...what ever the circumstances may be. I have also seen us ask some that gave 2 weeks to work to the end of the day and they didn't need to come back. Most of these were employees we were wanting to leave any way.

I was always taught that you give your company the courtesy of at the minimum 2 weeks notice, longer if you can. I know our people who are going to retire at the end of the year and are the head of a department give up to a 6-9 month notice.

So I suppose that if you feel better about giving a 2 week notice I would and be prepared if they bid you a "FOND" farwell!

Jay, have you run this by your internal counsel?

I've also seen where an employee gave 2 weeks and pretty much stopped working....they were sent that day and no additional pay. I've seen employees being told just go and the 2 weeks is still paid. I think some of it is determined by the size of the bank, what the job market where you are is like, and what other businesses in your area are doing.

It is poor ethics.

He said when he receives a two weeks notice, he fires the person on the spot.

It is an ethical courtesy they provide you 2 weeks notice. You respond by firing them.

You talk about lazy workers not working and just hanging around... okay... fire them. But the fact you get a 2 weeks and fire someone immediately is poor ethics.

If the person slacks off and does not work - then you fire them. If you have an issue where the person directly poses a risk to the bank, then fire them. Don't fire someone because you are assuming they are going to stop working. Take action when action is warranted.

By just firing anyone who hands a 2 weeks notice you are showing a complete lack of ability to accurately assess risk.

While I'm hardly an HR person, I do agree with Bob. If I give two weeks notice, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop being productive and mess around on the company’s dime. There should be some mutual respect involved in these types of decisions. A smart manager would use it as a period of transition to ensure that all of the responsibilities that the person who is leaving are identified and can be managed moving forward.

Randy is dead on. If I worked for JJ, I wouldn't even show up. I'd just move on to my new job if I new I was going to be fired on the spot.

I've only ever left two jobs. I walked out on the second one (but he doesn't count because he really was insane). Even though I was young, I worked very diligently during my two-week notice period to ensure my files and pending projects were thoroughly documented to enable the individual coming in after me to be able to know what had been done and what steps were pending. I don't think I'm an exception. There are many professionals out there, especially in the compliance industry, that would do the same.

I think it is mostly affected by the position in the bank, the person's performance and if there is anyone to immediately assume the responsibilities. Kathleen's and my experiences are similar. One early job, I was the auditor and turned in a resignation to the head of the audit committee. No slacking off - the sweetheart scheduled an Audit Committee meeting for 4:00 PM my last day.

Once I gave a month's notice - no-one there knew compliance and was working 8+ hours every day to finish and document everything and train. Got to leave at 4:30 PM the last day - woo hoo!

My experience has been similar to others - worked up to the last day to make sure projects were handed off in good shape.

Now commercial lenders are an entirely different story - they are usually asked to leave on the day they submit their resignation and are paid their two weeks. (The bank has the option on our manual, and as most would know, this is not an uncommon practice with lenders)

It is pretty common with commercial lenders but I also have seen it not done, and the lender spent the last two weeks introducing the new lender(s) and/or working with management to reassign the portfolio.

It is "situational".

I guess this is cultural, but I have never worked at a bank that just said "there is the door" to employees who resign as a general rule, regardless of level. Some things might change - access levels for high risk data, etc. - but it was not a one size fits all thing. And I have never heard of not paying out the notice period if the bank said okay, just go now. In my experience it was okay, just go now and here is your check.

Let me add that in many banks they stopped doing that with the lenders in favor of what I described above because they realize that if the lender wanted any info they already have it, have their customers' business cards and remember how to drive to their location! You can't erase what is in their head.

when i left my last job i was given a non-compete disclosure to sign saying I wouldn't go into the same line of banking i'm was doing and wouldn't contact any of their current customers...i just handed it right back and said i wasn't signing...what could they do, refuse to allow me to quit?

A little late to try for a non-compete- if you want to try for that it needs to be in an up front contract! Courts have been known to throw out non-competes that were too restrictive, like putting a lender out of work!

I have seen the practice of firing individuals as soon as they give notice and I don’t like it. I won't debate the ethics of the situation, but it leaves a bad taste for both the employee leaving and the employees that remain. If you set this as your practice you are challenging the professionalism of your employees. By firing them you are not treating them as a professional, but you expect them to act like one. If they employer doesn’t act in a professional manner why should the employee. Your pushing your employees to the point that you effectively don't get notice from your employees. Either they really don't give notice or they are mentally "unplugged" when they give notice.
Obviously you have to assess the risk of the situation and possibly reduce access etc. but I think the risk for the most part is minimal because if the employee really was going to do something (take information, assets, clients, etc.) they already have. Your only real hope is to treat your employees as professionals, and they might just act like one. If they fail to act as a professional (actually do their job after notice) then treat them as such, but if you assume a behavior your much more likely to see it.

In some cases an employer will not consider you for rehire if you fail to give 2 weeks notice.

When I left Aetna Finance (before some who are reading this were born) they had us work an extra 2 hours, 4 days a week, such as M, T, W and F, on Thanksgiving, because it wasn't overtime with a paid holiday. I had handed in my 2 weeks notice and was ready to leave at 5 that Monday. The manager told me we were working until 7. I told him I was working until 5 at which time he said I could just leave then and not come back. I packed a box and took some vacation before starting my bank job.

A policy of saying to one person, yeah we need you, stick around for two weeks, and telling another employee, you can take off now with no pay is not the right way to go IMO. I have never seen that big bank or small. The two weeks pay even when telling an employee to leave immediately says a lot about the integrity of the bank you work for.

I am not HR, but a termination policy should be consistent, I would think.

In one way, I certainly see your point. However, our organization makes the call based in large part on where you are going. Are you going into a completely new line of work? You're expected to work your final two weeks. Going to a direct competitor? There's the door...if they don't hire you immediately, we'll pay you for two weeks from accrued vacation and/or our own funds. Going to a different bank but not a competitor in market territory or type of business? Probably sticking around.

IMO, you can have general guidelines, but no two situations are the same and there has to be flexbility built in. Just needs to be established with legal counsel advice, too.

In the past, when I've put in my two-week notice I have stuck through and did more than my normal workload to prepare my replacement. I've left on good terms and was a hard worker throughout my employment. However, I've experienced working with people who, upon giving their 2-week notice, stopped working and collected their last two weeks of pay. For others picking up their slack. It's "those people" who justify terminating employment of poor workers who give their notice. Sounds like some people have an Occupy movement to attend, rather than pulling their weight at work. Just my opinion.

As Kathleen indicated, exiting employees generally grab everything they even THINK they are going to need before handing a notice, so exiting them right out the door probably won't serve to keep that from happening.

Regardless of the banks exiting practice, employees with access to sensitive personal information should be reminded (strongly!) that taking a list of their current clients, phone numbers, services, etc. is against the law and that the bank will prosecute. So if you want to remain in banking, don't even try it. A casual mention to staff that all PCs are subject to forensics upon exit doesn't hurt either (especially any employee working on commission).

I don't think it's unheard of at all to be let go in a banking atmosphere the day you turn in your two week notice. I would think that if an employee is submitting a two week notice that has been giving you problems, numerous outages (if teller), and a bad attitude it would be a security hazard to keep that individual on once that person has decided to leave. With that being said, if the employee submitting the two weeks notice has been a great employee and is considered 'trustworthy' (for lack of a better word) there would be no real reason to kick that person out the moment they turn in their two week notice. Not everyone is leaving because of a negative reason.

I gave my 2-week notice directly to HR and was asked to leave right then and was paid for my vacation and for the 2 weeks. I heard that after I left though, they changed the policy and the "departed" will not receive vacation or the 2 weeks notice money. This was after 14 years and leaving on good terms.

Who are you trying to disparage? Did it take you the full 6.5 years to come up with that post?

The post has been removed as personal attacks are not tolerated.

Wish I knew what had happened darn curiosity. Can't imagine it was worth losing your cool and saying something terrible...

It was an anonymous post on a thread over 6 years old.

Adam I get that. What would have caused someone to post out of the blue on a thread that old. That sparks a lot of curious thoughts does it not?

Not really, that is why anonymous posters are limited to just one forum. All kinds of whackadoodles use to clog all the different threads with various types of nonsense when posting anonymously.

I'm guessing (completely speculating here) that it came from a random Google search about employment policy and not a regular BOL poster.... but who knows.

Ahhh I see. I have not been around long enough to have noticed all the ways people can take advantage of good things. Whackadoodles was just used on a form here at my office cause it is a fun word thanks rlcarey.

Adam another good point. I often forget people have a lot of time and feel the need to be noticed with little chance to have anything of worth to support the noticing.