Advice Needed

[Eaglesfan27]

Ok, I have a hypothetical situation that I'm wrestling with and was looking for some advice:


Suppose someone works for an employer that has come upon some difficult financial problems in the last year. As a result, a significant portion of the employees were laid off. Some of those that weren't laid off, decided to leave including 3 of the hypothetical person's friends. Being courteous and professional, they gave 8 weeks notice because that is considerate in their line of work. Almost immediately after giving notice, they were told they were having their salary cut in half for their final 8 weeks. One could argue the legality of that, but let's avoid that point for now as this hypothetical person isn't interested in what would probably be a lengthy legal battle.


Flash forward 6 months later. This hypothetical person has decided to leave his current employer because the financial problems do not appear to be sorting themselves out, and he has received a considerably better offer from another employer that meets his goals. This person wants to give 6 weeks notice because he is a professional who has an important relationship with his patients. That would be the minimal amount of time that he could give notice and inform all of his patients. However, if he gives 6 weeks notice, he faces the possibility that the aforementioned employer (assuming the previous pattern of behavior by the aforementioned employer holds true) will cut his salary in half immediately. This said person gets paid monthly and this cut would equate to a loss of almost 12,000 dollars in salary (hypothetically speaking) over the course of those 2 months. The other alternative is waiting until he gets one more check and only giving 4 weeks notice. Then, at most he would only lose 5-6 thousand dollars if his employer cuts his salary like they did with his friends in the past year. The downside is that this will lead to the hypothetical person only being able to tell a portion of his patients that he is leaving and therefore some of them will be rather surprised and it might possibly be a more difficult transition for them.

What do you think the hypothetical person should do?

[cartman]

Hypothetically speaking, it would appear that the patients are not the doctor's responsibility, but rather the employer's. The employer would like to induce guilt on the employee for "abandoning" the patients, but it is the actions of the employer that are harming the patients, not the actions of the doctor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What do you think the hypothetical person should do?

I think this hypothetical person has to be realistic about the situation and, unless the loss of $6k to $12k is insignificant, they are in the somewhat unfortunate but virtually unavoidable position of having to look after themselves more than they might want to.

Hypothetically speaking, the employer's history of cutting salaries upon notice creates a situation where future employees would be bordering on damned foolish to give more notice than absolutely necessary.

And, given the hypothetical circumstances under which something like this might happen, the hypothetical patients might not be as surprised as the hypothetical employee might think and/or they might be under more normal conditions.

[SirFozzie]

what he said. the hypothetical you have a duty to the patients in this case, but the employer had a responsibility not to pull bullshit like this

[thealmighty]

I call bullshit...

This is really about Bush and his cabinet shake-up, isn't it?

[Franklinnoble]

Bah. Submit your resignation and leave the same day. Write your patients a nice letter, and recommend that they come see you at your shiny new office. Professionalism be damned in this case... your employer obviously is all about screwing people over.

[Eaglesfan27]

There is no chance this hypothetical person would take his patients (except for the few private patients that he sees, but I doubt they would want to drive 60 miles.) This hypothetical person would be moving his primary job from one state run clinic to another state run clinic (but by very different administration.) State run clinics have very strict policies on where their patients have to live to receive services at a specific clinic.

The money is quite significant particularly since this person may have just recently bought a new house that he might be closing on soon.

[Franklinnoble]

Well, then this hypothetical person needs to take care of his family. I'd still send the patients a nice note - but don't leave yourself hanging with an employer that's gonna slash your salary in half for 6 weeks. That's B.S. They're practically begging you to leave without notice by doing that.

[BrianD]

I would see if the new employer would let you start right away should the need arise. Give your 6-week notice. If your current employer cuts your salary, walk immediately.

[Fonzie]

There is no chance this hypothetical person would take his patients (except for the few private patients that he sees, but I doubt they would want to drive 60 miles.) This hypothetical person would be moving his primary job from one state run clinic to another state run clinic (but by very different administration.) State run clinics have very strict policies on where their patients have to live to receive services at a specific clinic.

The money is quite significant particularly since this person may have just recently bought a new house that he might be closing on soon.

Might it, hypothetically, be possible for the employee in this case to give 6 weeks notice along with a warning of potential legal action if the feared salary slash occurs? If this is a state-run agency, fear of litigation/investigation might be enough to keep them in line.

If this does not seem likely, then I recommend waiting and giving just four weeks of hypothetical notice. The employer's previous behavior is creating this situation, and if the patients suffer he/she has only him/herself to blame. In the meantime, a letter could be sent to all of your...er...the hypothetical employee's patients informing them of the coming change so as to soften the blow for those who cannot be informed in person.

[yabanci]

...This person wants to give 6 weeks notice because he is a professional who has an important relationship with his patients. That would be the minimal amount of time that he could give notice and inform all of his patients...

In my view, this is the answer to the hypothetical question. Sometimes professional ethics require you to take a loss. Sad but true.

[Fonzie]

In my view, this is the answer to the hypothetical question. Sometimes professional ethics require you to take a loss. Sad but true.

I'm not sure that any professional ethical code would be violated in this situation. As long as the patients are informed of the change beforehand, and their needs are met by another member of the staff, there would be no harm done to the patients. It would be optimal to be able to inform them all in person, but I don't think it is a necessity. Phone calls or letters would be sufficient.

[Eaglesfan27]

While I agree with Fonzie that no professional ethical code would be violated, I also can't help but wonder if the hypothetical person would be violating a personal code of ethics based on their idea of what the professional code of ethics should be. I think Yabanci's post is quite on point in that regard and is really at the heart of why I'm struggling with this hypothetical dilemma.

However, it is true the patients in question would be taken care of by another doctor once the hypothetical person left, and no violation of the technicalities of professional ethics would occur at least as the professional ethical code stands now. I agree that it would be optimal to inform them all before hand in person, but if the hypothetical person couldn't do that, I'm sure he would write them all letters (quite a significant number have disconnected phones, or he would probably call them all.) Also, if the hypothetical person does give only 4 weeks notice, he would still be able to let about 2/3 of his patients know in person.

I doubt the threat of legal action would derail this organization as I'm quite positive this would not be the first time they were threatened with such a course of action, but they still didn't restore previous employees salaries after they gave notice.

[kcchief19]

In my view, this is the answer to the hypothetical question. Sometimes professional ethics require you to take a loss. Sad but true.
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I don't think that is an absolute. There are certainly times when ethics will require you to take a loss, but not in every situation.

In this case, I don't think the ethical break is the employee but the employer. This is a clear case to me of a company preying and exploiting the good conscience of the employee. I don't think that is something that necessarily requires a sacrifice.

If the company does take such an action, are the any hypothtical scenarios where the process of information patients can be expedited, such as through phone calls? Personally, once the employer made a move to cut my salary in half, I'd be out the door.

There are always people in the middle in these situations. Personally, I would think that if there are any hardships that the patients might expereince with a six- or eight-week notice, my guess would be that there is little impact the length of the notice makes; if eight weeks notice isn't enough, six months might not be enough either. Where does it end?

Hypothetically, if I had caregiver in the same situation who had a better opportunity and was being hosed by the employer, I'd be ticked at my caregiver if they didn't walk. I'm responsible for my own life.

If there was anyone to stick it to the company and take my business elsewhere, however, I'd absolutely do that.

[bosshogg23]

My wife works in the same profession as this similiar "hypothetical" person. In previous situations I have seen both 4 week(twice) and 8 week(once) notices given. In all 3 situations the person being replaced had their successor named within 7 days. In fact in the 8 week persons case, their replacement was out of work from their previous job for weeks to take their new job.

Cant say this is the norm, but this is what I have seen in my limited XP in the situations :)

[Mac Howard]

The hypothetical employee should inform his employer that he is willing to give 6 weeks notice in order that he can fulfill his obligations to his patients but that, if his employer intends to cut his salary in half as has happened in the past, he will leave immediately and write to the patients explaining why. The ball is then in the employer's court.

[bosshogg23]

Btw all the people in this "hypothetical" situation that I know have contracts and/or partnerships so details like these are clear cut.

[Eaglesfan27]

Btw all the people in this "hypothetical" situation that I know have contracts and/or partnerships so details like these are clear cut.

Yeah, the hypothetical people in this situation had contracts, but Katrina "invalidated" these contracts according to the hypothetical employer which gave them the power to cut the salaries..

[Eaglesfan27]

The hypothetical employee should inform his employer that he is willing to give 6 weeks notice in order that he can fulfill his obligations to his patients but that, if his employer intends to cut his salary in half as has happened in the past, he will leave immediately and write to the patients explaining why. The ball is then in the employer's court.

The downside to this is that the hypothetical person would have no salary for 6 weeks if the employer called his bluff. The new job cannot move up the start date because the hypothetical person was quite clear that he didn't want to start until a certain date (to serve out the end of his existing contract.)

[bosshogg23]

Im guessing this "hypothetical" person would wish to retain all quality in references and earn the most money possible. Seems clear that having 0 salary for 6 weeks isnt an option.

[Mac Howard]

The downside to this is that the hypothetical person would have no salary for 6 weeks if the employer called his bluff. The new job cannot move up the start date because the hypothetical person was quite clear that he didn't want to start until a certain date (to serve out the end of his existing contract.)

At which point I guess he says, "Ok, for the benefit of my patients I'll take the half salary" :)

Incidentally, is one argument of the employer that patients will be moved over to other doctors (or whatever) over that 6 weeks so that the hypothetical doctor (or whatever) will have a diminishing work load over that period?

[stevew]

Your friend should give the absolute minimum notice necessary. If the employer is likely to play hardball with the salary, I would think a notice of not more than 4 weeks would be sufficient. Perhaps your friend could put together a letter to his patients informing them of the move as a courtesy.

[Franklinnoble]

In my line of work, two weeks notice is considered customary. In nearly every job I've left, I've given this much notice (the only exception being an offer I received that didn't grant me enough time for two weeks notice - I gave only one week notice, and my boss was cool about it, because he understood that it was a good opportunity).

Anyhow, on one occassion, I had a job that I really hated. I knew I could make better money elsewhere and have to put up with less grief. I didn't actually have the job lined up - but I knew I could probably get it done in 2-4 weeks. I went ahead and gave my two weeks notice.

My boss was a jerk and told me to leave that same day. So, no two weeks pay that I'd been counting on. The lesson I learned: If your boss is a jerk, don't let professional courtesy get in the way of being able to pay the rent.

[Swaggs]

Has anyone else left the employer since the three other people left? Were they also penalized?

I agree with JiMG's post for the most part.

The only thing I might offer is that, when turning in your notice, that you phrase things somewhere along these lines: "I am willing to continue, under our current terms, for up to six weeks." That gives you an out if he decides to cut your salary.

[Grid Iron]

Give him 2 weeks notice.

Why should he get to profit at your expense?

[Eaglesfan27]

Give him 2 weeks notice.

Why should he get to profit at your expense?

4 weeks is the bare minimum according to the hypothetical person's contract. No one has left since those 3 colleagues did.

[gstelmack]

4 weeks is the bare minimum according to the hypothetical person's contract.

This the same hypothetical contract that the employer says was invalidated by Katrina?

In an ideal world, I'd give the 6 weeks notice (no strings attached), and if my employer cut my salary in half I'd walk out immediately. I wouldn't state that intention up front, as that's just asking them to show you the door, but I'd start off assuming everyone is going to be nice and civil about this and only play hardball once they decide to screw me over.

But your hypothetical situation has the employee boxed into a corner. Your hypothetical employee can't start the new job sooner than 6 weeks, wants to tell all the patients in person (which would take 6 weeks), and doesn't want to have zero salary for those 6 weeks. Given those parameters, your hypothetical employee is screwed and should just take their lumps. But if any of those can give, the hypothetical employee should let them give.

[Swaggs]

Doesn't the same contract guarantee a set income?

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, it is actually a lot harder to sue state agencies in general than it is private employers. States tend to exempt themsevles from a lot of their own laws. And a lot of federal laws are hard to apply to states for Federalism reasons.

And even if you sue the state and it loses--it still does not have to pay as a practical matter. With all of the Katrina related budget problems, no one is going to notice or care if a lawsuit or two is still "pending" payment.

Point is, I don't think that, hypothetically, one can play hardball here with the state agency. One has to accept them on their own terms, which is that they will probably cut the guy's salary as soon as he gives notice, and there ain't a thing he can do about it.

[Eaglesfan27]

FWIW, it is actually a lot harder to sue state agencies in general than it is private employers. States tend to exempt themsevles from a lot of their own laws. And a lot of federal laws are hard to apply to states for Federalism reasons.

And even if you sue the state and it loses--it still does not have to pay as a practical matter. With all of the Katrina related budget problems, no one is going to notice or care if a lawsuit or two is still "pending" payment.

Point is, I don't think that, hypothetically, one can play hardball here with the state agency. One has to accept them on their own terms, which is that they will probably cut the guy's salary as soon as he gives notice, and there ain't a thing he can do about it.


I completely agree with all of those points.

[Franklinnoble]

I like the "contract was invalidated by Katrina" argument. That door should swing both ways...

[Fighter of Foo]

I'm assuming there's no way for the hypothetical person to inform his patients and not his employer that he is planning on leaving?

[Desnudo]

If you boil down the issue, it comes to the question: What's more important to your hypothetical doctor, the salary or the treating the patients the way he/she feels they deserve to be treated?

I'm not trying to frame the question to imply that the patients should come first. Important can mean a number of different things depending on an individual's situation. Ultimately, I think the person has to act in their own best interests first, whatever those may be.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm assuming there's no way for the hypothetical person to inform his patients and not his employer that he is planning on leaving?

The problem with that is if the patients mention it to the other staff there (nurses, social workers, etc.) and they in turn mention it to a boss.

[Brillig]

The problem with that is if the patients mention it to the other staff there (nurses, social workers, etc.) and they in turn mention it to a boss.

Hypothetical Boss: I hear you're thinking of leaving us.

Hypothetical Employee: Yeah, I've heard that rumor too, it's strange how these things get started, isn't it?

Hypothetical Boss: So, you're not leaving?

Hypothetical Employee: Well, to be honest, I haven't been completely happy here, so I *have* been looking around some.

Hypothetical Boss: But you haven't accepted a position elsewhere?

Hypothetical Employee: Look, I try to comport myself in an ethical and professional fashion. If I had accepted another position, don't you think I would have given you the customary six weeks notice?

Hypothetical Boss: Hmm, yes, I suppose so.

Hypothetical Employee (thinking): Idiot.

Hypothetical Boss (thinking): Idiot.

End of Act I

Oh, and in the time frame where the hypothetical employee is notifying patients and not his boss, couldn't said employee simply give a strongly suggestive but not definitive statement along the lines of "I've been offered another position which I'm strongly considering taking, so this may be our last session, etc..."?