UK Executive 'Forced Out of Job' For Posting CV Online 219
First time accepted submitter sweetpea86 writes "An executive who uploaded his CV to LinkedIn was forced to quit his job because he ticked a box stating he was interested in 'career opportunities'. John Flexman is demanding hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation from his former employer, gas exploration firm BG Group, where he earned £68,000 pounds a year as a Graduate and Development Manager. He is thought to be the first person in the UK to bring a case for constructive dismissal. The case highlights a grey area around employees' use of social networks such as LinkedIn. According to Kate Hodgkiss, Partner at law firm DLA Piper, employers have every right to seek to protect confidential company information by restricting LinkedIn and other profiles, but cannot prevent employees from looking for a new job. The news echoes a report in December that a Californian Twitter user was being sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs. PhoneDog launched legal proceedings against Noah Kravitz, seeking damages of $2.50 a month per follower for eight months."
Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I find a lot of things interesting.
The idea that such an interest could get me fired is very disconcerting.
Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Interesting)
Many salaried positions actually forbid you from engaging in other work without the company's permission. The idea is that if you are being paid salary, you are on the clock 24/7, so technically you shouldn't be working for anyone else.
(My employer has no such policy, fortunately. But my previous one did.)
Re:Over-reaching (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's pretty crappy. I'm not sure that's even legal when you're an hourly employee--the company doesn't "own" you on your off hours, so how can they give you grief for having another job (or three)?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's pretty crappy. I'm not sure that's even legal when you're an hourly employee--the company doesn't "own" you on your off hours, so how can they give you grief for having another job (or three)?
Of course they don't "own" you -- but they also don't "owe" you a job. Odds are that the new manager was either (a) trying to show he was in charge, in which case GP was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or (b) the new manager wanted to hire his girlfriend's son for the position and this was the excuse for making the opening.
Re: (Score:3)
A contract of employment between a low-level manager and a huge corporation like Office Depot? What color is the sky on your planet?
The only contract that exists between American companies and their workers is "Show up on time, do your work, don't complain, and we'll fire you anyway if we feel like it."
Re: (Score:2)
What you said is true, however there's a flip side to it: if you aren't putting in so many hours, and you work in an at-will state, the employer can simply terminate you.
So, while they can't legally require you to work n hours per week, if you consistently fail to do so they will just fire you. You can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all, as long as they don't say it's for one of the handful of forbidden reasons (race, gender, etc.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. The trifecta of "at-will employment", "right to work", and destruction of worker protection laws have been the means by which Republicans have pretty much destroyed the middle class in states where they've held control.
A good state to look at is Texas. The "Texas Unmiracle" [nytimes.com] is one of the greatest examples of the Greed Over People party's MO. Texas Republican politicians will lie to your face, especially with Rick Perry running for President, claiming they have a "great success story" in their state
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I'd heard about Texas, and what a joke their "economic boom" is. Leading the country in low-wage jobs is nothing to be proud of.
Really nothing I can argue with in what you said, either. Workers have so little protection in this country. Unions are vilified as little more than legalized Mafias, and people have bought into the lie that all you have to do to succeed is work hard, and when the government gets involved they just prevent you from being successful.
Maybe those people should go talk to the fol
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The trifecta of "at-will employment", "right to work", and destruction of worker protection laws have been the means by which Republicans have pretty much destroyed the middle class in states where they've held control.
As opposed to the mass destruction of jobs that the unions have caused in places like Detroit? How much has that city shrunk by?
The problem is there has to be balance -- where that balance should be is obviously open to debate but neither extreme is good long term.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a flip-side to salaried positions that employers rarely think about, and that's that they cannot require a certain number of hours from salaried employees. If you're salaried you can come in at 8 and leave at 8:15 without any reduction in your pay.
While true, they can however fire you...
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, ever read that one article about IT consulting sites monitoring employees via the webcam?
Ever meet a CEO dude? Your typical one is an arrogant, selfish, willing to jump over anybody kind of bastard. One thing I'm thankful for after working w a few is there's BIGGER things in life than money, and these people only care about that one small thing.
There is no limit to what they would do as long as they can legally get away w it, ethics are secondary to money in the ceo archetype.
The article's case sound
Executive's job search could be construed harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when Steve Jobs was doing nothing more than going on a medical leave, it adversely affected Apple's stock price. Of course the company is this case would have to PROVE that suffered or stood to suffer a loss.
Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf (Score:5, Informative)
Yahoo Finance - BG Group [yahoo.com]
Seems as though they would have a hard time proving that Mr. Flexman leaving has negatively impacted them. Sure there are additional considerations, including the obvious Streisand effect that could have led to this change, but it is obvious that they did not see a mass exodus or a decrease on brand confidence with their investors.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this makes it easier for them to state that having him there was a detriment to their company. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll go you a step further. He may have done this via a company computer, thus violating the company's AUP.
I think it's stupid, too, but that's the devil's advocate position.
Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know that much about UK Employment Law, but I'm on the receiving end of US Employment Law. Given that Noah Kravitz has a fairly competent lawyer, PhoneDog will get to pay for this waste of the Courts time. This is just harassment of an ex-employee by a corporation that has to pay for some large egos that are clueless about increasing revenues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know that much about UK Employment Law, but I'm on the receiving end of US Employment Law.
This is an area where there is substantial difference. The UK's rules are very much not "at will"; a dismissal that doesn't follow exactly the stated procedures for the company (which are constrained by law and have to be set out in writing ahead of time) will open up the way to an unfair dismissal claim (which is typically processed by tribunal in the UK, rather than normal courts). Would the claim be successful in this case? I've no idea at all, but UK companies don't dismiss without being very careful about it (unless the company's in Administration, the approximate equivalent of Chapter 11).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This claim should be successful. Normally in the UK dismissal requires a verbal warning, written warning, then your notice with time to correct the situation between. Skipping any of these steps requires "gross misconduct". Knowingly skipping safety rules that could lead to someone getting injured is gross misconduct, floating your CV on the net isn't. The appropriate guidelines are here [direct.gov.uk], and there's even a page about constructive dismissal (this wouldn't be the first case, it's probably the first involving
Re: (Score:3)
Except this is a *constructive* dismissal case - where you are forced to resign as your position has been made untenable, in otherwords the company has constructed it to effectively dismiss you
More difficult to prove, but if the details presented (that 21 other people, including the manager in charge of the disciplinary process, had also ticked the box, and there were no confidential details) are true, the guy shouldnt have a problem.
Re:Executive's job search could be construed harmf (Score:5, Informative)
In a company like BG on £68k/annum he's not an important executive. Having worked for them for several years (but not since 2002) I know from the pay/job title that he's upper middle management. Also when it comes to customers then BG isn't a typical corporation. They have a monopoly on the UK's gas/electric infrastructure although they do also work with other firms in projects for things like natural gas exploration. I'd be amazed if this isn't about managment cliques, he wasn't popular with one, they went digging for dirt, they found his profile, and they've tried to use that to shaft him. With any luck it's about to backfire quite spectacularly.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they are going to lose as its custom and practice to use linked in for networking and putting your CV on linked in is part of that process nowadays. And as he was a recruiter he could argue that that tick box was for people to contact him who might want to work for BG.
Will have to look out for that one on xperthr at work.
Re: (Score:2)
You know there is more to life than only the employers point of view.
Employment is a 2-way street for both parties. Good employees bend over backwards for their employers and realize that their own needs do not matter to the employer and that its needs need to be addressed. Likewise a good employer realized employees have lives outside of work and that good talent needs a reason to stay loyal and will treat him/her with respect.
When one party only cares for itself that is when you have problems. Employers g
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that argument is that he isn't being paid 'vital for the company' money. According to http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/ [itjobswatch.co.uk], that salary is about average for "Architect" / "Senior Developer" positions. The key being average. If this guy is so vital to the company, either in an executive or technical capacity, they need to be paying a _lot_ more. For example, the top 10% of "[Java] Architect" makes over £95,000/yr.
So I have a very hard time believing that he was some vital member of the co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> To play devil's advocate, the employer could claim that the very
> fact that an important executive was looking to leave could give
> the impression to outsiders that something bad was going on in
> the company and that could result in a loss to their business.
There's an old saying that everything is for sale. I am not trying to sell my house, but if someone walked up to me on the street and offered me $1,000,000 for it, the next words out of my mouth would be "Great! I'll tell my wife we're movi
Re: (Score:2)
Important executive? The guy was earning 68k as a graduate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually mine was checked but it was a hold over from before I had my current job. I don't know if it was on by default or not, but I definitely forgot to turn it off. Eventually I did after a week of getting recruiter calls and emails.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I agree. Why is it okay for employers to post a job listing, when they know they're going to remove you from your position, and yet it's not okay the other way around? Foul play.
You should be able to quit on the spot with whatever termination package you were entitled to in the first place or lay off status.
But that's not the question to ask. The question to ask is, if your employer posts a job listing for your job, are you allowed to quit? Unless your under a contract, the answer is yes. So, why should employees be allowed to terminate the relationship when employers post their job, but employers aren't allowed to terminate the relationship when an employee posts a resume?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CVs are not Resumes. They're far more detailed in the UK. Unless we know what his CV contained, we can't tell whether there was something considered confidential by the company. If he mentioned projects he'd worked on, where and what date, which is the kind of level a CV will contain, he could inadvertently be giving out information rival companies would love to have.
Using a recruitment agency would strip out certain items before forwarding on CVs.
Gas exploration sounds like he may have made a boo-boo, if h
Re: (Score:2)
Generally executives in the US are "made to quit." They aren't literally forced to quit, but it is made clear to them that they will be fired if they don't and that their golden parachute would only be there if they "quit."
As for the matter at hand, is the UK not at will employment typically? Around here they can fire employees for any reason or no reason provided that the reason isn't included on the short list of reasons that an employer isn't allowed to use. Posting a resume of that sort definitely would
Re: (Score:2)
As for the matter at hand, is the UK not at will employment typically?
No.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As for the matter at hand, is the UK not at will employment typically? Around here they can fire employees for any reason or no reason provided that the reason isn't included on the short list of reasons that an employer isn't allowed to use. Posting a resume of that sort definitely wouldn't be prohibited in the US.
This is the UK, but I have a hard time believing that it's that much different in this case than it is here.
No the UK is not 'at will' - in fact it is illegal, and will result in a significant payment if challenged at tribunal, if an employee is fired without a substantial reason. Firing someone usually requires a series of disciplinary actions, starting with verbal warnings, at least 1 written warning and a meeting with an HR rep to mediate the problem (the last one isn't required as not all places have an HR dept obviously - but it is considered to be a show of goodwill come tribunal time).
In the case of being
Re: (Score:2)
In practice the employer holds all the cards and there are tactics to force people out Poor performance and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Over-reaching (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you see your employer posted your position on a job site, you are free to terminate your employment, are you not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make sense - sure. Required - absolutely not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In general yes, but it really depends upon the cause. I walked off the job on a previous site because they weren't paying me all the money they were required to, that didn't hurt me at all finding more work.
Future employers worth working for are going to understand if the company wasn't issuing timely paychecks covering all the hours worked or if there were an excessive number of safety violations. OTOH, walking off the job just because you didn't feel like going any more is probably not going to be well lo
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, walking off the job just because you didn't feel like going any more is probably not going to be well looked upon.
I've done it and didn't have any issues ever. I just left it off the resume. I wasn't there that long anyway.
I walked off the job on a previous site because they weren't paying me all the money they were required to, that didn't hurt me at all finding more work.
In general, it's in your best interests to report that to the employment commission and continue to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know the details, and if his CV really did contain confidential info, the the employer was correct. If it did not, then I hope he wins the suit. Posting your resume/CV on a networking/career site is not a valid reason for dismissal (or creating a hostile environment such that the employee quits). If that is indeed what happened, make them pay dearly, both as a penalty to BG Group and as a precedent and caution to other employers.
On the Twitter thing (Score:3, Funny)
Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.
Well, its an interesting point there. Some will certainly move. Some won't for a variety of reasons, such as their no longer as interested in the person or topic, and never unfollowed. Some of the twitter accounts are probably abandoned. So there is value in the "inertia" of the existing account, despite the fact that a similar sized fanbase could probably be rebuilt.
If you think about it, if you you sell a professional practice (medical, law, or accounting for example), you sell the list of existing client
Company name was part of account name (Score:3)
Agreed - Unless the twitter account was under the name of the company. If it's under his personal name E.G "My name is bob, follow me on twitter as bob" shouldn't entitle a company to it.
In the case in question the guy was hired to do marketing stuff and the company name *was part* of the account. When the company name is "PhoneDog" and the twitter account is something like "PhoneDog_Bob" I think you can make an argument that the account was work related. Given the use of the company name in the account name I think in this case he should create a new personal account, announce it, and expect those only interested in him personally switch. Letting the company keep the old account.
Re: (Score:2)
In most of the US (the "at will" states), for salaried employees, the idea of "ON COMPANY TIME" simply doesn't exist in a meaningful way - As the flip side of 60 hour weeks, a company can't dock an exempt employee for not putting in X hours a week. They can fire us on a whim, but they can't tie compensation to actual hours worked (if they could, the entire weak excuse for calling an employee "exempt" in the firs
You never say you aren't interested (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a small network of friends and associates on LinkedIn, they know I am happy where I am at, but I always listen to new opportunities that's how I got where I am. Ususally I will pass on the info to someone else I know that's looking.
However if you never listen to opportunities, people never think of you as someone to talk to about them.
When the time comes that you need a job, your network has withered and you're stuck looking at official postings, half of which are already wired for a certain candidate but have to be announced for legal reasons.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know. I really wasn't expecting to find anything useful in this article. I was really hoping for a big of premium snark, maybe a flame war. But that right there is damned good advice and has kind of turned on a light bulb in my head. I didn't realize I was sabotaging myself in that manner, but it does make sense. Thanks for posting it.
They were stupid to state the cause (Score:4, Interesting)
they didnt Re:They were stupid to state the cause (Score:4, Insightful)
"Career Opportunities" (Score:4, Insightful)
Could have been within the company too.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what if they're fighting for the North?
Of course they're fighting for the north if they word it that way. Someone fighting for the south would say "enjoys reenacting the War of Northern Aggression"... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
What has North or South got to do with Roundheads vs. Cavaliers?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware the Sealed Knot were racist...
Oh, that Civil War!
Definitely not first case... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/09/uk-borders-constructive-dismissal-lawyers [guardian.co.uk]
Quite a prominent one as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the reason cases are so uncommon is because most companies know full well when they're in the wrong, and just settle the case.
People getting some kind of payout over a company accepting or being found guilty of constructive dismissal isn't as uncommon as the headline might make it seem with it's suggestion this is the first ever UK constructive dismissal case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's clearly a slip of the mind coupled with bad editing. The intention must have been to say that it's possibly the first constructive dismissal case related to Linked In.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my view, too. Constructive dismissal has existed as grounds to take your employer to a tribunal in the UK for years.
Betty Crocker (Score:4, Insightful)
sued for $340,000 by his former employer for taking his online followers with him when he switched jobs.
Then the company is too stupid to survive.
This is happened over and over with celebrity chefs. Smart companies create a fictitious character, then promote that, not a real person.
If you have to use a real person, get a multi-year agreement that specifies what you get in return for royalities. Yes, you will still have to keep paying them after they leave, but you can continue to use their image/persona.
FYI, CV==curriculum vitae (Score:4, Informative)
It's similar to a resume. (I had to google the acronym to figure out what this Slashdot topic was about.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're a teenager?
Not everyone has experience hiring or seeking jobs in international markets. In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV, in other parts of the world (e.g. the UK) it's the other way around. Plenty of people working and living in one market will not have heard or recognize the term used in the other. Particularly if they are not in management or HR.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're a teenager?
Not everyone has experience hiring or seeking jobs in international markets. In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV, in other parts of the world (e.g. the UK) it's the other way around. Plenty of people working and living in one market will not have heard or recognize the term used in the other. Particularly if they are not in management or HR.
Yup; I myself was wondering how one posts Constant Velocity joints on a website...
Re:FYI, CV==curriculum vitae (Score:4, Informative)
In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV
Actually, CV is used almost exclusively in academia in the U.S. If you apply for a serious academic position, they will ask for a CV, not a resume. They're actually different things, with different formatting. Having worked in both private industry and academia, I have both. For example, my CV has sections for things like academic articles and papers that you won't find on my resume.
During work hours (Score:2)
My .02 (Score:2)
Employer motivation for firing "job seekers"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I, like many people, treat the "you could get fired if your boss thinks you're looking for another job" as kind of axiomatic, but what's the employer motivation for this?
I'll exclude poor performance, where the employee basically comes in and does nothing but use the company PC to create resumes and cover letters, faxes them with the company fax machine and then goes home, his current job's work undone, mainly because that's being fired for poor performance, the cause of the poor performance is immaterial.
"Because I have to hire a new employee" -- OK, you just *fired* your current employee, you're going to hire someone else anyway, and with zero cooperation from the existing employee who is now job hunting AND doing it while enjoying unemployment benefits because "looking for a job" isn't termination for cause.
"I don't want them to take my secrets/customers" -- the good ones already have your secrets, customer lists, etc. Firing them now gives them moral justification to utilize these in their new job.
I'm lost on where it benefits the employer other than vague claims of weak performance (working well enough not to be reprimanded but not at peak output) or nearly unmeasurable claims of impacting morale.
About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Employers who treat employees like shit want to keep them in line. THey do not want to train someone else or have you leave before they can find someone else to do your job.
Also since the economy is recovering you are getting mroe and more bargaining power month by month to demand higher wages and better working conditions. Same is true with replacements. If you had to take a job in 2009 for 40% less than your networth it means your employer has to pay market wages for your replacement when you leave. That
Re: (Score:2)
Strong advocates of at-will employment might feel that such policies can saddle companies unnecessarily with incompetent workers. This is a non-issue, however, since poor performance *is* considered a perfectly just cause for termination, as long as the applicable paperwork has been done to confirm this is actually the case
Re: (Score:2)
About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.
The purpose of this behavior is to prevent other employees who might be considering leaving from even starting to look, because to do so risks their current job. It's in a high-value employee's interest to keep their ears open for better positions at all times. It's in employer's interest to keep the high-value employee thinking that their options are continuing to work for the employer without making a fuss, or long-term unemployment.
This is much easier to pull off in a recession.
Re: (Score:2)
Well once someone leaves and brags about finding another job was sooo easy now that the great recession is over and how they can get more money, the other employees will jump ship too. You can't hold onto this forever once the dam breaks so to speak.
The UK is entering into recession now, but the US is going out finally as employers are adding new jobs. When the boom times were here in 1999 we ripped off our employers by demanding $100,000 a year to write code, DBAing various database projects, and calling i
I don't like LinkedIn (Score:2, Funny)
I have never gotten any pussy off that website, so I classify it is totally useless.
More information (Score:3)
Perhaps he was sleeping with the boss's wife. Perhaps he's an obnoxious, abrasive prat. The fact that he's suing (instead of just moving on) suggests as much.
The lawsuit eventuated because they used an inappropriate dialog in getting rid of him. Ironically, if he had just taken it on the chin and moved on, his career would not have been significantly impacted. The fact that he is suing has ended his career.
Karma's a bitch like that sometimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternate scenario:
1. Relative newcomer Smith is outperforming accomplished schmoozer Jones significantly and consistently.
2. Jones doesn't want Smith around because Smith is making him look bad.
3. Jones does some searches on Smith, finds the profile.
4. Jones goes to the mutual boss of Smith and Jones, and shows the boss Smith's profile. Jones draws on his past schmoozing success
5. Boss sacks Smith. The threat to Jones is eliminated.
Smith finds out why he was sacked.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not just cause. Way I see it, promote him and let him sleep with the wife.
The employee is usually younger than the boss. Younger people might perform better sex. Better sex = Happy wife = Happy marriage = No divorce.
So if the employee is sleeping with the wife, forget his inability to work. The boss should remind himself that divorces are costly and this employee is saving him 50% of his life earnings! That is a great employee!!!!
The ironing is delicious (Score:4, Informative)
For The Americans (Score:4, Informative)
A 'CV' is what the British call their resumes
HTH
Bad management (Score:4, Insightful)
It strikes me as a very stupid way to handle the situation on the part of the company.
Firstly, an ambitious employee can most definitely be an asset to a company, if they are celver enough to keep him/her.
Secondly, if the employee was actually unhappy with the job, perhaps the company should see this as an opportunity to address the problem. If one employee is disgruntled, it is quite likely that there are others; dissatisfaction leads to low morale, which leads to poor results - this sort of thing is too important to ignore.
Thirdly, if an employee genuinely wants to leave, the company could do worse than to help him in a positive way; if an employee leaves with a good feeling, he will remember that in a new job and may even send business back to his previous employer.
UK is different than US (Score:3)
Most posters here don't seem to understand how very different the UK is from the US with regards to employment law.
An employer cannot fire me if they find out I am looking for other roles. They cannot take any punitive action. The absolute worst they can do is stop promoting me or giving me increases.
At my level (senior tech / lower management) I actually inform my line manager when I start to look for a new role and when I go for interviews. This results in an adult, respectful and largely healthy transition. It avoids all the skullduggery I see from my US colleagues and is actually better for the team I leave behind as people can plan accordingly.
Most people I've worked with in Europe find the idea of the at-will state to be abusive and would never support something like that in their region.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...he only made 68K (in pounds, so in dollars it's something like 130K).
Actually, it's just over $105K.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "UK" in the title didn't you understand? EU legislation on employment contracts is rather different to anything you'll find in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the UK, you are entitled to leave your job anytime you wish as well. Anything else is slavery, which hasn't been recognized as legal in the UK for well over 400 years (in some parts, as much as 900 years).
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Resigningorretiring/DG_175837 [direct.gov.uk]
Notice you must give your employer
If you have worked for your employer for one month or more, the legal minimum amount of notice you must give is one week.
(Unless there are special circumstances, e.g. job is dangerous.)
Re: (Score:2)
The page you link to describes what employees *ought* to do... not what they are legally required to do.
Quitting without notice may constitute breach of contract, depending on the job... but without the contract, you cannot legally be forced to continue to work for somebody against your will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are (incorrectly) assuming that ticking any of those boxes on LinkedIn actually means something for people. Basically, I always have all of them ticked, regardless of what I'm looking for: just send me the mails, I can decide for myself what I want to do with them thank-you-very-much. Because even when *I* am not looking, someone I know in my circle of friends may be looking for something just like it.
What is an executive? (Score:2)
I think "executives" should be held up to a higher standard of values then "regular" employees. An executive that advertises they are looking for work is showing no commitment or respect for his/her current employer. An executive is paid a lot of money to run a company and keep it successful and to keep moral high, if they are unable to recognize the error of looking for job opportunities online, the effect it has on the moral of the company, then it is not acceptable for them to maintain an executive position, period.
Had this been an article about a regular Joe employee being fired for posting a CV online then I would be outraged, but an executive should be more discreet in searching for new work as they are getting paid a lot of money to protect the interests of the company that is employing them.
Although the article refereed to Mr Flexman as an "executive", he was not the CEO. He wasn't even a VP. His title was "Graduate and Development Manager". This puts him in a gray area. He was not a "keyboard jocky" he wasn't the identifiable face of the corporation, either. Your assertion that the top levels should be held to a higher standard is valid but I don't "executive" is the grade anyway. The distinction should be made at "officer". Officers already have different legal obligations that regul
Re: (Score:2)
This guy does not appear to be an "executive" under any reasonable definition of the word. He was fairly high in middle management.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He wasn't fired. If he was he'd be entitled to compensation.
He was disciplined for mentioning that he'd be interested in other jobs. He has the right to be interested in other jobs. As a result he felt he was forced to leave. The law on constructive dismissal prevents companies from forcing people to leave.