A Friendly Notice About Two Weeks' Notice
|
03/26/2019
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Many
employers
have
policies
stating
that
employees
must
provide
at
least
two
weeks’
notice
of
resignation.
The
reason,
of
course,
is
to
give
the
employer
time
to
hire
a
replacement
or
otherwise
staff
the
position.
Even
when
not
required
by
policy,
two
weeks’
notice
often
is
taken
for
granted
as
a
professional
courtesy.
But
more
and
more
frequently,
statistics
say,
employees
are
quitting
their
jobs
without
giving
advance
notice.
Even
worse,
more
workers
are
now
“ghosting”
their
jobs—they
just
stop
showing
up
without
telling
anyone.
What’s
behind
this
trend?
For
starters,
the
job
market
has
been
white
hot
for
a
long
time.
And,
the
stigma
once
associated
with
resigning
without
two
weeks’
notice
is
waning,
particularly
among
younger
workers.
So
what
can
you
do
to
keep
employees
from
quitting
without
notice?
First,
don’t
overreact.
Most
employers
practice
employment
at
will,
which
means
that
either
the
employer
or
the
employee
can
terminate
the
employment
relationship
at
any
time,
without
cause,
and
without
notice.
So,
while
you
could
enter
into
an
agreement
that
requires
the
parties
to
provide
each
other
with
two
weeks’
(or
some
other)
advance
notice
of
termination,
most
employers
simply
don’t
want
to
impose
such
restrictions
on
themselves.
Thus,
you
need
to
take
the
bad
with
the
good.
But
that
doesn’t
mean
there
aren’t
ways—both
carrots
and
sticks—to
incentivize
Continue Reading...
|
|
What A Short, Strange Trip It’s Been
|
02/19/2014
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Has
it
really
only
been
a
week
since
the
Kansas
House
of
Representatives
passed
House
Bill
2453?
Supporters
said
it
simply
protects
religious
liberty.
Opponents
countered
that
it
sanctions
discrimination
against
same-sex
couples;
allows
police
officers,
fire
fighters,
and
other
government
employees
to
refuse
to
provide
basic
or
emergency
services
to
tax
payers;
and
imposes
significant
burdens
on
Kansas
employers.
A
nationwide
hullabaloo
ensued.
House
Bill
No.
2453
is
titled
“an
act
concerning
religious
freedoms
with
respect
to
marriage.”
Section
1
of
the
bill
provides,
“Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
law,
no
individual
or
religious
entity
shall
be
required
by
any
governmental
entity
to
do
any
of
the
following,
if
it
would
be
contrary
to
the
sincerely
held
religious
beliefs
of
the
individual
or
religious
entity
regarding
sex
or
gender:
…
Provide
any
services,
accommodations,
advantages,
facilities,
goods,
or
privileges
…
or
provide
employment
or
employment
benefits,
related
to
…
any
marriage,
domestic
partnership,
civil
union
or
similar
arrangement.”
The
term
“religious
entity”
is
broadly
defined
to
include:
(1)
any
“religious
corporation,
association,
educational
institution
or
society;”
(2)
any
entity
“connected
with”
such
a
religious
organization;
or
(3)
“a
privately-held
business
operating
consistently
with
its
sincerely
held
religious
beliefs.”
Section
2
provides
that
individuals
or
religious
entities
that
refuse
to
provide
services,
employment,
or
employment
benefits
“related
to”
any
such
relationship,
because
of
their
religious
beliefs,
are
shielded
from
civil
claims
or
government
penal
action.
Section
2
also
says
that
if
an
employee
of
any
employer
(even
the
government
or
a
non-religious
Continue Reading...
|
|
Can You Make Your Employees Give More Notice Than the Pope?
|
03/13/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Pope
Benedict
XVI
recently
did
something
no
pontiff
has
done
for
600
hundred
years:
He
resigned.
And
when
he
did,
he
provided
the
Catholic
Church
with
only
two
weeks’
notice
of
his
departure.
Employees
often
leave
their
employer
with
little
or
no
notice. This
can
leave
the
organization
in
a
lurch,
particularly
if
the
employee
holds
a
key
position,
has
a
unique
skill
set,
or
has
institutional
knowledge
others
lack.
Employers
sometimes
ask
whether
they
can
require
their
employees
to
give
advance
notice
before
they
quit. But
perhaps
the
more-important
question
is:
Do
you
really
want
to?
Absent
an
agreement
to
the
contrary,
employment
in
Kansas
is
at
will.
This
means
that
either
the
employer
or
the
employee
can
end
the
employment
relationship
at
any
time,
for
any
or
no
reason,
with
or
without
notice.
Employers
are
typically
happy
about
this
arrangement.
So
think
twice
and
get
legal
counsel
before
imposing
a
rule
requiring
employees
to
give
two
weeks
or
other
advance
notice
of
resignation,
as
this
may
trigger
a
reciprocal
obligation
to
pay
employees
for
the
same
notice
period
when
you
let
them
go,
or
otherwise
alter
the
at-will
nature
of
the
relationship.
If
you
do
decide
to
enter
into
a
contract
with
an
executive
or
other
key
employee
that
requires
advance
notice
of
resignation,
consider
whether
and
how
you
will
enforce
the
provision
if
the
employee
welches
on
the
deal. Remember
that
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
(KWPA)
prohibits
withholding
an
employee’s
earned
wages
as
a
set
off
or
credit
toward
other
debts
the
employee
Continue Reading...
|
|
Do You Know? Right-to-Work vs. Employment-at-Will
|
09/26/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
My
fifteen-year-old
daughter
is
an
avid
reader. She
also
has
an
offbeat
sense
of
humor
(which
she
must
get
from
her
mother). So
perhaps
I
should
not
have
been
surprised
to
find
a
book
titled
Zombies
vs.
Unicorns
lying
around
the
house. "It's
a
question
as
old
as
time
itself: Which
is
better,
the
zombie
or
the
unicorn?"
the
book
jacket
teases.
Such
weighty
conflicts
and
comparisons have
existed
throughout
history,
of
course. Good
vs.
Evil. Cats
vs.
Dogs. Yankees
vs.
Red
Sox. King
Kong
vs.
Godzilla.
VHS
vs.
Betamax.
And,
most recently,
Alien
vs.
Predator. In
this
spirit, let's examine
two separate
and
distinct
legal
concepts
that
are
sometimes
misunderstood
or confused with
one
another: Right-to-Work
vs.
Employment-at-Will.
Right-to-work has
nothing
to
do
with employers' ability
to
hire
or
fire. Nor
does
it
refer
to
employees'
right
to
unionize. Rather,
a
right-to-work
law
prohibits
unions
and
employers
from
entering
into
contracts
that
require
workers
to
join
the
union
or
pay union
dues
as
a
condition
of
employment.
Kansas
is
one
of 23
states
with
a
right-to-work
law.
Kansas
adopted
a
right-to-work
amendment
to
its
constitution
in 1958.
It
provides,
"No
person
shall
be
denied
the
opportunity
to
obtain
or
retain
employment
because
of
membership
or
nonmembership
in
any
labor
organization,
nor
shall
[any
employer] enter
into
any
agreement,
written
or
oral,
which
excludes
any
person
from
employment
or
continuation
of
employment
because
of
membership
or
nonmembership
in
any
labor
organization."
(Kan.
Const.
Article
15,
Section
12).
However,
even
in
states
without
right-to-work
laws,
union
membership
cannot
lawfully
be
required.
The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
ruled
in
1985
that
union
members
have
the
right
to
resign
their
union
membership
at
any
Continue Reading...
|
|
Kansas Court Expands Scope of Retaliatory Discharge
|
05/09/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
It
is
unlawful
to
fire
an
employee
in
retaliation
for
making
internal
oral
complaints
involving
rights
protected
by
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act,
the
Kansas
Court
of
Appeals
ruled
on
May
4.
Less
than
a
year
ago
the
Kansas
Supreme
Court
held
that
is
is
unlawful
to discharge
an
employee
for
exercising
rights
under
the
Wage
Payment
Act,
such
as
by
filing
a
claim
for
wages
with
the
Kansas
Department
of
Labor.
The
new
decision
clarifies that
this
anti-retaliation
rule
is
not
limited
to
situations
where
the
employee
has
filed
a
formal
claim,
but
also
covers oral
complaints
to
company
management.
However, to
be
protected,
the
complaint,
whether
written
or
oral,
must
be
"clear
enough
that
the
employer
would
understand
that
the
employee
is
asserting
rights
protected
by
the
statute." The
Wage
Payment
Act
requires,
among
other
things,
that
employers
must
pay
employees
all
wages
when
due.
But
in
this
case,
the
court
said,
the
employee's
complaints
were
"too
equivocal"
to
put
the
employer
on
notice
that
he
was
making
some
claim
under
the
Wage
Payment
Act.
So
the
court
upheld
the
district
court's
ruling
to
dismiss
the
claim.
|
|
Employee In Hog Heaven Over Kansas Supreme Court Ruling
|
05/20/2011
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Today
the
Kansas
Supreme
Court
expanded
the
recognized exceptions
to
employment
at
will
by
ruling
that
a
claim
for
retaliatory
discharge
exists
when
an
employee
is
fired
for
filing
a
wage
claim
under
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
(KWPA). The
employee,
who
worked
for
a
pig-farming
company
in
Long
Island,
Kansas,
alleged
he
was fired
for trying
to
bring
home
more
bacon
by
filing a
complaint
with
the
Kansas
Department
of
Labor
(KDOL)
claiming
the
company
was
not
paying
him
as
required
by
the
KWPA. The company
said
the
allegation
was
hogwash
and
asked
the
court
to dismiss
the
case.
The
district
court
agreed
with
the
company
and
hamstrung the
employee's
lawsuit,
ruling
that even
assuming
he was
fired
because
he
filed
a
KWPA
wage
claim,
this
was
not
a
recognized exception
to
the
employment-at-will
rule.
The
employee,
perhaps
feeling
he
had
been
casting
pearls
before
swine
in
the
district
court, appealed.
The Kansas
Supreme
Court explained
that
Kansas
courts
permit
the
common-law
tort
of
retaliatory
discharge
as
a
limited
exception
to
the
at-will
employment
doctrine
when
it
is
necessary
to
protect
a
strongly
held
state
public
policy
from
being
undermined.
The
Kansas
Supreme
Court
has
previously
endorsed
public
policy
exceptions
in
four
circumstances:
(1)
exercising
rights
under
the
Kansas
Workers’
Compensation
Act;
(2)
filing
a
claim
under
the
Federal
Employers
Liability
Act;
(3)
whistleblowing
(good-faith
reporting
of
an
employer’s
or
coworker’s
violation
of
the
law
pertaining
to
public
health,
safety,
or
welfare);
and
(4)
exercising
a
public
employee's
First
Amendment
right
to
free
speech
on
an
issue
of
public
concern.
The
Court
reasoned
that the
KWPA—which
Continue Reading...
|
|
|
Editors
Don Berner, the Labor Law, OSHA, & Immigration Law Guy
Boyd Byers, the General Employment Law Guy
Jason Lacey, the Employee Benefits Guy
Additional Sources

|