Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Computer Jobs -- How to Resign Professionally?

Cliff posted more than 8 years ago | from the two-weeks-means-just-that dept.

Businesses 1080

MikeDawg asks: "I submitted a letter of resignation yesterday, and today I'm at home posting stories to my weblog and Slashdot. I gave my employer two weeks notice, and almost immediately, I had my accounts disabled, and my permissions revoked on all the computers at my work, which makes me unable to do anything in my position of being a 'Systems Analyst/Systems Administrator'. I spoke with the HR rep, and gave her my notice yesterday, then I spoke with her today about what had happened to my access, and they honored my resignation... 2 weeks early. (Luckily, I'm compensated in pay for the next two weeks). What I want to know is, how do you computer and IT professionals out there put in your notice of resignation (if you are with a permanent employer, and not contractual), and not get immediately shutdown, and shunned away from the computers? The CIO immediately thought I was going to do something terrible to the system, and destroy accounts, and any other activity that I have access to, but I was giving him notice that I was leaving. What is the professional thing to do?"

cancel ×

1080 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

Sylvestre (45097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207251)

You're a liability. You got paid. Be happy.

Re:What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207304)

You got paid two weeks without responsibilty to do anything else - take the money and move on, that's being professional...

Re:What did you expect? (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207329)

Show up every day, talk cheerfully to all the people who still have to give it their all, be obnoxiously upbeat.

They'll double your severance if you agree to leave the building PDQ. Just stay there while they cut you the check.

I've got one friend who did that and was paid to stay home for 2 months, we was so demoralizing to the "survivors".

Re:What did you expect? (4, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207380)

So someone asks for advice on professionalism and you give this?

99% of employers? They'll have security escort you from the building. The severance is in lieu of notice, as in 'your employment is /severed/ at that point', and you have zero right to be there, and are actually trespassing.

Re:What did you expect? (5, Informative)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207324)

Really - this is SOP in many, if not most places. At my company, anyone with "sensitive" access is immediately revoked upon receipt of written resignation. Period.

I would be more surprised to hear anything else.

Re:What did you expect? (2, Informative)

Funakoshi (925826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207333)

Ouch...kinda harsh.

As long as you've left on a good note (given proper notice - two weeks typically, no screaming matches with old managers, etc etc) then I wouldn't worry too too much.

Re:What did you expect? (4, Insightful)

neostorm (462848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207357)

I think he expected to be treated like a trustworthy, normal human being. No one likes being treated like a criminal; people are not liabilities.

The real liabilities are our mistreatment of employees, and how the reaction to lack of respect and trust takes form from them. The majority of the time that an employee does something bad to his or her workplace, it's an act of revenge or bitterness because they wronged and feel disrespected. Contrary to popular belief people do not cause mayhem and mischeif to others for no reason.

What we really need to look at is the behavior of companies towards the people they employ, and the people they consider customers.

Re:What did you expect? (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207401)

What we really need to look at is the behavior of companies towards the people they employ, and the people they consider customers.
Not to pick nits but...companies don't behave, people do. Normally you would call them cowards.

What's the question again? (3, Insightful)

XorNand (517466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207252)

Umm... what's the question again? You did resign in a professional manner. Is this the first real IT job that you've had? What you experienced is standard operating procedure for any organization with even a half-assed security policy. They aren't your computers. Why are you taking it so personally, esp. since they've paid you for those two extra weeks? ::rolls eyes::

What I'd like to know is what didn't make the front page because this got posted instead?

You WERE Professional, As Were They (1)

cmholm (69081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207341)

As the parent pointed out, cutting off your access is standard procedure. If they need you to do more of whatever your job responsibilities were, they'll ask you. I'm presuming you dropped your resignation on them without warning. If you discussed a departure with your boss beforehand (but, with job offer in your pocket), then a smoother signoff might have been worked out. If you were only a system user, rather than admin, they might have been less abrupt. As it stands, it's probably company policy to cut you off fast, least (the generic) "you" decide to depart in a less than professional manner.

Re:What's the question again? (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207344)

ditto!

What do you want them to do? Throw you a party and give you a laptop to take home? Why is what they did an insult? I really fail to see the substance of the question here and echo the parents concerns about why /. editors found this worthy of a front page appearance. Maybe an especially lame Ask /., but really it doesn't even belong there.

Re:What's the question again? (2, Insightful)

lewp (95638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207350)

Is this the first real IT job that you've had?

Stating the obvious, but... DING DING DING!

This happens everywhere, and is normal in IT. It's two extra weeks of paid vacation from somewhere you obviously didn't want to work anyway. What's the fucking problem?

Best Resignation Ever.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207352)

Is here [fordlibrarymuseum.gov] . Even if you're a disgruntled employee, a resignation letter is not the venue for gripes.

And I agree with the post about that complaining about 2 weeks of free pay isn't much of a complaint!

Re:What's the question again? (1)

spoonyfork (23307) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207361)

What I'd like to know is what didn't make the front page because this got posted instead?

Come back in a couple days, the dupe will show up.

...

(Would it still be a dupe?)

Re:What's the question again? (5, Interesting)

RodgerDodger (575834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207363)

Well, as you say, the OP got paid anyway, but...

In every job I've had that I've left (five in the last 12 years), I've never had my access cut off until I actually leave. I've always worked until the last day, and I would be surprised if an employer didn't want me to. Mind you, I've never been fired, and in all but one case, I was actually on fairly good terms with my employer. I've never even heard of employers terminating access for people who are leaving of their own accord.

As a matter of fact, in most of the occasions I've left a job, I needed to keep access to the last minute to assist with a smooth handover of my work.

In a situation where an employee has notified their employer that they wish to resign, there is no security risk in letting them keep their access (and do their job) until they leave. If they were disgruntled and were going to do anything nasty, they would already have done it prior to tendering notice.

(It's a very different situation if the employee is let go, of course)

Re:What's the question again? (1)

DeafByBeheading (881815) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207371)

What I'd like to know is what didn't make the front page because this got posted instead?


A dupe?

Yup, happens all the time (1)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207404)

That's pretty much standard procedure for a lot of places. To me it's a pleasent suprise when that DOESN'T happen. Anyway, I never submit my resignation without planning on being cut off lock stock and barrel immideately. Plan on it in the future. Back up and delete any personal data, clear your browser cache, wipe the free space on your harddrive, clean out your desk, get your benefits questions answered, THEN submit your resignation with the expectation that you will be sent home for two weeks, and you won't get blindsided.

Re:What's the question again? (1)

renehollan (138013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207405)

You did resign in a professional manner.

Exactly.

What were you expecting? In fact, if they did not immediately disable your access and release you on the spot, you should have been surprised.

You are a risk, you wanted to terminate the employment relationship, and your employer wanted to terminate the risk you pose.

You acted professionally and so did they.

What would have been unprofessional would have been if you had not given two weeks notice, or if they "locked you out" and didn't pay you for the notice period you gave.

Consider the two weeks you got paid a vacation.

it's not a professional or civilized world (4, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207254)

Up front Disclaimer: I am a disgruntled former employee of a Telco... laid off after 21 years

You, kind sir, proffered as professional a resignation as necessary. There are no reciprocal gaurantees, and in the IT field it is more typical than not for you to be treated nearly as if you were a criminal.

Systems you once managed for your employers now are at risk. Former peers are now potential spies. Do not be surprised to be treated like you have some sort of exotic, deadly, contagious disease. Don't expect anything for references other than affirmation you actually did work there.

This is the fine world of trust we have achieved as a civilised and evolved society. Trust not.

I will still always give professional courtesy (e.g., sufficient lead time for resignation) but I've left the corporate world with a sour aftertaste.... It sucks, that's just the way it is.

Re:it's not a professional or civilized world (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207305)

Yes. Fuck them. They wont get two weeks from me. I have seen them do this to people I respect. And I fully expect them to do it to me. When/if I leave, its with 1 day notice. And why not, they are asking for it are they not?

If I don't have a personal relationship with my boss, its here today, gone tomorrow. Its a courtesy to boss, corporation has no need for courtesy.

Re:it's not a professional or civilized world (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207397)

When asked how much notice I intend to give, my general response is "as much notice as I can expect from the company".

Unfortunately, a lot of companies (especially larger ones) want professional courtesy to be a one-way street.

That said, I can understand the behaviour of the article poster's company. Security practices suggest that anyone in a position of authorty over the systems have all access revoked when they quit (and often, when they give notice).

It may seem a little weird to people who are resigning from this sort of position for the first time, but that's just kind of the way it goes. The company is protecting itself from liability in our litigation-happy world.

My advice to the poster is to enjoy the two weeks' paid vacation before moving on to the new job. He handled things very well and shouldn't worry about it too much.

Re:it's not a professional or civilized world (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207399)

Da rulz:
  1. Back up everything. You never know what you might need if the next person screws up and tries to blame it on you. And it also comes i handy in cases of constructive dismissal.
  2. Erase all your personal stuff.
  3. Change all your passwords to something even you don't know (this way, if someone has gotten your old password and decides to set you up, they're screwed).
  4. Say a nice goodbye to everyone you liked.
  5. Be ready to give a big "fuck you" to the boss, who will inevitably say something to merit it. You KNOW you want to. You've earned it. You'll never have this chance again - indulge. Its the best money you never spent! And its also tax-free, lowers your blood pressure, and is cheaper than $100-an-hour therapists.

Re:it's not a professional or civilized world (2, Insightful)

bobscealy (830639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207343)

Just because you have user accounts cancelled and the like it doesnt mean that the company you work for is being hateful or unprofessional in any way, they are just protecting thier interests. In fact, it is probably a good thing even for you that you have access revoked where you could cause damage - how many times does someone tender a resignation and when something goes wrong 3 days before they leave it is automatically thier fault. It seems like in this guys case the employer has actually been quite nice to them, even if it seems a little abrupt.

Re:it's not a professional or civilized world (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207385)

Don't expect anything for references other than affirmation you actually did work there.



This may not be obvious to people who haven't run a business before, but the reason for that has nothing to do with the fact that you quit, its because companies have been sued before for giving bad references to people who didn't expect it.

No competant HR or legal department would allow a company to do anything more than confirm employment on an official company basis. Sometimes a good manager will be willing to give a personal reference, but never as a reference coming from the company.

That doesn't matter to employers, though -- they all do the same thing and understand that...

Sounds ok to me (1)

jbrader (697703) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207258)

It sounds to me like you did the right thing. You shouldn't be expected to walk on eggshells just because your employer is paranoid.

Sounds like you did the right thing (4, Insightful)

hedronist (233240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207259)

Based on how you described it, you probably did nothing wrong, and they probably did the right thing.

Companies are rightfully paranoid that a departing employee -- particulalrly one with root access -- may decide to do something nasty on the way out the door. This doesn't mean that *you* would do this, just that they can't take a chance. Of course, if you had intended to do something nasty, you could easily have set it up before tendering your resignation. The best thing to do is act like a professional and understand that what is in your best interest and in the company's best interest are no longer related.

Re:Sounds like you did the right thing (1)

hayden (9724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207372)

Companies are rightfully paranoid that a departing employee ...
You spelt "ridiculously" incorrectly. If he'd wanted to do anything malicious then he could have done it in the ample time he was a trusted employee. Doing what they did basically says "We don't trust you. We didn't understand what you did while you were here and we are complete morons."

Somebody resigning is no more a risk than any other employee. It's the treating them like a criminal that gets their back up, not them already having decided to leave.

Re:Sounds like you did the right thing (1)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207390)

Excellent post.

The professional thing to do is to give notice to your employer that you're leaving, and then do your best to transfer your duties to others. Basically, treat them as you would have them treat you. Even if the majority of your company are demon-spawns, it is probably not a good idea to burn your bridges. Who knows, you may end up working with some of your former collegues.

That said, after you've done all you can do, it's still up to the company whether or not to retain your services for remainder of the time you specified. As other posters have said, they lower their risk level by paying you off early.

Just be sure to continue to act as a professional after you give your 2 weeks. We had an employee who thought he was all that. His attitude was not very good. He got a new job at a different company and gave his 2 weeks notice. At that point, his 'tude became so insufferable that we told him to pack his bags and not come back. (Last I saw him, he was a janitor somewhere)

Summary: Always act in a professional manner, despite any grievences (justified or not), and you'll be happier in the long run. Even if your company doesn't act professionally, do your best.

Best Way To Do It Is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207262)

All will be revealed here! [shemales.co.nz]

fags (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207264)

you guys are nerds, who cares

What does it matter? (1)

yuckymucky (591284) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207265)

If you give them 2 weeks and they pay you for the 2 weeks and tell you to stay home what does it matter? You are still getting paid and you have some free time. What happened to you is pretty much normal.

Re:What does it matter? (1)

davepk (691946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207386)

What he should have done is give them 6 weeks notice.

obviously... (3, Funny)

Capella or Bust (521807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207266)

Take all of your vacation, THEN resign. Duh.

There isn't one. (1)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207267)

Even if you were the perfect employee, and have the more elloquent and professional resignation...

They'll still lock you out as soon as they know you won't be with the company anymore.

Why?

They can't afford it if they don't, and they're wrong about you, and you do something. It's like how nobody is allowed to drive drunk, even those who can do it perfectly fine. As a general rule, people who're leaving the company don't get ot read other people's email.

I'll assume they're paying you... (4, Insightful)

NevDull (170554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207271)

If you got an extra two weeks of vacation, enjoy it.

When I quit HP, they paid me to stay at home for two weeks, and my unused vacation. 6 weeks of pay for 2 weeks at home. Time to recover and prepare for my new job, buy new clothes, and figure out the bus schedule.

The professional way to handle it is to stop whining and enjoy.

Smooth sailing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207272)

Don't take it personally. It's standard operation procedure at most companies. Enjoy your two weeks off with pay.

Well, you did well, but broke the golden rule... (3, Funny)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207273)

Don't complain about it to Slashdot.

nothing new.. (1)

jspectre (102549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207274)

guess you're new to this. that's completely typical behavior and completely expected. don't take it personally. you're a liability risk since you have nothing to lose. take the $$$ and enjoy the vacation.. some times a new job will pick you up early if you're interested. but this has happened to me a few times.

My way is fun... (5, Funny)

Highlordexecutioner (203297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207275)

Although it is not very professional.

Of course mine was just my review, but it sort of acted like a resignation letter.

Strengths: Over the last six months I have had the opportunity to learn how to smile when given projects that offer no challenge at all. Furthermore I can now hide my disdain for co-workers that have more in common with parasitic worms than with human beings. I've also grown to recognize the importance of recognition via comparison. For instance, I recognize that our environment here at (insert company name here) is really wonderful compared to other companies - the same way Syphilis is a great improvement over A.I.D.S.. Then there is the multitude of tasks that I can do with my eyes closed. It's truly a wonder how many mundane tasks I can accomplish with no effort at all. And lastly there is my recent discovery of how to divide by zero.

Weaknesses: Sometimes, I have trouble accepting that I actually am flawless.

Just let it be (1)

EMIce (30092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207276)

It's probably just policy, maybe they got burned in the past. If you think you were singled out, consider why, and if you are being honest with yourself and can think of no good reason, ahh well, your boss is just paranoid then.

I know how you feel. (1)

mg2 (823681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207277)

This happened to me last week. My problem with it is the fact that I'm a 'liability,' now. My feeling is that even before I put in my notice, I was a 'liability.' If I intended to do harm, I could have easily snagged all of the important SSH keys and installed backdoors before I put in my notice.

I guess it's just the idea that you're an open liability, now. Whatever, 2 weeks severance is nice.

Just sit on your ass and enjoy your 2 weeks (N/T) (0, Offtopic)

Clockwurk (577966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207278)

Nobel winner Harold Pinter had a few interesting comments in his lecture:

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!*

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'

A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.

I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

Common overreaction (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207279)

Well they can do this, if you're moving to a competitor they tend to be quite aggressive.

However you told them, if you were going to do anything inappropriate, you would have done it before telling them.

It's likely a dumb idea to shut you down like this, they should have taken your notice as a sign of good faith to help bring others up to speed.

Managers should always try to minimize risk, if you're in a sensitive position err on the side of caution. Don't take it personally.

You're not the one with the problem (1)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207280)

You did everything professionally, it's the company that is acting immature.

Lets face it, you gave them notice. If you were going to do anything destructive, you'd have done it before you warned them you were leaving. If they don't want you to work out your last two weeks, that's their choice. In my area, if you give the legally required notice, they are required to pay you, but whether or not they want you to work is the company's choice.

I would do it in their place (1)

1155 (538047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207284)

You're leaving. Anything you do doesn't have repurcussions, like, oh, firing you. Any responsible admin would have disabled your accounts.

At most companies I have worked at, policy is to immediately disable accounts, and then give you contractor accounts, which have very limited rights and don't allow you to do much to mess anything up.

And that's why I'm a consultant (2, Insightful)

Wabbit Wabbit (828630) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207286)

how do you computer and IT professionals out there put in your notice of resignation (if you are with a permanent employer, and not contractual), and not get immediately shutdown, and shunned away from the computers?


That's why I've been a consultant for, oh, just about the past 12 years (more or less). Even then, I've tried to be good and give 2-4 weeks notice when I saw things going south, but management never seems to appreciate it, even when you offer to document your work, make yourself available for a brief period after you leave, etc...

Fact is, the moment you resign, you're a pariah. But if you do all the "right things" you can at least leave with a good conscience, and not have anything come back to haunt you.

Not Your Fault (1)

Bargearse (68504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207287)

You haven't behaved unprofessionally, you've done the right things. If your company wanted you to resign in any other way, they should have told you so.

I think the real lesson here is to make sure you've done everything you need to do on your soon-to-be-ex-employer's systems *before* you hand in your resignation :)

Unreal... (1)

Chris Bradshaw (933608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207290)

This is yet another example of a schmuck CIO going schizo-paraniod for no reason. What he/she failed to realize is this: If you wanted to do something malicious, it would already be in place set to execute long before your letter of resignation hit his desk.You did the right thing...

The ball was in their court.

just go to somewhere tropical (1)

Bonobo_Unknown (925651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207292)

point out to your boss that you can no longer do anything

ask not to have to come in

take two weeks holiday before you start your next job

go on holidays / get out of the basement

enjoy!

You did the right thing... it's their problem. (3, Interesting)

Big Sean O (317186) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207294)

It seems like IT professionals are getting like investment brokers: when you give them two weeks notice they give you the money and ask you to leave.

I don't think it's anything personal. It's just the way some businesses nowadays prefer to operate. I think it's a mistaken attempt at managing risk. Think about it: would a guy who wants to screw you over give two weeks notice? No, they'd do you dirt and take off with no notice.

You did the right thing.. (3, Informative)

adamgreenfield (245052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207295)

.. but I can also understand your employers position.

While as a ethical professional you wouldn't do anything malicious with your access, that doesn't mean everyone in your position wouldn't. Granted, people who plan to act maliciously generally don't do so after putting in notice, from their point of view, it is better safe than sorry.

You get your pay (which is pretty nice of them), you did the right thing. I wouldn't take their actions personally.

Symmetry (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207296)

I'd give notice, etc. as the company does. If they turf people out on short notice, I'd leave that way too.

They seem not to care very much for your skills, or they wouldn't disable you so quickly. They may be paranoid. I would think you have some transition to do, and they've rendered that difficult, so it won't be as complete.

No surprises (1)

Mr. Shiny And New (525071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207298)

Giving notice IS the professional thing to do. Some organizations will decide that rather than take a chance that you're going to break things when you leave, they'd rather pay you for work you won't be doing. That's their choice, don't take it too personally. I was actually hoping for similar treatment, along the lines of "Well, thanks for the notice, no point in keeping you here for two weeks doing work that won't lead anywhere, why not take some time off?" but when I quit my last job they actually found work for me to do in my last two weeks (I'm a developer, so two weeks isn't a lot when you're between projects). But whatever... good luck with the new job!

Random Thoughts... (3, Insightful)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207299)

From what it sounds like, you did everything right. Two weeks is an excellent time period to offer notice. You aren't dropping out of the company like a light, but you also aren't creating an awkward, 'lame-duck' position where the company has to keep the thought in the back of thier head that you're leaving in say, 6 months.

Also, unless you're leaving for competition, the CIO probably didn't think you were going to 'do something malicious'. It's probably just company protocol, and in fact, I would consider the quick removal of accounts to be 'lite'. I've worked at companies where as the minute strikes your time of non-employment, 2 security guards immedietally escort you out of the building.

Lucky Bastard (4, Interesting)

DeadBugs (546475) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207303)

When I resigned in a professional manner, they made me stay the whole 2 weeks. Sometimes they escort people out of the building that day for security reasons and still pay them for the remaining 2 weeks. However, I had to stay and fill out paperwork and go to BS meetings and suffer. What they did to you is pretty standard and has nothing to do with you or how you resigned.

You're being a pro - so is your boss (1)

Embedded Geek (532893) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207306)

I know it can be a bit irksome to have this sort of thing happen, but the CIO is obviously just taking a defensive posture, probably because of earlier bad experience. Although the notion that a sabatour would wait until giving notice is in itself absurd, you can't really blame the guy. Now you need to be a professional again and not take it personally.

My advice - go back into work (as an escorted visitor if necesarry) and shake hands and thank everyone you can find for working with you. If not able to do it in person, send thank you cards (and be damn sure to include the CIO). This is a small business and taking these steps will make it sure that everyone knows you're not burning bridges.

I resigned about a month ago (2, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207308)

I wrote out a nice letter saying that while I enjoyed working there, I had been offered a better position that I could not refuse and that I would be resigning in two weeks. I kept all my access, and I had physical access to the equipment and back up tapes. I parted on good terms and could go back to my job at any time.

Without knowing your relationship with you company and what your letter said, I can only suggest your boss is a jerk.

In my experience (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207309)

There is no good way to approach this situation. The employer, obviously, holds all the cards. The best thing you can do is be as polite and professional as possible and pray that the company gives you a fair severance package. Unless you can show discrimination based upon a federally protected definition (race, religion, minority, age, disability, etc.) with reams and reams of legally documented material then the employer is well within their legal rights to leave you out in the breeze. While I don't believe it's right you are lucky to have been paid for those two weeks.

For all the talk of rights there's only one thing true at the end of the day: If you're an at-will employee then you are completely at the mercy of the employer.

your final day is negotiable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207310)

Technically you can resign and leave immediately, but it's professional to offer to stay for up to two weeks to help with the transition. But if they don't want you to stick around, that should be OK with you too.

Sometimes younger employees are less trusted to do the right thing. I remember talking to a 23-year old who bragged about setting up malicious cron jobs as he was leaving the last place he worked for, which he described as a sweatshop.

Employment Can Be Terminated At ANY Time.... (1)

Eezy Bordone (645987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207311)

Employment can be terminated at ANY time by both sides. Basically I only put in my notice when I can accept that I'll not need to work there anymore, just in case. I've never had my accounts locked out the day after I've submitted my notice but I've worked my way into being an important cog in the machine by that time so I've got to have some rights to pass on my knowledge to someone else.

Two weeks is nicety, sometimes companies will want more time for you to share your brain and sometimes less but never plan on there definately being a two week period, no matter the job; Not just IT.

Both sides split amicably. See ya. (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207313)

You gave them two weeks notice. This is just a courtesy. They can and should do exactly what they did. As soon as a letter of resignation is turned in, you are informing everyone you are no longer going to be an employee with the company. Why would a company want to work with you any longer at this point, unless they had to?

When you turn in your letter of resignation, you should be ready to go. Why do you care they have cut you off? Were you planning something on the way out? (This is probably why they cut you off, after all.)

It's very common to get "paid out" (3, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207314)

In lieu of keeping you there during your resignation period. Why risk liability over a couple of weeks of sysadmin pay?

You can't control the response of the employer (1)

Alpha27 (211269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207315)

The employer is protecting their assets. Think of it as if you were the employer, and someone told you they were leaving, whether you expected it or not. You will probably not know the reasons for the resignation in full, you only know what they tell you. If the person continues to work for you, is there a chance they can leave with things you may not want them to leave it? Maybe it's a tactic on their part to force you to raise their salary. If it's a critical one-person role, who will replace them? Is it a position easy to replace. Yada, yada, yada... Hopefully you get the picture.

If that's what the employer did, and you got paid for the 2 weeks, then it's still a professional outcome. They chose to exercise security in this case, and you didn't get screwed out of your money. All seems fair.

Brilliant !!!! (1)

EmoryBrighton (934326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207316)

Step 1: Find an IT job Step 2: Work diligently until given access to critical systems Step 3: Start acting suspiciously//unhappy w/ management Step 4: Give your resignation... ONE YEAR early! Step 5: Take 6 Month Vacation Step 6: Spend 6 Months looking for your next $sys$target employer. .. BRILLIANT !

my 2 pesos on the situation..... (3, Insightful)

schematix (533634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207317)

IMHO both parties in this case did exactly what they were supposed to do. You gave them the courtesty of a 2 week notice and they accepted that and decided it was time to move on. In work environments today that rely heavily on computers and networking, it is not worth it to them that you might be leaving because of a grudge you may have. They have no way of knowing if you are leaving on amicable terms or not. If you have a bridge to burn with them you could easily cost them thousands of dollars (and likely much, much more) in damages due to lost data and productivity.

If it were me I would approach my boss and let them know that if they won't give access, there is no need to be around, but you'll be happy to answer any questions that they might have. However tell them that you'd be more than happy to twiddle your thumbs (in a more polite way) for a couple weeks until you've given them their time. I'd guess that they'd be willing to let you go with pay. If not, Worst case you can try to improve your solitaire skills for a couple weeks and get paid to do it.

In any case, both sides have fulfilled their obligations to each other in a completely professional way.

You got a crappy employer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207318)

Simple fact is that you worked for assholes. They valued you so little that they didn't even let you wrap up what you were working on. Not only is that a slap in the face, how can you consider them a reliable reference? Make sure you are on good terms with at least a couple people there who can vouch for your skills.

Virus (1)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207320)

I know about this virus, it takes a few 1/10s of a cent from each transaction, and puts it in a bank account. Ya, it was in Superman III.

Obviously... (1)

Memophage (88273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207321)

...you should have done something terrible to the system, destroyed all the accounts, and performed all your malicious acts *before* you put in your two weeks notice.

Sounds pretty reactionary to me, simply assuming that because you've turned in your two weeks, suddenly you're a threat to the company. But as long as you presented yourself professionally, you did all you could.

Be available for your two weeks (after all, they are paying you, and you don't want to burn any bridges). But hey, you know what? It's not your problem anymore, and you don't owe them anything they're not paying you for.

risk benefit (1)

techrunner (897148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207322)

Your manager has to weigh the risks and benefits. The risk is that you might steal trade secrets or try to sabotage the system since you have nothing to lose. While this is unlikely, if it did happen, it would cause your company huge problems.

The benefit of you working, is that you will do some work. However, management probably assummes your work won't be as high of quality as normal anyways.

Nothing is very unusual about what happened to you. I've heard of people being shown the door, immediately, and they aren't even allowed to pack up their belongings.

At will (2, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207326)

The phrase "at will" is standard in most contracts nowadays, especially in IT. It basically means that they can let you go at any time and you can decide to leave at any time. It's always best to give the standard two weeks notice and tidy everything up before you go, but these days companies really don't care much. They'll let you go, hand you a severance check, and by the end of the day, they've locked you out of their systems.

This just goes to the whole shift in corporate culture, where employees are no longer people, but FTEs, to be tallied, shifted around like pieces on a Risk board, and disposed of when their usefulness is up. I was raised to believe in the old school company, the kind that valued employees and celebrated longevity, but the only way you get to stay past 5 years anymore is to move up the corporate ladder or refuse your yearly pay raise. And even then, with the advent of outsourcing, job security is a fasing concept.

You did the right thing; your company did not.

Worst. Ask Slashdot. Ever. (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207327)

Seriously, is that even remotely a suprise to anyone here? What amazes me is someone could end up in a position like that and not a) understand the reaction and b) expect (s)he'd do the same if someone under them left

Complaining about two weeks of paid vacation? The only reason I could think someone would complain about that is that they had personal things they wanted to get off the systems (why was anything personal at work?) or work-related things they wanted "backups" of (which is precisely why shutting access off is the correct thing to do).

To the original poster (and to moderators, this is not meant as a flame): don't assume your boss thinks you're going to be malicious. He just clearly understands your job more than you do.

at will (1)

spoonyfork (23307) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207328)

I take it you were not under contract. If so, welcome to at will [wikipedia.org] employment. If you didn't know that already I just hope you had the sense to get your next job (if looking for one) before you quit your previous one. Like selling a house, it is much easier to get hired if you already have a job.

more notice (1)

wilbur62 (643507) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207331)

I think the lesson here is: you should have given more notice. You could've had 2 paid months off.

Don't mistake for malice... (1)

lanner (107308) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207336)

It sounds like you did the right thing, so I'm confused to why you are not happy. As long as they pay you for the next two weeks, everything is good.

If you had some personal info that you wanted to get from computer systems, you can still request that someone get it for you, but you really should have thought about this before you let them know that you were leaving.

Terminating access immediately upon notice of intent to leave is an okay thing to do for some organizations, but it's up to them.

How they handle your resignation has a lot to do with how you feel.

Remember that great quote, "Don't mistake for malice what is easily explained for by stupidity." They probably don't hate you for quitting -- they just want to cover their butt. They might be a little scared and confused. And if they do hate you for quitting... well, you did the right thing by quitting, because they suck!

Ditto! (1)

rocjoe71 (545053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207337)

Same thing happened to me when I resigned from a job three months ago. Just the mention of the resignation made my manager wince. Seems it was company policy to show the door immediately to anyone offering two-weeks-notice. I was stunned, I never heard of an employer rejecting two-weeks-notice.

Apparently in the business world paranoia is the new normal.

Huh?!? (1)

djlowe (41723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207339)

"What is the professional thing to do?"

Honestly, and harshly: The professional thing to do is STFU, take the two weeks paid, and start your new job ASAP.

Walk away: You did what was required - the fact that they don't want you to work your last two weeks has nothing to do with you, as a person. You don't owe them anything beyond what you already did.

Hell, I had to FIGHT to get paid for the two weeks, once I put in notice, for the last employer for whom I actually did that (nearly a decade ago: I'm happily self-employed now).

So, let it go, and I wish you the best with your new employer!

Regards,

dj

Speak directly to the boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207340)

As unhappy as I was at my position, I felt it a matter of principle to speak to my boss directly, explain immediately that I was leaving and why. He spent a long time trying to talk me out of it but we parted on amicable terms. As we both had been able to have our say, there was no room for paranoia.

That's professional.

Wouldn't worry about it (1)

SpaceTaxi (170395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207342)

I think it is not uncommon for companies to immediately let go of employees who give notice as a matter of policy, and there isn't anything you could have done that would not have them shut you out. I wouldn't worry about it, you did the right thing by giving them notice and I shouldn't take it personally.

Up the ante! (1)

Chmarr (18662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207347)

Next time, given your company two MONTHS notice... that way, you'll get paid to stay at home for two months :)

Normal to me.... (1)

beheaderaswp (549877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207349)

What you did was all you could do.

I had a rude awakening after years in the bull market of 90's tech: I gave 3 months notice to a long time contractor and employer out of respect and deference.

Sadly, that was a hard lesson to learn, as the company car, expense accounts, server access, cell phone, customer list, and anything else they gave me was pulled. Then, while I was an "officed at home" road warrior engineer (who also managed to handle a good bit of IT from remote) I was told I was now an "hourly employee", had to report to the service department, and was issued a (gulp) UNIFORM.

Lesson learned:

It's business. Meet the standard of two weeks notice. Move on.

Second lesson learned:

This treatment is not indicative of what the company thinks of you. It's generally what the lawyers recommend happen when key people are dumped. I learned this one, because after I left them (early- I am not wearing a uniform!!), they called me with a massive contract with enough $$ to keep MY company going for about 2 years.

That has been my experience. IT people are considered if not "key" to be in very sensitive positions. Thus the reaction.

Next time.... (1)

willl (111498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207351)

...give them three weeks notice.

Enjoy your time off!

-Will

It has always made me wonder... (1)

Dick_Stallmanat0r (937057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207353)

why has two weeks notice become a standard? I mean, technically you don't work for the company anymore (or at least you won't in the near future) so you don't really have much responsibility for the work you do in those last two weeks. I mean obviously I wouldn't completely slack off if you plan on using them as a reference, but you certainly can't be expected to put out high quality work with virtually no incentive to do so.

I can understand the need for two weeks notice in job situation where if you leave immediately the are pretty much out in the cold as someone is NEEDED for you positition during those two weeks. But say for something like working at Target (which I have done in the past), virtually ANY other employee can fill your position in a heartbeat. So why the need for 2 weeks?

Aside from the practicality argument, there is also the unfairness. In this situation he got compensated for 2 weeks, but at some places (like target) you do not get compensated if you are laid off. Do they expect you to get a job the day after you're fired? Unless you've been applying secretly behind their backs that's almost impossible. Why should you give them 2 weeks notice when they barely give you 2 seconds?

As far as the submitter's question, you did a fine job of submitting a personal resignation. In a job where you handle sensitive data, if you resign, they no longer hold the "You're fired" card and thus you are considered untrustworthy. Sad really, that the assumption is your only loyalty to the company is not getting fired (though these days the company hardly shows you much love either). But alas, that's just the way it is.

Silly Boy (1)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207354)

You should have planted the rootkits, trojans, xploits, backdoors, accounts salami slices, cron'ed funds transfers to anonymous overseas accounts etc long before you gave notice!

Do stuff BEFORE you give notice. (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207360)

I'm particularly fond of the SysInternals Blue Screen Of Death Screensaver [sysinternals.com] . Put it on a few key pc's and watch them go bonkers. Really, it's a nice, mostly-harmless way to say Adios, mes Amis!

The main thing I learned... (1)

LordOfYourPants (145342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207362)

What I learned from this comment is that I should resign a month and a half in advance and hope I get paid for it.

Assuming you were polite (1)

jmcharry (608079) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207365)

There are multiple schools of thought on this. One is that it is not good for the morale of remaining employees to continue working with someone who sees greener grass elsewhere. Another is that the likely new employer is a competitor and it is best to remove a competitor's promised employee from your organization. A third is that the employee rather expects to be dismissed with two weeks compensation to take a break before the new job, and it is the polite thing to do.

When someone leaves an organization for any reason, it is standard industrial hygiene to kill all access to company systems, even when the parting is amicable.

I don't see anything odd here. Sometimes companies need to keep people for the two weeks, but usually they pay them off, wish the departing comrade well, and go on.

You did everything right (1)

Fourmica (789657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207366)

Don't take their actions personally. It's not a reflection on you; it's a reflection on those with less scruples than you. Your employer's reaction to your resignation is somewhat paranoid, but when someone in your position offers their resignation, it's prudent for the company to revoke their access. It's too easy for an employer to be burned in that kind of scenario.

The fact that they're paying you for your two weeks is a sign of respect - reciprocal respect for your willingness to give them two weeks notice and observe that business formality. You did it right; no need to second-guess yourself.

I guess it depends on where you work. (3, Insightful)

mpn14tech (716482) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207368)

The places I have worked at and turned in a two week notice, it is usually a 2 week scramble to document everything I did and get some poor unqualified individual up to speed. On the last day I make sure that the new person in charge either disables all accounts I had access to or make sure that they changed the passwords.
You want to eliminate any possibility of doubt if something goes wrong after you leave.
So while their actions may be seem extreme, it really is for your protection as much as it is for theirs. I would not take it so personally.

Resign... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207369)

by email.

Took a while but the same thing happened to me... (3, Informative)

jedi_gras (234700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207373)

I submitted my two weeks notice and gave them transition plan outline. About two days later I was called into a room with three HR reps, my manager, a lawyer, and the chief of security. Supposedly, I was working on sensitive information and the lawyer said that it would be prudent if I left immediately. Five minutes later, I was packing up my stuff under supervision of the chief of security and then promptly escorted to my car. They took my parking pass and id and bid me farewell. Of course I was paid for the rest of the two weeks.

No hard feelings, but with concerns over security nowadays, I don't blame employers for going through this extra step. I mean, IF I had done something malicious, what would their course of action be? Besides a lawsuit in which most cases side with the employee not the employer, they couldn't fire me because I had already quit.

you did it all wrong. (1)

rootedgimp (523254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207376)

You aren't supposed to give them a notice. Hell, I got fired once and they sure as hell didn't give me a two week notice on that shit.
 
The right way to leave your position is walking out at a crucial time, and setting some godawful cron ticking for about a week after you leave. That way, when the next chums contact your xboss for a reference, his only reply is "Oh, shit, I remember that guy! We were totally fucked when he left!"

Uh, you got a vaction... (3, Insightful)

ellem (147712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207377)

This is EXACTLY how is should be handled. Do NOT let a leaving Sys Admin on you system. You did nothing wrong. They did nothing wrong. Enjoy your end of the year festivities.

This really isn't a good forum for this (1)

InnerParty (753801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207378)

I understand you may feel a little hurt by your employer's actions, but really the other replies here are correct. 1) They have no reason to put corporate information systems at risk no matter how good of a job you did and how trustworthy you feel you are. It's a hard pill to swallow, but they did the best practice for security. 2) This really doesn't belong on Slashdot. Isn't this a technical and science news forum? Nothing personal and I don't think you could have done anything different as far as resigning goes. What's unprofessional is walking off the job and you didn't do that. Happy vacation!

Next Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207381)

Some companies will do this as a matter of policy, some won't. That's just the way it goes-- it's not personal, it's policy. And believe me, it's not just tech jobs, it's any job where you have access to business-critical stuff, which is just about anyone.

Also, the policy for a two-weeks notice resignation may be different from a "Boss, I'm interested in moving to Vermont in six months. I'd like to be able to refer people to you for a reference. Of course, I'll be eager to help you look for and train my successor." They might show you the door for that, too, but the point is, context matters.

Next time, find out the policy. And if you think you're going to be rushed out, ensure that you have made copies of anything that you need to take with you and BRING IT HOME BEFORE YOU TELL THEM ANYTHING. Of course, I'm not talking about copies of code you wrote for them, just anything that's justifiably yours after you leave.

Then submit your letter of resignation and see what they do.

Thats the best way to go (1)

Omegamon (922229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207383)

I would have been happy with that outcome. Who wouldn't want to have couple of weeks of paid holiday.

It's normal behaviour (1)

Trapped Database Adm (922771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207387)

What you've described is normal behaviour for security-wise systems area. Whilst the company might have a policy where staff work their last fortnight, most computer-info areas I know of do as described above - whilst *you* can be trusted not to do nasty stuff on the way out, procedurally they can't take that chance, in case a departing sysadmin does hold a grudge. That said, my last outfit my admin accesses to database systems (SQL) are still open via web of all things. Have written to people about it, but am ignored. I was expecting to be shut off and paid out early, however to my surprise, not only did they keep my accesses, they never got a replacement... and now they wonder why their systems are in such disrepair. Truly a Dilbert moment.

and the problem is...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207391)

So, let's get this straight. You put in your resignation (professionally, as you say) and your employer cut off your system level access. Seems like paranoia on your boss's part. On the flip side, COOL! Without access, you can't do a whole lot. Enjoy your 2 weeks paid time, and don't piss anyone off.

Since you didn't tell us the whole story, there may be something you've done in the past that raises a red flag. Maybe you've only worked there a couple months, or you've gotten written up for something that causes concern. Again, I repeat, COOL!

Now excuse me while I go to my job where I actually have to work because they weren't nice enough to take away my login credentials and pay me anyway.

Obviously Your Worthless To the Organization (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207396)

Trust me... the folks who actually mean something... they make them stay the 2 weeks and write documentation or train others, etc.

Sounds more like amateur employers (-1)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14207398)

If that's how little they trusted you, why the devil did they hire you in the first place? You didn't say anything about why you left, but if it was for negative reasons, then I could sort of understand, and it already sounds like that might be the case. However, if you were a skilled "professional" and just found something better, there's no reason they should be surprised or anything about it.

Or maybe they're just practicing their bum's rush techniques on you as an easy target? In that case, maybe you should leave them a few bye-bye Trojans? Just for practice, of course.

Come to think of it... One more possibility. Maybe they knew they were screwing you, and their real fear is that you found out. That would also explain (from their perspective) why you're leaving, no matter what you said in your letter, and would also explain their urgency in cutting your access.

Not everyone gets the boot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14207402)

Whilst it's not unusual for someone in the IT industry to resign and be walked out the door on the same day (I've seen my share of it where I work currently) allow me to present a counterpoint...

Also for the same company, one of our programmers wanted to go backpacking overseas with his wife for six months and asked his manager how he should go about it: could he just take unpaid leave and come back, or should he just quit?

After him meeting with his boss and the CTO it was decided he'd put in three months' notice and keep working until he was ready to go. I think that was a big mistake: he knew he was going and felt didn't have anything to worry about. His attitude slid to "any old thing will do" and twelve months later we're still finding and cleaning-up some of the crap he left behind.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?