When an employee hands in resignation, do you allow employee to work or do you send home immediately?

Case-by-case. It would depend on how sensitive their position is, their record with the bank, and the reason they're leaving. Less likely to send home immediately with a resignation than with an involuntary termination.

Agree with ComplyGuy, case-by-case.

The last bank I worked at would require you to leave immediately if you were leaving to work for another bank. When I turned in my two weeks notice I didn't tell them where I was going and they made me work it out.

It also depended on why you were leaving and if you had contact with customers.

Depends on your position. I know with my bank if you work in an IT position they escort out of the building immediately but still pay you for the two weeks.

Our Policy indicates 2 weeks notice requested and depending on the sensitivity of the position you may be releived early and paid for the remaining portion of the 2 weeks. We almost always will immediately let our commercial loan officers go and in some cases if an employee has access to sensitive info we may limit their access to it such as disabling their computer access while they work on getting things wrapped up the last few days.

Case by case here too. It would depend on why someone was leaving. If they're going to the competition, immediate dismissal (but with the two weeks pay). If they're just leaving to be free of the world of work, we'd probably try to get three weeks out of them

I've yet to resign from a job in banking that did not immediately expect me to pack up my desk and be escorted out of the building. This is the reason why most of us pack first then give notice.

Good point HRH Dawnie. I think employers are shooting themselves in the foot with this one. If I know you are going to escort me out the door when I resign and wanted to take specific information with me, I am going to do so BEFORE I resign. You are not stopping the problem. It is as if you are forcing deception.

HRH...I am curious. Why would you still pay two weeks salary if the employee resigns with 2 weeks notice, but the bank refused to accept the notice? Is that a bank policy or a state law in Alaska? Tennessee's labor laws are very business friendly, but I know somes states are not.

Thanks for the info.

I hasn't been a problem for us yet. If the employee gives two weeks notice and we let them work, they get paid. If the employee offers two weeks notice and we reject it, they leave. We do have some employees that simply quit. How employees typically handle this depends more on their job within the bank.

I simply hate seeing money wasted. In a time when margins are squeezed and banks are looking to fee income, I simply think gaurding the bottom line is a good policy.

Bank's in a competitive environment pay the 2 weeks. Word will get around and for highly competitive jobs like lenders you will be lower down the desirable list. In some markets banks COMPETE for certain categories of staff like lending, BSA, Compliance.

Kaybee makes an excellent point. I have another that may or may not hold water for most of the people here:

Believe it or not, there are concerns BESIDES the "bottom line", even in banking. There's morality. The standard two weeks' pay of which TNBanker would gladly deprive resigning employees is a lot less money to the bank than it is to the employee, and it's being withheld as punishment for . . . what, exactly? Either abiding by a bank policy demanding such notice, or considerately refusing to leave an employer in the lurch? These actions merit gratitude, not punishment.

Failure to pay for the notice a bank itself had demanded (and benefits from) is WRONG. Good people do not do such things, bottom line or not. Bad people do, if it's to their own advantage. The choice is really very simple. Not "how much money will your bank make," but "what kind of person do you want to be?"

I agree. The professional action is to give notice so that the employer can make other arrangements to fill the position to get work done. If the employer then does not act professionally, employees will then be "trained" to give no notice, perhaps take vacation and then come back and resign and start immediately at the new job. You reap what you sow. It is always best to do the right thing.

TN, I think Kaybee and anon answered for me pretty well. No it's not the law in Alaska, nor in Washington State, or Oregon, all of which I've worked in and received the same treatment.

One other thing to think about is that you'd be encouraging an employee to be deceptive if you didn't provide this. For instance, if a bonus or vacation or...well heck whatever were in the works during the two week period, I'd "not" give notice, even though I'd knowingly be leaving the bank because I would know that the bank would be planning on punishing me for leaving. I'd just wait out the two weeks, take the bonus and then give a fake two weeks notice, knowing I'd be leaving in a day. Silly stuff really if you value any of your employees.

For the person who worries that folks take stuff previous to the two weeks....actually that sounds like it makes sense, but it really does not happen. Think of my previous positions...Private Banker and commercial lender. I don't need to xerox my client files to know who my "good" clients are and who I'm going to prospect if I go. First of all, a reputable bank would fire you for bringing in proprietary information from the old bank if they saw it, and secondly, a good banker knows who to call and has adequate access to a phone book. There really isn't a need for anything else