When you get fired they usually show you to the door immediately. And basically the state legislature wanted to fire him.
And even when an employee gives two weeks notice, it’s fairly standard practice that the employee will be escorted out immediately.
Either way (quit or fired), it’s kinda-sorta traditional to give the employee two additional weeks pay, although even that is increasingly going by the wayside.
If it’s voluntary, I’ve never heard of that. The whole point of giving advance notice is so that your employer can prepare for your absence, and in the meantime you can help with that, tie up loose ends, maybe train someone to temporarily take over some of your duties, etc. If the employer is going to escort you out the moment you give notice then there’s no point in giving notice; you might as well say “I quit” and walk out. The notice is supposed to be a professional courtesy to the employer.
If it’s involuntary, then of course you can’t give notice since you’re not calling the shots.
(And before anyone notes “it was just a joke”, remember I made that joke first so of course I get it. 
)
Yes, that is the point of notice - but some employers* prefer to have you gone rather than sticking around for your notice period. However, the difference between giving 2 weeks notice and being told you aren’t needed effective immediately and walking out is that if you give notice you normally get paid for your notice period even if you don’t work it.
- and it depends on the type of business, your actual job and possibly why you are leaving.
If he helped his brother get away with crime? I think people would definitely care, actually.
It can be happen in large companies where the employee has access to lots of critical infrastructure. Legal and HR want to proactively avoid any problems from a disgruntled employee corrupting databases, source code, server hardware, etc. The company still pays the person for their 2 weeks, but the person doesn’t have access to the office or company resources anymore. And in a large company, the transition time isn’t as important. Large companies are more likely to have processes documented and have several people with overlapping responsibilities. If someone is fired, walks out, or gets hit by a bus, the company will typically have someone who can step in and ramp up on whatever the person was working on.
It happens, sometimes, at banks where the employee is leaving for a competitor. If the employee is leaving for a client, typically they get to stay around.
I work in an organization that has a lot of access to market- and business-sensitive information. If someone in a position to access that information (particularly at senior levels) decides to go get a job somewhere where that information could be used in a damaging or unethical way, they can be asked to go on ‘garden leave’, where either they are basically getting paid to stay away long enough for any sensitive information they may know to no longer be sensitive, or they may have some minor administrative duties - usually from home - with all access to sensitive data blocked. At CEO level this can be 3-4 months.
It’s not relevant in Cuomo’s case as such, but it does happen.
No, if his brother gave him advice for how to handle PR. There’s no claim right now that Chris knew Andrew was guilty and told him specific lies to tell or anything like that…that would be interesting and indeed, a crime. That’s not where we are.
Is the purpose of that PR not to avoid being exposed from office, ie avoid the consequences of his crime?
I am not alleging he did anything illegal. I’m talking about my own perception of Chris, and the perception I am sure many Americans would share. And even though aiding the PR campaign of a governor accused of sexual assault with the goal of avoiding said governor’s removal from office is totally legal, it’s also pretty distasteful.
No. Because firstly there’s no evidence that Chris knew or thought Andrew was guilty.
And, more importantly, none of the advice included lying or accusing others of lying. So no, I wouldn’t call it avoiding the consequences.
I don’t doubt it.
Anyone on the right already thinks Chris is the devil, working as he does on the “Clinton news network”.
For the remainder of the American public, it’s kinda juicy to imagine both famous brothers involved in some way, and frankly, I don’t think they’re looking at this in a disinterested way.
I don’t think Chris has done anything wrong (that we know of so far), and he’s already apologized anyway, that should be it IMO.
I just don’t see how you could possibly know what advice was actually given (other than a questionable self-report).
I’ve said, several times, that I am responding to what we know happened right now.
If later it turns out Chris knew his brother was guilty and schemed with him to say some of the women were liars (AIUI none of Andrew’s statements have said that explicitly, though it could be said to be implied that the women at least misremembered), then sure, I’d be outraged.
I don’t get outraged about “What ifs”.
Although Chris works in media, I can’t imagine that he alone has some super secret, insider media knowledge that he shared with Andrew to get him off the hook. Pretty much any media consultant would be able to give the same advice that Chris did. Furthermore, whatever advice he gave him wasn’t sufficient for him to keep his job.
I would argue that outrage has nothing to do with the question at hand. What’s being discussed is simply whether or not Chris should have advised his brother.
And one element of that is the appearance of (im)propriety. I would say that journalists (and politicians) have a vested interest in trying not do anything that might appear improper. And I would argue that advising his brother on this particular situation can appear improper, even if it wasn’t some big news story.
The fact that he underplayed what he actually did—i.e. put a spin on it—makes that seem even more improper. Feeling the need to put spin on something suggests you knew what you did was improper, or you wouldn’t do it.
Ultimately, this is all about perception. Being a journalist of any kind requires the public’s trust. Or, at least, your audience’s trust, but you should want your audience to be the general public.
I’m not outraged, but I do think his actions in all of this were a misstep, and that it hurt his credibility a bit. However, I also think he will likely be okay and can build it back.
I’ve heard this, but it makes no sense. Let’s say I work for Coke and take a position at Pepsi, I am going to give my 2 weeks notice and use those two weeks to steal Coke data to transfer it to Pepsi! Bwahahahahaha!
But you cut me off at the pass and show me the door so I am unable to hatch my nefarious plan.
However, it seems that my move is to just not tell you I am taking the job and start stealing info right away. It seems like the only people you are “protecting yourself” against are those who are decent enough to give you a common professional courtesy and will do nothing at all to prevent the unethical people from stealing.
Well that’s certainly likely it also means that aren’t watching CNN anyway. So the people who side with a Democratic ideology are left with the the opinions of that party to guide them in their opinion of Chris’s actions related to Andrew. .Absent that, there is the fierce family loyalty that Chris espouses.
I think it’s more like: you know that your former employer is going to do something that will change the marketplace. Your new employer works in the same market, and will be impacted by these changes. If you tell your new employer about these upcoming plans, you’re being unethical, because you’re revealing confidential data from your old employer. But if you don’t tell your new employer that the market is about to change, you’re giving them advice that you know is bad, which is also unethical. Giving high level corporate officers a “cooling off” period between jobs avoids placing them in this sort of dilemma.
New York Assembly Democrats have announced that they will suspend impeachment proceedings against Cuomo upon his resignation. The stated reason being that they don’t believe the New York constitution gives them authority to impeach a Governor who is no longer in office. Interesting parallel to the second Trump impeachment, which Democrats proceeded with even though he had left office. I’m not familiar with the differences between the U.S. and NY constitutions that would lead to different conclusions regarding post-office impeachment.
I don’t follow your logic on this.
My point was that much of the right in the US is driven by tribal warfare “down with the libs” so will automatically assume the worst about Chris. They don’t need to actually watch CNN (indeed much of the demonization of the left requires that they not do so).
Meanwhile the left is split on this issue. I would argue split for bad reasons (ironically because of sensationalism – the very thing CNN often gets accused of; it’s more fun for both brothers to be part of the story), but regardless it’s clearly split.
I disagree; I think outrage is all there is here.
It’s already been conceded that giving advice is not illegal.
Unethical? Well, covering the story himself on CNN would certainly have beenn unethical, but giving generic PR advice?
IMO that’s not unethical, but even those that think it is, surely must admit it’s pretty small potatoes in the current climate. And he’s apologized. Why are we still talking about this?