How should my friend handle pressure to give more than 2 weeks notice?
April 17, 2013 7:21 AM   Subscribe

A friend of mine who is moving to a new city is under heavy pressure from her direct supervisor to give more than two weeks' notice to their shared boss. How can she get her supervisor to back off, or did that ship sail when she told her supervisor that she was leaving?

I'm posting this on behalf of a non-MeFite who's dealing with a tricky situation at work. My friend (let's call her Martha) is moving to a new city at the end of this summer for her husband's work, and she told one of her coworkers (let's call her Stacy) that this would be happening, mainly because she needed a reference from work while applying for jobs in her new city, and she didn't want anyone else to know she was leaving just yet. Also note that though Stacy and Martha are functionally co-workers, Stacy is Martha's direct supervisor. This never comes into play in their day-to-day work, and they both report to a shared boss, who we can call Hank.

A few weeks ago, Martha mentioned to me that Stacy was starting to act really strangely about the situation. She was fretting about Martha leaving and saying that Martha should tell Hank immediately, even though Martha isn't leaving until late May. Martha explained that she was just planning on giving a standard 2 weeks notice (which to me seems more than reasonable, considering Martha is a seasonal employee with summers off, i.e., she's essentially giving Hank 3 months to make arrangements after she leaves.) But Stacy said that Martha had to tell Hank right away. Her reasons seem to me to be a little tenuous and contradictory; she said Hank would figure out something was going on anyway, and she also said it wasn't fair to make him scramble to replace her last minute (again, since her last day of work is lining up with her last working day of the year, by giving 2 weeks, she's essentially giving 3 months.) Stacy insisted that Hank would "catch on" anyway if he wasn't told and kept needling Martha to tell him ASAP, saying it wasn't fair to not give him more time.

Martha really doesn't want to give more than 2 weeks because she's afraid of being let go early, which has happened before with others at her organization; once employees tender their resignation, the organization can accept it at any time and kick out the employee early without having to pay out unemployment. That's bad enough for people who have to leave 2 weeks earlier than planned, but giving her notice 2 months in advance and then being let go would be much worse, and she really can't afford to lose a couple of paychecks before the move.

This week, Stacy has upped the ante. She pulled rank and told Martha point-blank, "I am your supervisor, and sometime this week you MUST tell Hank you're leaving." Stacy said she was feeling "antsy" about Hank not knowing and said Hank would figure out what was going on anyway when Martha took a couple of days off in early May to take an exam that would license her in her new city. I'm not sure why Stacy seems so convinced that two days off would be a dead giveaway, and in fact that makes me think she may have already told Hank herself; Martha does not buy into my theory, incidentally, and I've never met Stacy, so Martha would know better than I would.

If I may rant for a bit here, as far as I'm concerned, Martha doesn't owe her employer anything beyond the very standard 2 weeks. They pay her roughly half of what everyone else in her department is paid, which is so little that she qualifies for food stamps (though she has never applied for assistance). She has to freelance in all of her spare time just to pay bills and any time she's ever requested a raise, she's been completely brick-walled. As someone who's seen how much of a hardship her work conditions have been for her, I've been strongly encouraging her to stand her ground with her supervisor and insist she will tender her 2 weeks notice at the appropriate time. Martha is concerned that if she does this, she may lose a reference.

So what should she do and how should she handle the situation? She's really anxious and frustrated right now, and though she recognizes that, in retrospect, telling Stacy at all was a bad idea, that can't be undone now. She and Stacy had always had a really good working relationship prior to this, and Martha had no idea that this would balloon into an issue.
posted by DeusExMegana to Work & Money (33 answers total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: poster's request -- cortex

 
Yes, the ship has sailed, and she may as well tell the big boss. She made a strategic mis-step in telling Stacy, and really put Stacy in a bind. If Big Boss feels caught off guard, and asks Stacy when she learned of the departure, Stacy either has to fess up and say, "oh three months ago" or whatever, or lie. Neither is an appealing prospect.

At this point, your friend may get canned, or not get a reference or burn a bridge or whatever. But the cat's out of the bag, and it will look worse for her when (not if) Stacy reveals the plan.

Them's the breaks, though. Don't ever tell anyone at work that you're leaving until you give your notice. Not your buddies, not your secretary, not the janitor, and certainly not your supervisor. Chalk it up to experience.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:29 AM on April 17, 2013 [11 favorites]


It seems like she doesn't have much choice, right? Stacy is dead set on telling Hank. So Martha might as well do it herself, hard to see how this could make her worse off.
posted by Perplexity at 7:30 AM on April 17, 2013


My gut reaction is also that Stacy has already told Hank and is trying to cover her ass.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:31 AM on April 17, 2013 [29 favorites]


She's leaving anyway, so have her tell Stacy that she'll handle the situation the way she wants to handle it, and that she's not resigning yet and that Stacy will be the second person to know when she does.

I also agree she shouldn't have told anyone. I slightly disagree with Admiral Haddock. I work in an environment where there are a lot of confidences and I often have to pretend like I don't know something even to people I report to. She may have had this kind of relationship with her boss. If so....

I do agree one shouldn't tell these sorts of things before one is ready and it's too late in this case.

She should be prepared for how she will deal with it when Hank does confront her.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:32 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Once she told Stacy that ship sailed, telling her supervisor = telling the company. The fact that Stacy hasn't done anything with this information is amazing to me quite frankly. As an HR Manager, if I knew one of my managers knew their employee was leaving and didn't tell anyone for months I would have a stern talking to with that manager.

At this point making Stacy tell Hank is going to be way worse than just telling him herself.
posted by magnetsphere at 7:35 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Though I should say, I completely agree that barring contractual terms to the otherwise, 2 weeks is all decency requires--and is more than many employers would give a terminated employee. Friend just played her cards wrong.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:36 AM on April 17, 2013


Stacy is in an untenable position right now as a supervisor - her supervisee has effectively given notice (albeit with a large lead time), and it's her job to tell her boss, and to figure out what plans need to be made for her replacement. In this case as you point out, that may be a moot point, but that's not Martha's and probably not Stacy's decision to make.

Martha made a bad choice of who to tell, and unfortunately she's going to have to work with that. I think she needs to either tell Hank, or accept that it's Stacy's duty to do so - and my guess is it'll go better if she tells Hank herself, and can make a case directly that it's in everyone's best interest if she finishes out the season.

Stacy has no choice here except to get in a hell of a lot of trouble herself if she keeps her mouth shut. She's probably going to err on the side of doing the right thing for the company/boss she'll have an ongoing relationship with, versus the friendly employee who's half out the door already.

(This comment not driven by the fact that you made me spell my own name wrong several times in writing it and it HURT MY SOUL.)
posted by Stacey at 7:36 AM on April 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Could she tell Hank that she's looking for summer work in New City and ask if he'd be a reference? Wouldn't she be needing to find summer employment anyhow since she's seasonal...
posted by DoubleLune at 7:37 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


My guess is that Hank will not be as worked up about this as Stacy is. This is purely an intuition, but if Hank is a higher-up in an organization that probably has a lot of Martha's (or can hire another Martha without much strain), he would have little motivation to worry about this particular Martha, punish Martha for getting another job which starts in the future, etc.

Agreed that it would have been better to keep it completely secret for all the reasons mentioned above, and Stacy may feel legitimate strain about concealing something she knows.

Martha should just go straight to Hank and he'll probably say "Oh, all right then. Been nice working with you, Mary, and just file the papers with HR when the time comes."

My intuition is that Stacy is just reveling in the drama or feels personally let down in the way that small-time supervisors do sometimes when one of their minions is parted from them.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:38 AM on April 17, 2013


Maybe Hank approached Stacy about giving Martha a promotion or a raise. Maybe Hank told Stacy he intends to fire Martha's peer because "Martha can handle it all". Maybe Stacy already let it slip by accident, or didn't understand the confidentiality Martha expected.

Your friend has to do what she can to take control at this point. It sounds like she's put Stacy in a very awkward position.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:49 AM on April 17, 2013


DeusExMegana: She pulled rank and told Martha point-blank, "I am your supervisor, and sometime this week you MUST tell Hank you're leaving."

This may be because she knows Hank is going to ask her to clean out her desk on Friday.

Perhaps the best move at this point is to tell Stacey that the new job has fallen through or at least hint that it is no longer set in stone?
posted by Rock Steady at 7:50 AM on April 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


If Martha's planned resignation is effective on a certain date, and she is let go before that date, she should still be able to collect unemployment even though she had planned to quit. This may be state specific, but at least, if it happens that way, she should not assume that she can't collect unemployment.
posted by lmindful at 7:52 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


1) Martha put Stacey in a bad position when she told Stacey and not Hank. They are not friends, they are coworkers (first) who have a friendship (second). Martha disrespected Stacey's position, and is now dragging her feet, and refusing to sort Stacey out.

The reason being that Martha seems to be only thinking of herself in this situation, and not at all about Stacey. When Martha leaves, Stacey will still work there. If Hank finds out that Stacey knew something of relevance to his team (Martha is leaving) and did not tell him, then he may think there is a problem with Stacey.

So whilst Martha doesn't have a future at the company, Stacey is still going to go to the office on 1 June. She is obviously uncomfortable with the situation as it stands, and is asking Martha to sort it out. Which Martha is refusing to do. Thus, I ask, who is not being a good friend to whom?

2) I've been strongly encouraging her to stand her ground with her supervisor and insist she will tender her 2 weeks notice at the appropriate time.

The way to presumably do this is to say that her new offer is contingent upon a few more conditions, and she does not want to resign until the deal is done. That takes it out of her hands, and puts it on an external process – much harder to argue with. Stacey's point at the moment is you're not telling him because you don't want to and the best that could be would be to shift the conversation to I will tell the company as soon as it's official for me.

3) Martha is concerned that if she does this, she may lose a reference.

To Whom It May Concern,

Martha is an outstanding employee and I highly recommend her for a supportive and nurturing environment. She nearly understands her position in the hierarchy, and is in a good position to learn to treat her supervisors appropriately. With a bit of grooming, she can quickly arrive at the point of thinking strategically, and understanding the impact of her actions on both her fellow employees and the company.

posted by nickrussell at 7:59 AM on April 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


If Martha is seasonal anyway, it's doubtful they would replace her now just for a few more weeks before the summer season - so while the organization has let people go immediately in the past after resigning, I wouldn't necessarily assume that would happen here.

Also, to echo above comments - if they let her go immediately but pay her through her intended end-date, she's no worse off. If they let her go without such pay, she should be eligible for unemployment as they are effectively firing her. Giving advance notice of resignation does not somehow make it OK for them to let you go immediately without unemployment benefits still attached.
posted by trivia genius at 8:05 AM on April 17, 2013


though Stacy and Martha are functionally co-workers, Stacy is Martha's direct supervisor. This never comes into play in their day-to-day work, and they both report to a shared boss, who we can call Hank.

She told her boss she was leaving. The rest of what you've written is irrelevant and just points to Martha not understanding how office hierarchies work. Stacy's responsibility is to her team, her supervisor, and the company. Not to her direct reports.

They pay her roughly half of what everyone else in her department is paid, which is so little that she qualifies for food stamps (though she has never applied for assistance). She has to freelance in all of her spare time just to pay bills and any time she's ever requested a raise, she's been completely brick-walled.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the amount of notice she should give, and bringing it up may be adding a whole lot of baggage to a simple issue. By "ranting" about it you may be adding to your friend's misunderstanding of how professionals come and go from jobs without burning bridges.

I've been strongly encouraging her to stand her ground with her supervisor and insist she will tender her 2 weeks notice at the appropriate time. Martha is concerned that if she does this, she may lose a reference.

Martha is absolutely right and your advice to her is wrong. At this point she should apologize to her supervisor for inadvertently putting her in a difficult position, and speak to Hank about her plans.
posted by headnsouth at 8:30 AM on April 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


Martha told her direct supervisor that she's leaving on X date. That's notice. Stacey is acting the way you act when an employee gives notice.
posted by xingcat at 8:34 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


once employees tender their resignation, the organization can accept it at any time and kick out the employee early without having to pay out unemployment

If this is taking place in the US, I don't think this is true. My understanding is that if an employee tenders their resignation for a date, say, 2 months in the future, the employer can fire them at any point before then (and they draw unemployment), OR they can pay their wages for the rest of the time. Even for hourly workers, cutting their hours without outright firing them is cause for drawing unemployment. There's no special "I'm going to fire you but you can't draw unemployment" case because the person has said that they're quitting. But I'm not an employment lawyer.
posted by muddgirl at 8:35 AM on April 17, 2013


Thanks so much for all the great insight and advice everyone! I emailed the link to "Martha" and I think I may have forgotten a crucial point.

Here's how her supervisor got pulled into this: when Martha's husband was accepted to a graduate program in the new city (why they're moving), Martha squealed when she got the text from her husband (they've been on pins and needles for months regarding his acceptance status), and when Stacy (her officemate) inquired about it, Martha told her the news. Stacy got really excited and started planning for Martha, speculating on the kinds of jobs she could get in this new city and volunteering to help cover for her to Hank-- which she's done so far. She even helped Martha figure out how to sneak away for a Skype interview on her lunch break. That's why this new situation is so out of left field. Martha said she actually really regrets now that she even told Stacy about her husband's acceptance, and she keeps wishing she'd gotten the text when Stacy was out of the room.
posted by DeusExMegana at 8:44 AM on April 17, 2013


Martha should tell Stacey "You do what you have to do, but I have no intention of giving formal notice until it's a done deal and sure thing that I will be leaving two weeks after that point."

Boom, done, nothing more to be said.

The cat's out of the bag at this point but until such a time as Martha is ready to be the person who is making the decision that she will no longer be working there she should absolutely not provide a declaration of resignation.

As others say above, she's almost certainly an at-will employee and if the bosses want to show her the door they are free to do so now or after she gives notice. They may not WANT to do that because they don't want to be on the hook for unemployment claims, but tough shit - that's the reality of our economy and they have to live within it. Sometimes outlier situations occur where someone would have resigned on their own if you'd waited another week. So what?

This nonsense that Martha has somehow done something shit to Stacey is silly. Plenty of employers have had workers who they know were looking elsewhere. Sometimes they can't wait for the person to go, sometimes they're tragically bereft about it. Martha is not an indentured servant, she's not in a critical job role (not that such would change her obligations), she doesn't owe anyone a weekly temperature-check about how much longer she was going to keep this job.

Responsible employers conduct their business with an understanding that it's a business relationship and people come and go. They staff protectively, they respect their employees' needs and goals and work to do what's best for everyone... because that's the strategy that works best for them.

Martha's employers may not be responsible employers, but that's not her problem. She's not doing anything malicious, she's just living her life. Her employers are certainly going about theirs as well.

If Stacey can't respect Martha's right to choose her own path and blabs then Martha should, if confronted, say "Yes, there's a possibility I will not be back for next season because of other things in our life. When or if we have a firm decision I'll be sure to provide proper notice; I would never leave a job without providing two weeks notice for transition." Anything beyond that she should say "it's personal and up in the air and I'm not comfortable talking about it yet." Repeat as necessary.

If they fire her because of that, that's their lookout and likely their right in a right-to-work state. But she doesn't need to follow a script just because it's best for them any more than they're going to follow one that's best for her.
posted by phearlez at 8:53 AM on April 17, 2013 [7 favorites]


when Martha's husband was accepted to a graduate program in the new city (why they're moving), Martha squealed when she got the text from her husband (they've been on pins and needles for months regarding his acceptance status), and when Stacy (her officemate) inquired about it, Martha told her the news

In future Martha might want to do two things differently:

1. not take personal texts while with her supervisor
2. not share personal details but just say "I got some good news"

And you said in your OP that "she told one of her coworkers (let's call her Stacy) that this would be happening, mainly because she needed a reference from work. Totally legitimate reason to be telling someone you are leaving, so no need to backtrack or justify it. Just in future, understand that supervisors are obligated to put the needs of the company first.
posted by headnsouth at 8:58 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I may have forgotten a crucial point.

It's not crucial, it's just color. Stacy knows too much and is worried this will play out poorly for her. The result is still the same for Martha--Stacy is antsy and doesn't want to have inside knowledge when this comes out. Stacy will surely make it known to save herself the distress. Martha either needs to tell Hank the news or wait for Stacy to tell Hank. This is news better delivered by Martha than by Stacy, who already is in an uncomfortable position.

Again, it was poorly played by Martha, and now she has to make the best of alternative unappealing choices.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:30 AM on April 17, 2013


Well, this is one of the issues that comes into play in supervisory relationships - the supervisor has to be the boss first, friend second. A lot of times there is no conflict, but when there is, the boss role has to be first.
posted by elmay at 10:16 AM on April 17, 2013


If there is a chance of being "let go early" then I would not submit a formal resignation until 2-3 weeks before.

Stacey is not really "the boss" in this situation. so she can just suck it up. I really don't see that its much of her concern. And as for the "pulling rank act" that is total crap. I would just hold out for as long as possible.

Whats the worst that will happen - Suppose Stacey has already told the boss. So what. The boss can either wait for the formal resignation or the boss can ask Martha themselves. In which case Martha could say 'yes' I will be finishing up this semester.
posted by mary8nne at 10:47 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


If I could favorite phearlez a thousand million times I would!

"Stacey. I'm sorry you got the wrong impression. My plans are not firm yet and I won't give my resignation until and unless they are."

Stacey should butt out. Nothing has been put on paper, all she has are rumors.

Martha should phone consult a few employment lawyers in her jurisdiction. I have a difficult time believing she can be let go without pay or unemployment once she gives formal notice. That seems bonkers.

If it is the case that she can be fired, then Martha DEFINITELY needs legal advice on how to handle this. No, telling Stacey she's actively pursuing other opportunities does NOT constitute formal notice as far as I know, but again, lawyer!

Does Martha have a offer letter from new company? Does she really have a new job firmly lined up??

Thus far, this is not Stacey's business. Consult an attorney, but I think Martha can and should tell Stacey to drop it.
posted by jbenben at 10:51 AM on April 17, 2013 [8 favorites]


Wait, so Martha told her boss she was leaving in 2 months, and asked her not to tell her boss about it? Sorry, but if one of my employees put me in that position, my response would not be good.

Martha doesn't have to give formal resignation now. In fact, it would be better that she didn't. But she absolutely cannot expect Stacey to keep this to herself. She's basically asking Stacey to behave in an unprofessional manner which will be detrimental to her career.

If Martha wants a good reference, her best bet is to apologize to Stacey for putting her in that position, and tell Hank that she will be moving at the end of the fall. If Hank fires her, she'll get unemployment. If not, she can give formal resignation when the time comes.

In a similar situation, I was upfront from the minute I put in my grad school deposit. Everyone was happy for me, I helped train my replacement, and my old boss stayed a great reference. HR didn't get involved until they needed to be.
posted by snickerdoodle at 11:05 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


At this point I don't think Martha can backtrack to Stacy. Cleary in the future Martha will know to play her cards closer to the vest.

As for references...I laugh, I laugh out loud. NO ONE has ever called my references.

Now, Martha can go in and tell Hank, "I wanted to talk to you. I've already informed Stacy. My husband has been accepted to a grad school in X. So my plan is at the end of the season not to return in September. Nothing's firm yet, but when we get things on solid ground, I'll be giving my two weeks notice. What I'd like to do is set things up so that when the need for my position comes around again, that whomever is hired will have an easy time sliding into the groove. I'm thinking that in those last two weeks, after I've given my notice, that you, Stacy and I can develop a strategy for that."

Notice, Martha hasn't given her actual notice, just a heads up that that's what the plan is. If they let her go, she can deliver pizzas or temp until she and her husband move.

Martha needs to learn a couple of things:

1. Don't undervalue your worth.
2. Don't trust anyone at work to have your interests at heart. Only you do.
3. The job you have isn't the only job in the world. Always have a plan B, because you never know what will happen.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 11:48 AM on April 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


My gut is that Stacy knows something and that Martha's news is relevant, and so I think Martha should really press Stacy to understand what she's trying to say between the lines.

Or, what Ruthless Bunny said just above, a fine way of having it both ways.
posted by Capri at 11:50 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


As for references...I laugh, I laugh out loud. NO ONE has ever called my references.

I've had my references called and I've called references. Worst one I ever experiences, as a caller, was someone who implied the person in question was unreliable and did things half-assed. Last question I asked them was "So why did you keep her in your employment for five years?"

Anyone who calls references knows that sometimes you get a jackass. This is less common now than it was when I made that call 20 years ago - most businesses have gotten the hint that there's no value to them in risking legal hassles by saying anything other than verifiable facts. I can't remember the last job I held where we weren't told that we never did anything other than confirm employment dates.
posted by phearlez at 11:59 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Stacy feels like she is in a bad position because she has some information she thinks she is supposed to share with Hank right away. Stacy is also afraid it will be bad for her if Hank discovers she was sitting on this information and didn't tell him right away. I am betting this is the real source of Stacy's attitude about the whole thing. This is all understandable from Stacy's perspective.

Martha has some concern based on historical practice at this company that she will be dismissed from employment immediately if she tenders her notice several months in advance. This seems reasonable from Martha's perspective.


If I were Martha, I would be up-front with Stacy about this. Just say something like, "I am not willing to give my notice now for two reasons. First, at this moment I am not 100% sure that I want to resign my position. If I am not able to get a job in New City, I may have to stay behind in this job for a while until I can secure something in New City. Second, as we both have seen, in the past when someone has given notice, Company, Inc. has often dismissed them from employment practically immediately. I can't afford to have that happen to me, for the same reason I can't afford to leave this job until I have a job in New City. So all I can say right now is that my long-term plan is to move to New City, but I am not leaving this job until I have a new job there. When that happens, I will absolutely inform Hank of my plans. Until that happens, nothing is set in stone and I really don't have anything to tell him."

This may not be 100% true, strictly speaking, but it gives Stacy a reason to feel like she doesn't have solid information that Martha is leaving. Hopefully it will also take some pressure off Stacy feeling like she will be in trouble with Hank if he finds out, because she can always say that Martha told her nothing was set in stone and that she would inform Hank herself as soon as there was something to say.
posted by slkinsey at 12:10 PM on April 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Martha doesn't have to give formal resignation now. In fact, it would be better that she didn't. But she absolutely cannot expect Stacey to keep this to herself. She's basically asking Stacey to behave in an unprofessional manner which will be detrimental to her career.

This is a good point. Martha can always tell Stacy that she can share the information with Hank if she needs to, but that she will not be giving notice until such-and-such date. This way Stacy has her ass covered with Hank, but the company may be less likely to terminate her employment early since she has not actually given any notice.
posted by slkinsey at 12:24 PM on April 17, 2013


This seems like an annoying and sticky situation. I agree she should not have told Stacy, however the beans have been spilled on that point.

My main questions would be:

Does Martha even know what her last day would be? It seems she just had a month in mind.
How for-sure are these plans?
What are the employment laws for your state? Can you be fired without notice, can you be fired early for putting in resignation?
How easily can Martha be replaced?

All of these may determine what she should do. If Stacy is her supervisor, she doesn't seem that she is responsible for hiring or firing. If Martha is in a position that should need extra training and a replacement wouldn't be able to be found in 2 weeks, then maybe give a month, however the employer should be prepared to replace someone. For instance what if someone got sick? Or just flat out quit? The employer is responsible for that, not Martha.

I had a slightly similar situation. My husband was looking for a job out of state. I told my coworker (I was her supervisor) about it. When we had some leads I told my boss that we may be moving, and that I would tell him ASAP. I found out for sure 2 weeks before we had to move. That's then when I told my boss. In my case I was keeping my job, but I still didn't tell my boss until I really had to.

It seems Stacy would only have responsibility to the boss to let him know if Martha wasn't doing her job, not that she may leave. It doesn't seem that Martha would slack off just because she was moving. I would say, tell Martha to tell Stacy that her responsibility is to make sure that Martha does her job properly, and has no responsibility to pry into her personal plans that may involve moving, and that Martha will tell the boss when it becomes pertinent.
posted by Crystalinne at 2:27 PM on April 17, 2013


I'm pretty sure I'm Stacy. Thank you all for your comments. I really appreciate seeing both sides to the story. It may not seem like it, but I did spend a lot of time considering this situation and seeking advice.
posted by stacynotstacy at 7:06 PM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Most people that are "seasonal employees with summers off" are actually laid off at the end of the season, is that true in this case at all? If so, she doesn't have to give notice (although it is nice to give the boss the heads up on the last day that she won't return for a new contract).
posted by saucysault at 6:20 AM on April 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older An ill family member has asked...   |  My husband and I plan to repla... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.