The gist of any employment contract boils down to the rights, duties, and rules that both the employee and employer agree upon. And if something needs to be changed, both have to consent to it.
But there are a few things that can be done unilaterally, without needing the other party to agree to it, given that certain (often minimal) conditions are met. This includes, among other things, quitting.
However, some employers still try to play the objection! card and insist on refusing to satisfy the employee’s request to leave the company, despite all conditions being met.
One such story recently surfaced on Reddit, sparking reactions and discussions.
Quitting a job is something employers can't really do much about, but it never stops them from trying, even if it is just formally saying "no"
Image credits: Cytonn Photography (not the actual photo)
The story goes that this one Redditor tried to quit their job. The job is in a medical office, an entry level position, not licensed or the like. But instead of responses like “oh, that’s a shame, when are you thinking of leaving?” or “how come? Is it something we can help with and improve upon?”, they were hit with a “no.” Not in that specific wording, but definitely in the spirit of it.
OP shared a screenshot of the employer’s response following their formal resignation. The employer claimed that OP had actually agreed to stay with the company for a year starting back in March of 2022. OP was surprised to learn about this stipulation, and they agreed to no such thing, so they immediately got in touch with a friend who’s fluent in legalese for help.
A Redditor shared how their resignation was not accepted by the employer, implying they have to finish their 1-year commitment
Image credits: WorthlessFloor
The two read through every document OP signed and nothing stated that they had to work that particular period of time. The employer, however, noted that this stipulation was agreed upon during the interview, which OP confirmed vaguely remembering once being reminded, but then it does beg the question if this clause is so crucial, why wasn't it in the contract in the first place?
Regardless, OP came back saying that they won’t be able to stay until March because they got hired by another employer starting February. Given that they were an “employee at will” and had met the 4-weeks-prior notice requirement, their departure was inevitable at this point.
The employee provided a polite response, explaining how they don't really have to, let alone are obligated to meet the employer's demands
Image credits: WorthlessFloor
Image credits: WorthlessFloor
This did not stop the employer from pulling more tricks from up their sleeve, confirming that they are in fact correct about the whole at-will employee and there being no legal penalties part, but leaving without having stayed there for a year will “deem [them] as ineligible to be rehired” and it may also affect their future employment opportunities should anyone contact the company for a reference.
Bored Panda got in touch with OP, who provided more context and perspective on the issue:
“I don’t think them wanting to keep me on board had anything to do with me, in a way. The company has a high turnover rate. It’s an entry level position that’s intended as a stepping stone for people looking to get a higher education and job in the medical field.”
“That combined with the fact that they pay poorly, people obviously don’t like to stay very long. I imagine that my boss was just told they had to keep people on for at least a year and not given the freedom to make changes that would encourage people to want to stay.”
To top it all off, they were also named employee of the year, which in light of everything up to this was nothing but random, but they explained that these two streams of communication weren't related
Image credits: WorthlessFloor
Given all of this tension, it was surprising to see yet another, but final, update to this story. OP shared another screenshot of an email congratulating them for becoming employee of the year. This seems like a case of mixed signals, but OP clarified in our interview that these were two separate streams of communication, uncoordinated and hence not a deliberate attempt at keeping OP on board given the context.
“I think the employee of the year thing is genuine. That email skipped my boss and came straight from the CEO. It was given to 6 people across several states, and came with a bonus. It wouldn’t make sense to me if it was anything other than real, and my causing problems probably happened after it was decided and didn’t reach the CEO.”
Folks online were quick to point out the need to read the contract and generating a conversation on how to approach it
After all of this, the employer seems to have backed off on the matter. OP explained that there hasn’t been any more communication after the last congratulatory screenshot on Reddit, yet having received the schedule for February, they noticed that they weren’t on it. So, we can only assume the employer accepted it.
Image credit: Linux Journal (not the actual photo)
Now, the technicalities and legalities of whether employers have the right to deny someone resignation are not that well documented, but the general consensus seems to be not really, unless the contract states otherwise.
In most cases, employment is treated on an “at will” basis, meaning leave if you wish. There can be stipulations in place to make sure there’s proper notice and the work is done in full, but outside that, quitting is definite.
The question has been discussed in various ways and all of them were resolved one way or another with the employee and employer parting ways in the end without actual penalizing repercussions. But that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be aware of the clauses in the contract that may or may not make quitting difficult.
Image credits: Karolina Grabowska (not the actual photo)
And many commenters seconded that. In fact, so many people asked whether the contract details this one-year clause at all, pointing out other details and suggestions (including suggestions for malicious compliance) along the way that OP had to post an additional comment to clear some things up.
All three posts collectively have managed to garner over 120,000 upvotes with a dozen Reddit awards, and was even reposted in several locations.
OP did admit that they have some reservations following these posts, namely because of how much attention they got and how a part of the internet took it the wrong way, despite it being just people doing their jobs rather than actually being corporately evil about it all:
“My second Reddit post has been viewed over 14 million times, with thousands of comments, and that’s not including all the places it was reposted. My boss is around the same age as me. I think it’s hard to imagine they haven’t seen it. A lot of those comments are extremely rude. I understand why, there’s a lot of frustration with employment and bosses, but I just found the whole thing kind of humorous. I always imagined my boss as not much different from me, just trying to keep their job by doing what was asked. I don’t think a policy like this was their idea, and I hope they haven’t read the comments on my post from people who don’t know any better.”
But r/AntiWork is more than just a place for labor-themed catharsis. It’s also a place to generate a conversation and to make a difference. And every story is valid to make a change where change is overdue. In fact, you can start making a change right here and right now in the comment section below!