this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
494 points (98.2% liked)
Greentext
4003 readers
2303 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, not at all.
If the company fire you they have to pay you, e.g., three months notice, regardless of if they want you to do the work or not.
If you quit without notice, you might have to pay the costs incurred by you quitting early, but that's not your salary -because they now wouldn't be paying you.
Costs might be something like the company having to refuse an order because they now don't have enough people to do the work, or the increased cost of an expedited hiring process.
I don't know how common costs are in France, but the UK has the same rules and essentially no one ever claims costs. You need to really fuck over your employee in a very explicit and well documented way for this to even be considered.
The main disadvantage is you will have a bad reference if you leave without notice.
So a company with a higher revenue may reclaim higher costs, even if they paid like shit? Doesn't look fair to me. In Spain that penalty for not complying with the notice period is automatic. Also companies hiring don't care for references unless they know directly the person that wrote it (so only useful for small indistry sectors).
In theory. It's just standard contract law. You violate the contract, so you have to make the other party right.
In practice, the court is likely to go, "You should've hired someone else to do the work. No costs"