This applies both ways. I expect this employee would be angry if their employer breached their contract to sack them immediately without this notice, but if the employee breaches those same terms of their agreed contract that's....okay? No.

Regardless of their feelings, it's very unprofessional, petty even, and depending on how litigious and unhappy with them their employer is, not a very smart idea.

There are many edge cases where things must be looked at differently of course (someone resigning over harassment at work would not wish to remain there for a fortnight serving their notice for example), but this must be discussed and agreed upon, because again, it deviates from the legally binding contractual agreement they both signed.

This employee, regardless of any legitimate grievances, in this communication is unprofessional, petty, and frankly childish.

While I don't know the story behind their falling out, I suspect the employer will be glad to see them go. I wouldn't want them working for me, or even work with them as a colleague. They sound awful.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 82 points 3 days ago (1 children)

OTOH, if this is in the US, we are almost entirely at-will when it comes to employment; we can be terminated at any time, for something as petty as the boss not liking our socks, no heads-up required.

Here the two weeks notice is considered a courtesy, and sadly fewer and fewer businesses are proving worthy of that courtesy. It seems from the post title that this company did not deserve much respect at all.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago

I thought from the last part that this was an ironic joke about all those quitting with text posts where the boss is really unreasonable and shitty

[–] Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

businesses and people are not equal and should not be viewed as such

[–] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In the Netherlands, by law there is a minimum of one month's notice. If the employers fire you, the notice time is doubled. So if a company would require three months notice it means you can still work there for 6 more months after you're fired.

[–] shiftymccool@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nice but awkward...

[–] Prime_Minister_Keyes@lemm.ee 11 points 3 days ago

How so? You might not be required any longer to come in to work, especially if they think you could stir up some shit, break some plates on your way out. In fact, the company might even bar you from entering the premises if there's a good reason for it, like "IP protection." The company is only required to keep paying your wage, for 6 months in this case.

[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 5 points 3 days ago

While yes it is a legally binding contract, the penalties must be laid out in that same contract and will usually be limited to any direct losses as a result of an employee quitting without notice which are, by definition, limited.

If the reverse happens, the employee would be entitled to their pay for the remainder of the notice period.