What people often mean when they say "it's not a big deal" is "it's a big deal to me, but it shouldn't be to you". Usually, they don't have any right to make that decision for you and it's really just a manipulation technique.

Then you've broken your word.

Leaving gracefully (and briskly without making a scene) can indeed be helpful, though perhaps not in the Times author's circumstances.

[0] Actually, where the company was based we don't know which employment laws applied to his contract without reading it. You can be a California resident employed by a Delaware corporation operating out of California and your contract can still be subject the the employment laws of a third state. I'm not entirely sure how this actually works in practice, but I know it is done.

EDIT Some quick Googling found this website, which has some interesting information (albeit a rather terrible layout): http://www.careerprotection.com/severancepay.html

California is an odd example of an at-will state, for various reasons.

There have been a lot of implied-in-fact exceptions to the at-will doctrine (see Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. ) essentially holding that your employment contract would not control if the employer gives you a different impression.

The general legal view is that california is not really an at-will state anymore, because of the routine exceptions that get made.

IE cases holding "evidence of a “long and distinguished career” supported finding of implied contract not to terminate without good cause", etc.

See http://ainleylaw.com/2012/10/25/avoiding-the-at-will-bar/ for a random list of cases and holdings.

Suffice to say, i would not hold up california as a typical example of anything employment law related :)

Most offers I see are clear that the letter is not a contract, and no contract can even exist without direct and explicit intervention by the CEO. And that seems to be a left-handed way of saying that if you do try to get an actual contract, you will not be successful, and the offer of employment will be withdrawn. I would very much like to see more at-will workers do same-day resignations when they change jobs, possibly even writing their own severance agreements.

It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. And most of the time, all that you get for the courtesy of making it easier for the employer to replace you is a payout for your accumulated vacation time, if anything.

    It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job
    if giving notice was never in the requirements.

Given the behavior of my current company towards all of its employees, I am looking to go elsewhere, and when I do, I won't worry overly much about burning those bridges behind me. The at-will sword is two-edged, so let the other guy feel the backswing occasionally.

If such practices are widespread in a particular industry than that industry in practice doesn't provide severance. In those circumstances, it makes sense to withdraw the corresponding practice of giving notice. Or perhaps instead substituting a practice of conditional notice.

I disagree. One of the things that distinguishes professional behavior for me is having professional standards. That is, no matter what your clients or employers do, there are certain ways you plan to behave. For me that would definitely include a good handover.

Of course, my professional standards also include refusing to build things that are obviously dumb, dangerous, or destructive. But a disturbing number of developers feel that they should just do whatever their bosses tell them, no matter the disaster that they set in motion. So one could argue that a lot of IT-related jobs are more trades than professions, in which case a "take this job and shove it" exit could be more acceptable. Not because it isn't unprofessional behavior, but because professional behavior isn't expected.

We have no union or professional association to protect our interests in my labor category. We have only the willingness to be faithful and courteous to those who treat us well, and to be stubborn and vindictive to those who would abuse our good faith. Bite the hand that beats you.

I think that professionals have to be careful in who they choose to work for, but once they start, they should act professionally. That includes leaving professionally.

In game theory simulations, strategies that respond to counterparty behaviors, such as tit-for-tat, always outperform those that do not, such as always-cooperate, always-reneg, and random-choice strategies.

Your strategy is apparently always-cooperate. It's a loser. If you do not penalize bad behavior or unbalanced deals, they will become more prevalent in the environment.

Depends on circumstances and the details of your profession. If you're just a badly-treated wage slave, then definitely: walk out as soon as you find something better.

But I'm an independent contractor/freelancer, and I'm currently working on a project that would probably take about a year. But my contract is always to the end of the quarter and gets extended by a quarter. I could probably refuse such a contract extension, and I considered it, because a previous client where I really, really enjoyed working, asked me if I was available. But I didn't because I felt it would be unprofessional to leave at this stage.

If we're talking about professionalism, at what point did you bring up to the client that their quarterly contracting strategy leaves them extremely vulnerable to losing critical personnel before the work gets finished? I think what happened there is that they leveraged their project management flexibility against your sense of integrity, and you lost.

In any case, I didn't lose anything. As long as I get paid for the hours I work, I'm happy. I'd be totally fine with the contract getting terminated tomorrow. I'm also fine with working here for another half year. But at more than a year, I think I'd get itchy.

I don't think "unprofessional" means what you think it means. It is not, for instance, a synonym for "illegal."

I'm not so sure about that. While Silicon Valley particularly, and the US in general, has a disproportionate number of high tech startups, you also have some of the weakest workers rights in the world, and while I don't know the exact demographics of HN, I'm not so sure it is that focused around California.

Pretty much all of Europe, with a population of about 800 million, for example, have protections that are vastly stronger. A substantial majority of countries have 1-3 months notice periods that are hard or impossible to get around, in some cases with a legal right to actually continue to show up to work and carry out the contracted work during that period even if your employer would like to pay you to stay away.

This is one of those cases where you can't have both sides compromise. They want things jurisdicted (izzat a word?) in one state or the other. And the company is the one with the lawyers who have crafted things specifically for their home state.

You should give them this, perhaps in exchange for something else.

http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm

A lawyer would tell you that such a clause is common, is somewhat enforceable, and rarely enforced. The situation primarily being avoided is airing specific, proprietary, disparaging information.

So it isn't worth just moving on with your career for, say, $3k (assuming a moderate $80k/yr salary)?

Seems like Internet bravado to me. I click okay on all sorts of terms of use agreements for my PS3 just to play some games.

A PS3 contract is signed under much different circumstances. It's a contract of adhesion and it's most likely to cover PlayStation's ass from people suing them for all sorts of bullshit reasons, not to enable them to sue you because you gave a bad review.

The company CEO might have something snap in his head and decide that the reason the company failed is that his ex-employees were stealing stuff. I've seen it happen twice, fortunately never to me.

On this note, I would be totally okay with signing a "this firing was not illegal" contract for a few weeks severance. That's more of the company wanting its ass covered if you try a bogus wrong-termination suit, which I totally understand.

tldr: I think "this is so you/someone else can't sue us" clauses are much more ethical and reasonable than "this is so we can sue you" clauses.

You're accusing me of not reading something carefully when you're not considering the context of the quote to which I was responding -- which was specifically talking about the previous poster's advice to PROGRAMMERS?

and are widely considered unenforcable

Unless I was planning to really go after my ex-employer as some kind of vendetta, I wouldn't worry about a Non-disparagement agreement's enforceability. They're no more of a worry than non-compete agreements.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humance...

I had a friend who was a contract lawyer, and pointed out several clauses in my wireless contract and my internet contract. It was pretty eye opening.

Needless to say, you'd be surprised what you agree to when you sign contracts:

"Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice."

Which mean they update your modem (which is not yours btw, it's a part of your ISP infrastructure) for you, not that ominous IMO.

I am aware of very many court cases involving contracts of employment. Some of these cases are famous and reported in national newspapers, but many of them are everyday cases.

"Just sign it" is popular but terrible advice for some contracts.

And the lawyers who crafted up the contract don't want it to be thrown out for some stupid reason, so they will advise your (about to be ex-)employer to let you take it home to read it and think about it.

Duress would apply if someone is forcing you to sign.

"so mr employer you admit you have done something illegal either by omission or commission and you want me to sign a compromise agreement?"

Well I am sure that my lawyers will be interested can you let me who in hr is your GC (lawyer) and I am sure we can sort something out or I will settle for 6 months right now.

Or they have an overzealous HR person or lawyer.

Or any number of other things.

Of course they might also be a bunch of criminals, but I don't think an agreement like that implies anything in either direction.

Over zealous/incompetent HR is probably the correct answer.

Seriously if you where a cop questioning some one and they blurt out I want to do a deal at the start of the interview what woudl you think

Normally in NCIS when the person getting interviewed by Jethro asks for a deal - they are the perp.

(This, of course, does nothing for what you may have signed upon becoming employed, nor what they may have shoved under your pen while you were employed.)

Generally, the incentives are relatively small, and what you are giving up is potentially rather greater. This is why they attempt it -- risk reduction. I'm aware of proposed agreements that, for a few thousand dollars in a one time payout, cause the formerly employed to abrogate supposedly all rights to sue, on any basis.

Granted, that may not be entirely enforceable. But it's another considerable hurdle to surmount if and as you feel and determine yourself to have been wronged. First, you have to attempt to break out of the binding arbitration -- if any -- that such contracts impose.

I'd rather have a few expensive suits and management sweat a bit more, if nothing else, in such circumstances. Tie them up with more paperwork and tracking. If nothing else, it helps to keep them on their toes and perhaps less likely to screw the next guy.

And yes, again, in such circumstances, somewhat of that perspective is prescribed. No matter how well you may have gotten on with your co-workers and immediate management, the company is not / no longer your friend.

You will feel and manage much better if you have prepared yourself for such an event, however unlikely you may currently consider it to be. Have enough cash and liquid assets on-hand to ride out such a period of unemployment. Don't assume you will have unemployment benefits when making such calculations; if a business decides it wants to screw you, they can at least delay the granting of such -- though you should contest such a tactic. (And, in that regard, documentation is your friend. Keep printouts of relevant material. If you feel things are going south, keep a separate, datestamped journal documenting specific events in detail.)

If you have assets on hand, you will feel less motivated to take such a payout, especially not one that is rushed upon you with a very limited window for consideration. You may also decide it is worth the money to at least consult with an attorney (that you are paying by the hour, not on contingency) for an independent and professional opinion.

Many people on HN are at least ostensibly "professionals". A few thousand, for a regular, full-time employee, should not make or break you. Look towards handling your end of such an employment arrangement professionally.

Even if it costs you a bit of money, you will likely feel much better about yourself and how you've handled the situation.

And that self-esteem, aside from any (frankly, unlikely) favorable financial outcome, can pay off significantly as you move on with your life.

Just my opinion...