Should businesses be required to give a certain amount of notice before lay offs

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. 3 months is pretty good, although 6 months would be even better.

[© tweed]

or provide pay for a designated time period afterwards

[bullmoose88]

I can see an argument that the business needs to keep news of a layoff on the downlow for as long as possible to prevent some sort of additional damage (making a bad situation worse because of speculation).

On the other hand, those it will be laying off often will not have the skills to easily get a new job and need as much time as possible to begin their transition.

Perhaps employer and employee could enter into some sort of do not discuss agreement (or discuss only to the minimum extent necessary) and the employer can tell the affected employees once the decision is final...perhaps a small financial incentive can be attached to such agreement.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I can see an argument that the business needs to keep news of a layoff on the downlow for as long as possible to prevent some sort of additional damage (making a bad situation worse because of speculation).

On the other hand, those it will be laying off often will not have the skills to easily get a new job and need as much time as possible to begin their transition.

Perhaps employer and employee could enter into some sort of do not discuss agreement (or discuss only to the minimum extent necessary) and the employer can tell the affected employees once the decision is final...perhaps a small financial incentive can be attached to such agreement.

I can see that, except if every business is treated the same way with such a requirement, it wouldn't have any larger of an impact than if there was no such requirement.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

or provide pay for a designated time period afterwards

That basically already happens, except it comes from the government instead of the business. I would support requiring for benefits such as insurance to be continued though.

[bullmoose88]

I can see an argument that the business needs to keep news of a layoff on the downlow for as long as possible to prevent some sort of additional damage (making a bad situation worse because of speculation).

On the other hand, those it will be laying off often will not have the skills to easily get a new job and need as much time as possible to begin their transition.

Perhaps employer and employee could enter into some sort of do not discuss agreement (or discuss only to the minimum extent necessary) and the employer can tell the affected employees once the decision is final...perhaps a small financial incentive can be attached to such agreement.

I can see that, except if every business is treated the same way with such a requirement, it wouldn't have any larger of an impact than if there was no such requirement.

I'm more concerned about the negative effects if news of Company X's poor performance starts leading it towards troubled times combines with news of upcoming layoffs at the same time.  Staggering the two might hurt the company less.  Public news of a layoff at least.

[dead0man]

or provide pay for a designated time period afterwards

That basically already happens, except it comes from the government instead of the business. I would support requiring for benefits such as insurance to be continued though.

Correction.  It comes from the businesses, via the government, by taxation. 

(I think I worded that right)

[bullmoose88]

or provide pay for a designated time period afterwards

That basically already happens, except it comes from the government instead of the business. I would support requiring for benefits such as insurance to be continued though.

Correction.  It comes from the businesses, via the government, by taxation. 

(I think I worded that right)

Pretty much.  One might argue that it comes from the employee since the business is arguably willing to pay the tax for the employee's "insurance" and the employee's salary wage...and arguably such money could have gone to the employee absent the tax.

[Gustaf]

Not generally, no. It's the kind of thing that can probably be negotiated on the free market most of the time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think if there's an indication that layoffs are necessary - then I think that as much notice as possible should be given.

If a person has worked for you, and you know that they will lose their job, but don't tell them. That makes you a pretty major league scumbag in my book.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Yes. 3 months is pretty good, although 6 months would be even better.

I think it depends on certain things, but in some cases (like yours) I don't see you working very hard, much less after I tell you I'm going to fire you in 3 months.

[Person Man]

Yes. 3 months is pretty good, although 6 months would be even better.

I think it depends on certain things, but in some cases (like yours) I don't see you working very hard, much less after I tell you I'm going to fire you in 3 months.

Hmmm...efficiency is a good argument, but you really don't need their help if you are laying them off. Maybe the best way to do things is to sorta fade workers out. Perhaps you could cut their hours until you don't have them on the list. Allows workers to make as much as they would be if they went on welfare and would save everyone money. So yes, perhaps there should be SOME advanced warning of labor surpluses.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not generally, no. It's the kind of thing that can probably be negotiated on the free market most of the time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yes.

I would be willing to allow a minimal notice for the convenience of the business if they would agree to offer rather generous severance and transition packages to the affected employees.

[Richard]

Only if you put it in your employment contract.  Otherwise you have a right to leave on a minute's notice, and your employer has a right to let you go on a minute's notice.  It is fair.

It is grossly unfair to allow employees to leave on a minute's notice but employers are not allowed to let you go on the same time frame.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Employees are not allowed to leave on minute's notice. Well they can but in doing so they sacrifice all unused vacation pay and severance packages and all that. You have to give a two weeks' notice to quit on good terms.

[Richard]

Then put it in your employment contract.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Only if you put it in your employment contract.  Otherwise you have a right to leave on a minute's notice, and your employer has a right to let you go on a minute's notice.  It is fair.

It is grossly unfair to allow employees to leave on a minute's notice but employers are not allowed to let you go on the same time frame.

99% of the time, yes it is because the employer employs many people, so letting one person go on a minutes notice would likely have a minute effect.

Meanwhile, most people only have one job, thus one source of income.  If they are cut off without any notice, they lose their livelihood until they can find another job.

Your idea of "fair" is more than a little biased towards the side of those that already have it better.

Edit:

Again, different standards could be applied to small business (say, employing 25 people or less), for obvious reasons.  But then again, if your company has 25 people or less, you're likely to have a stronger relationship with the company owner, and thus would likely receive notice anyway.

[Person Man]

Then put it in your employment contract.

What about uneven bargaing positions? I think that notices should be equal. Perhaps a two weeks notice should be interpreted by courts to mean any two weeks' notice, by anyone who exits the contract.

[MasterJedi]

Employees give 2 weeks notice if they plan to leave, that should be good for the business as well.

[Person Man]

Employees give 2 weeks notice if they plan to leave, that should be good for the business as well.

Exactly. All employment contracts should have an attached implied term that states that it takes 2 weeks for the contract to terminate UNLESS there is a severance charge worth 2 full weeks' labor of minimium wage work or a severance stated. Therefore, if there was no two weeks' notice, an employer would have to pay $388 or an amount that they have stated.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Employees give 2 weeks notice if they plan to leave, that should be good for the business as well.

I agree

[opebo]

I doubt that many employees get an employment contract.

I voted 'yes' as a political position, but I think it would be better policy to simply have a very generous and secure dole which would make being fired or laid off no more of a hardship for the worker than losing a worker is for an employer, thus equalizing the playing field a bit and giving workers a much needed security.  After all it is much better to rely on a stipend paid out by the State from general taxation of the wealthy than some residual pay from these fly-by-night companies being sucked dry by their owners.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Companies should be required to notify employees a month in advance of the fact they will be closing their doors.  Most businesses know a month in advance that they will be going under, or closing a facility, and they owe a basic courtesy to their employees.  Companies that are forced by  emergency circumstances to make layoffs would be exempted from this policy. 

As a rule, unless there is a rare exception to the rule, employees deserve a reasonable period to put their economic affairs in order when they are set to lose their job to circumstances out of their control. 

[JSojourner]

A lot of companies require more than two weeks' notice from workers.  Is that legal?  I know I was always expected to give a minimum of four weeks' notice.  But that was in broadcasting, and a lot of things are different in that industry.