When their former colleagues found out what happened, didn't that cause them to think "I guess I'll give zero notice when I leave"? I would think this would be a net loss for most companies, due to the predictable effect it would have on subsequent departures/handoffs.
In general AFAIK they'll typically pay out the customary two week notice period but take away your physical and computer access. (By no means universal but plenty of examples in this thread of where it happens.)
If so, then no problem, right? My reading of the "two friends" anecdote was that it was somehow a problem that they were canned on the spot. If you take away my physical/remote access, I can't even be asked to help with handoff.
I agree. It's the company's decision not to have you help with handoff. Not your problem. In fact, all the more reason to give two weeks notice as you'd be paid for doing nothing. (If they were immediately fired with no payout, they'd probably actually be eligible for unemployment though that's irrelevant if they have another job lined up.)
I didn't take the same conclusion from the parent who didn't say anything about payments. In general, the norm would be to pay for two weeks--and maybe benefits to the end of the month. Someone can be terminated on the spot and still paid. (In general, they have to be paid out for accrued vacation time in any case.)
