|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Letting people go from jobs
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I've heard 2 such stories like this in as many days.
I'm led to understand that current "human resources™ best practices™ when downsizing, firing for no performance-related reasons are to surprise people with a pretend meeting, and to have a "human resources professional™" tell them they gotta go, take their keys and ID badge etc, and then have a security guard escort them to their office where they're met with a cardboard box in which to put their coffee mug. Then escorted to the parking lot and watched drive away.
Since when is such nastiness required? And how is it a "best practice". Who makes up this nonsense? And since when did 'human resources' become a profession?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I suspect it's because a few individuals have "gone postal" and taken out their anger on co workers or management. this way, they are unaware until it's happened, and escorted after. Which I do understand having worked with a psycho (no, seriously, she was very likely a psychopath) who was, finally, let go. She was scary, and it made sense to do it this way for her.
However, this does NOT make sense for the vast majority of situations. it's not even remotely sensitive to the employee in question. most people are not potential threats, and treating everyone as if they are is, in my mind, heartless. The argument no doubt is better safe than sorry, but I'd risk the remote possibility of a fired co working going crazy if it meant that everyone else it treated with sensitivity in these situations.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
And since when did 'human resources' become a profession?
I think this is another difference between a big company and a small business. If your company has hundreds of workers, it makes sense to hire someone whose full-time job is managing insurance, severance or unemployment benefits, and workers compensation benefits. I work for a small company, and I have recently had to take a bigger roll in procuring health insurance. It isn't my specialty, and I don't get to bill for those hours. So at some point, it makes sense to hire someone to do all of it for you rather than spending time that you could be doing your actual job working through it. I know, N.P., that you are familiar with the small business model, and probably do most of this stuff yourself, but it doesn't fit every company.
My entire experience with the kind of firing you are describing comes from the film "Up in the Air." While I think it is a huge cop-out to outsource your firing, at least the person getting laid off gets to talk to someone who can actually get them started on claiming severance or unemployment. (At the one job I have had where the company was big enough to need an HR department, your manager still did the firing.)
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This practice isn't uncommon.
In my experience, though - and it's happened to me but in a less dramatic way - the surprise meeting is with the boss or line-manager rather than with an HR operative.
Admittedly, in my case it wasn't the case of escorting me off the premises and so on. I was given time to sort out a few things and also to explain to my team what was going on. I suspect this was because I was trusted not to dump on the desks or queer anyone's pitch. There was an HR person there though, just in case I misbehaved.
I went graciously as it happened because I needed the redundancy money and the references.
Looking back, I could have cut up rough and got a tribunal involved and so on but I just didn't have the fight in me for various reasons and simply wanted to get away, lick my wounds and start all over again.
As for HR or what used to be called 'personnel' - this has always been their role. They are the 'smiling assassins'.
If I made any mistakes back then it was assuming that their role was wider and more pastoral than that. It bloody well isn't.
I wouldn't pay most HR staff in washers. In and amongst, you do find some decent ones but ultimately they are there to save money, cut costs and protect the interests of their employer.
Which means that if they need to cut your balls off to do that, this is exactly what they'll do.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It happened to me. "Frog-marched" is the term often used. I was terminated at 10AM in the morning; the day at that company started at 6AM. Shocked everyone who knew me at the company.
I asked for reasons; none were given. "Failure to meet requirements" with no further explanation. There was a lot going on at that company that stank.
I was sorry to lose me job, but I am not sorry I don't work there any more.
It was a pure exercise of power, raw and unadulterated. Red in tooth and claw. Never forget the world is like that. Some people have this cosy, legalistic, institutionalist view of employment. Yeah right. The real world isn't like that.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
This isn't new. Someone told me with a straight face some years ago that it was kinder to wait until last thing on Friday and then give the ex-employee pay in lieu of notice, so that they had the weekend to 'get over it' and the notice time to find another job, than to make them work notice. Of course, the company would benefit too, as the employee couldn't sabotage anything or cause ripples of discontent, and those responsible didn't have to see them any more (it could be that a trace of guilt might surface?).
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think the *offer* of pay in lieu of part, or all, notice might be helpful in some cases.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
I wish you wouldn't use the phrase, "Letting go" as though they were doing you a favour. "Laid off" is bad enough, though one friend just calls it getting laid. The main reason these days for being shown the door immediately is to avoid the risk of the victim doing damage to the organisation's IT system.
There was a time when it could be done humanely, as when one of my employers gave an individual six months to find another job. He wasn't incompetent; just very difficult to work with in an environment that called for a lot of give and take in small engineering teams. When it was my turn a few years later, it was because I had committed the offence of being one of the more highly paid staff, and as that was more important than experience, it soon became much easier to find a parking spot early in the morning.
It was nice to be called at home a few days later with a plea for the password to a document that contained some sensitive information. It was "buggeroff".
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
This isn't new. Someone told me with a straight face some years ago that it was kinder to wait until last thing on Friday and then give the ex-employee pay in lieu of notice, so that they had the weekend to 'get over it' and the notice time to find another job, than to make them work notice. Of course, the company would benefit too, as the employee couldn't sabotage anything or cause ripples of discontent, and those responsible didn't have to see them any more (it could be that a trace of guilt might surface?).
It's the idea that the employee might sabotage that troubles me. Are we all really that vile? Are companies really so secretive about things that people won't kind of know something's up? I guess so. Do people make a scene and 'go postal'? I suppose it occasionally happens. Are bosses and managers too lacking in backbone and integrity and respect to meet face-to-face with those being downsized/fired? Probably far too often.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
I don't suppose many employees would have the knowledge to do much sabotage. However they can probably get hold of customer lists etc which a rival/new employer would value.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I've worked in a lot of companies where the developers had a peaceful parting but the Sales guys were marched out. They didn't want them taking the customers with them leading to fights over rolodexes.
Now in larger companies everyone is marched out that way in a layoff. There are examples of people who change system passwords and other things that can really damage a company.
The main thing they want to do in a layoff is to get you out of there so you don't poison the morale of the remaining employees. I've been in situations where they hold two meetings. One is the laid off people and one is the remainder. A boyfriend of mine went through that "two lists" massive layoff once on a Friday. On Monday they figured out that they had actually laid off the wrong list and there were some interesting "Just kidding" phone calls.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I've been through one restructuring Friday. Those who got the Black Spot (envelope left on their desk, as I recall) had no great wish to hang around with those of us who would still have a job come Monday.
I was laid off individually once - it was nothing personal, just a last in/first out and I was in a print union back in the days of hot metal, so the severance was excellent. Since then I've been through the other popular method, where they change your job until such time as you decide rat-wrangling in an Iraqi sewer is an attractive alternative employment.
[ 25. November 2013, 20:41: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
It's long been the norm for small firms in cut-throat businesses where staff realistically can't expect much. It's one downside of working for a small employer; there are also benefits. Sadly it's becoming commonplace in amongst larger employers who are capable of treating staff better. I've lost two jobs, being frogmarched off the premises in one case and getting three months' notice from the other. In other workplaces I've seen colleagues experience both extremes, and I know which engenders greater loyalty and respect for the employer amongst those of us remaining.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I don't suppose many employees would have the knowledge to do much sabotage.
I've seen it happen where a terminated employee would delete whole directories of crucial files before logging off for the last time. To get around that, I've also seen situations where disabling the employee's login was coordinated with the delivery of the bad news.
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
I've lost two jobs, being frogmarched off the premises in one case and getting three months' notice from the other . . . and I know which engenders greater loyalty and respect.
I had a part-time job in retirement from which I was let go one morning before Christmas without any notice or warning (they had decided to outsource my duties to a third-party vendor). I was allowed the dignity of disabling my own account and leaving without an escort, but I can assure you I feel no loyalty or respect for the company. To certain individual employees, yes, but to the company, no.
My only consolation was that I had already decided to quit early in the new year but had not yet told them.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
But sometimes employees do get their own back against the unrighteous.
Someone I know was being sacrificed by the ultimate boss to "teach the department a lesson". Having got the measure of the arch-shit who was playing politics, they used the time between the meeting being proposed and it taking place to (a) find out the legals and (b) get the ducks in line.
Awkward interview with arch-shit duly takes place - on a Friday when the sacrificial lamb was (a) meant to be in charge of the department, and (b) ahead of a week when they would be the most senior person for the duration.
Arch-shit decided to start meeting late: went through spiel, finishing with line about how it would look better if it appeared to be "voluntary" and that a time 3 months hence would suit him and the organisation.
Sacrificial lamb gobsmacked him by agreeing to go but, after looking at watch, suggesting 20 minutes was more convenient for them. Legally they were in the right and the arch-shit's long-term career plans never recovered.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I have had to do this.
It is not pleasant.
I have been the CEO of a company when we had to make staff redundant. That is the basic, no-frills way of putting it.
Not downsizing or "letting go" but making redundant.
If I hadn't have done that the entire company would have been at risk.
What were my options? I had to get rid of three staff, or I had to declare the company bankrupt and get rid of fifteen.
I picked the youngest but best qualified. They were expensve and two had families. But they were good people. They all went into new jobs within three months.
You can moan, whinge and bitch as much as you like, but until you have worn the shoe on the other foot and had to take responsiblity for the many not the few I will take your opinions with a very large pinch of salt.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've heard 2 such stories like this in as many days.
I'm led to understand that current "human resources™ best practices™ when downsizing, firing for no performance-related reasons are to surprise people with a pretend meeting, and to have a "human resources professional™" tell them they gotta go, take their keys and ID badge etc, and then have a security guard escort them to their office where they're met with a cardboard box in which to put their coffee mug. Then escorted to the parking lot and watched drive away.
Since when is such nastiness required? And how is it a "best practice". Who makes up this nonsense? And since when did 'human resources' become a profession?
First of all, its a meeting, not a pretend one. Nobody says, "Hey, Bill, can you come in here, please? I want to fire you."
That practice, of a sort, has been standard for over 20 years (except its never just one person and usually involves a direct supervisor). The practice is driven by labour law, not HR. And having been on both ends of that situation, I think its a darn good idea.
The employer is not legally allowed to humiliate the worker in front of their co-workers. So, they can't be fired in front of workers, nor should they be marched with a security person to the desk (that really should be a supervisor).
As for the frog march, its all about protection. Like it or not, there are people who will sabotage if given a chance. Protect people from doing themselves and others harm. This also protects your current work staff from having to explain how they react with the person being fired.
I'm not saying how people are being fired is always done well.
But, there is no good way to do it.
My advice to others was to focus on saying only what needed to be said, and say as little as possible beyond that. Never ever say, "Well this is one of the toughest parts of the job." Nobody cares how you as a manager feel at this time. You made the call to let somebody go - live with it.
As for HR being a profession, its a job. And, most HR professionals (and if you ask HR professionals, they call everybody a professional so its not like they are discriminating in their own favour) will tell you the job is more about protecting the company from a lawsuit then anything else.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
This isn't new. Someone told me with a straight face some years ago that it was kinder to wait until last thing on Friday and then give the ex-employee pay in lieu of notice, so that they had the weekend to 'get over it' and the notice time to find another job, than to make them work notice. ...
Personally, I always preferred letting somebody go on a Tuesday. Once the paper work is done, and the person is leaving, its my job as a supervisor to get everybody else through the shock. If I can let that person go on a day most advantageous to that, I will. That day, for me, is always a Tuesday.
On Tuesday, more staff are present to get the news about somebody leaving, and most of them are working as hard as they do all week. (I've seen numerous factoids that Tuesday is the most productive day of the week). The other aspect to that is people have to come into work the next day. No time to stew and here the bad news from the mouth of the person being let go.
My job as a supervisor is to provide the best atmosphere for my staff to succeed in.
If that means letting a person go on the day I prefer, so be it.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
I don't suppose many employees would have the knowledge to do much sabotage.
It's not just IT people who can sabotage a company. Anyone could do it if they were feeling vindictive enough. We were the (innocent) victims of a disgruntled British Gas employee once. He came to tell us what we needed to do to our fireplace to get it ready for our new gas fire to be installed. When the installation crew turned up a few weeks later it turned out that he'd given us the wrong measurements for the hole and also failed to tell us some other important information. So the installation crew had to go away again without doing the job, we had to go through the rigmarole of getting the work on the fireplace done again and spent an extra month (IN WINTER) without a fire in our living room.
It turned out that this guy had been working out his notice and had done the same to all the customers he'd visited before he left. It must have been very expensive for British Gas; not only in lost goodwill, but they paid us back for the extra building materials we needed and I expect they paid everyone else some compensation as well.
I bet they wish they'd just given him a month's pay and escorted him to the door.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
I think the phrase "letting someone go" sounds such a weasel words phrase. It has the implication of passivity on the part of the employer, that they were just letting the person do what they really wanted to do, to leave. But actually it is the employer who is active in this situation, they are the ones who sack, dismiss or make redundant. The employee doesn't have a choice!
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
And since when did 'human resources' become a profession?
Since the time that human resources represented the biggest capital investment of a company.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As it happens, I have some sympathy with Deano - I'm not that 'what-about-the-workers' and appreciate that there are tough decisions to be made sometimes and I don't envy him for having to make those kind of decisions and I don't doubt he acted with integrity.
That's not the issue here. The issue is the way that these things are done and handled. There is no easy way but sometimes organisations - of all kinds - handle them poorly.
In some ways the private sector is kinder as it's a quick cut and then move on. I have a friend who works as a counsellor and plenty of her clients are teachers and other public sector workers who are being given an atrocious time at work by employers who want to get rid of them.
Because the mechanisms aren't in place to do that cleanly and efficiently their employers either try to bully them out or make their lives such a misery that they move on.
In all honesty, whilst I felt raw at what happened to me I can't really complain that much as it was at least humane ... they didn't keep me dangling for ages and ages or try to saw my leg off slowly with a spoon.
So, yes, I do have some sympathy with Deano but I still don't like his attitude to the rest of us who he clearly takes to be mewling lefties.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Anecdotally, I was once interviewed for an interim management job in a large public sector organisation where it was made clear at the interview that they were expecting me to make cuts and redundancies before moving in - so that they could then blame the interim manager for the unpleasant decisions and remain squeaky clean themselves.
I didn't get the job - which was a merciful relief. A few weeks later I heard that the HR person on the interview panel - who was on an interim contract themselves - had been 'let go'.
Much as it sticks in my craw to say so, I'd prefer Deano's honest Tory 'devil take the hindmost' approach to the mealy-mouthed and underhand way that these things are sometimes done in the public sector. At least in the private sector you know what you're dealing with for the most part.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
This might well depend on the country. I can't see from no prophet's profile where they are from. What (s)he describes sounds rather like the American model depicted in the film Up in the Air.
In the UK, one must at least be seen to have a good reason for terminating someone's employment. If anyone is fired, let go, etc. without a good reason then the (ex) employee may have a case for unfair dismissal. If the reasons are legitimate, but process which was followed was not proper, then there may be a case for wrongful dismissal.
Of course, there are ways around this. Shortly after joining a company, I noticed there were millions being paid to 3rd parties that had no clear business purposes. Money paid into investments was disappearing and though some questions were asked, they were not being followed up seriously. When I questioned management on this, they made things deliberately difficult for me and then decided that I had not passed my probationary period. A meeting was called for 4:30pm which then got pushed back to 6pm at which point I was informed and told to leave. This was discussed with my solicitor but they had been careful enough to follow the right legal path in terms of getting rid of me.
Though I will admit to a certain satisfaction when the missing funds got highlighted by a whisteblower, the CEO and CFO resigned and the company was subject to investigation by the serious fraud office.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I've seen this handled both supremely badly, and in less objectionable ways. A few random anecdotes:
Everyone is taken into a room, everyone takes a letter addressed to them off a tray and then half are called into another room, where they are told that the letters they have are notices of redundancy.
Everyone at a site is told to put their coats on, pack their bags and be ready for a phone call at 10am. This phone call will either tell them they are staying, or tell them they are going.
Everyone over 55 is called into a room and told that they are being made redundant, after repeated questioning they are told (a conversation captured on tape) by a smirking member of the (big 4) consultancy that is handling the restructuring that they are in fact being made redundant because of their age. Local MP is reluctantly pulled in - eventually consultancy pays a tiny nominal fine.
Usually, these sorts of things were carried out by central management against the protestations of local management. Though I've also experienced the following:
My team is tasked with learning a new product which we will be ostensibly moved onto. After a week each of us is to give a presentation to the rest of the group on what we've learnt, to share the information amongst the team. At the culmination of the presentations we are told we won't be moving over - in fact we'll be moving out.
Manager descends on employees desk with black bags and security in tow - employee is to pack his stuff and is then frog marched out of the office.
The last time I was made redundant ahead of the rest of my team - who eventually went three months later. I worked out my consultancy period and left with payment in lieu of notice - mainly out of my loyalty to the people I left behind. In retrospect I found out that HR had finessed things so that my round wouldn't be included in the longer consultancy period - I and others could have taken them to a tribunal.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've seen instances of poetic justice like this - but we can't always rely on it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thinking about it, I'd forgotten earlier but in response to Deano's comment about the rest of us not being in a position to comment until we've had to walk in the same shoes ...
Well, I have, to an extent.
I've twice made people redundant and once dismissed someone at the end of their probation period.
I won't say anything about the circumstances.
Deano's right. It's not a pleasant thing to do.
But neither is it anything to posture about in a 'I've-had-responsibilities-you-mewling-lefties-can't-even-imagine' kind of way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It's the idea that the employee might sabotage that troubles me. Are we all really that vile?
I don't think people generally are vile but when I was an outpatient sister a filing clerk was 'laid off' for being poor at his work. He spent the rest of his shift misfiling patient notes. For months we were telling returning patients who had been there that day that we had no idea where their notes were. These people were often older and vulnerable, some facing blindness. What he did was heartless as well as vindictive.
That said, I don't like the idea of sacking someone in such a mean spirited way but I do understand the fear some companies have. But, as mentioned earlier, in the majority of cases it should be handled far more sensitively.
[ 26. November 2013, 11:03: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I have two stories, both from the same large corporation.
1. Friend was made redundant but given the opportunity to find another job within the company before the month ended. He found one, arranged a start date with the new team, and went for a week holiday. Came back to start in the new role and his ID card had been deactivated. In the week off the old team refused the transfer so HR had to terminate my friend while he wasn't even there.
2. A friend's boss was on a business trip out of the country, and received a phone call on Friday afternoon while entertaining clients that she'd been made redundant. I wonder how the rest of the evening with the clients went.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I don't suppose many employees would have the knowledge to do much sabotage.
It doesn't take much knowledge to go into the data store and start pressing Delete.
OK, few people would do that. But if you're in management it's not worth taking the risk that the employee you've just laid off is one of the few.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
This might well depend on the country. I can't see from no prophet's profile where they are from. What (s)he describes sounds rather like the American model depicted in the film Up in the Air.
Canada. We say "you", they say "y'all". As in "you are fired" and "y'all are fired". ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
-- re 'you can't fired without reason', which seems to imply an employee performance reason, I don't think this is true anywhere. Business reasons are sufficient. The difference is that performance or misconduct reasons may mean that the company pays out the statutory minimum on separation, where for business reasons it seems to be about twice that.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
-- re 'you can't fired without reason', which seems to imply an employee performance reason, I don't think this is true anywhere. Business reasons are sufficient. The difference is that performance or misconduct reasons may mean that the company pays out the statutory minimum on separation, where for business reasons it seems to be about twice that. [/QB]
If it is for "business reasons" as you phrase it then here in the UK it is referred to as redundancy. Again, though, there is formal process laid out and I have gone through this. Employees must first be notified that their role is at risk of redundancy, followed by a period of consultation and the company must make every effort it can to find alternative employment within the organisation.
As an aside, I still can't tell the difference between American and Canadian accents, just as Australia and New Zealand sound the same to me. But put me in a room with someone from Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland then I'll be able to tell from their accents alone who is from where.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
'Letting go' - as in 'you're holding on to us for dear life, but today we shall be letting you go' - sounds very appropriate for what happens to many people who lose their jobs! Nevertheless, it's usually meant in a weasely way, I suppose.
Deano, you certainly have a point about what it's like to have the shoe on the other foot. For conscientious, compassionate people it must be a difficult, even if necessary, task. For such people, there'll be a certain amount of suffering.
And I presume that that principle of 'the foot on the other shoe' applies in reverse, too. That for those who have been summarily fired, they are permitted their opinion of their experience of that event, while those who haven't been fired may be presumed to know little of how it really feels, so need to tread carefully on that subject?
Maybe you have been on both ends of the stick and therefore feel entitled to tell those who have been made redundant that their experience is to be taken with a pinch of salt, because they haven't additionally had your experience of sacking anyone. But I don't think it works like that.
At the end of the day the 'firer' is still in work, solvent, a good credit risk; and the 'firee' isn't. The person doing the firing is powerful; the person being fired is arguably at one of the lowest points in their working and personal life and is weak.
How this devastating process is carried out is very important. I'm sure you carried it out humanely, kindly with every attempt to help the person move on and into new work etc. However, if it's muffed up by careless procedures or ego-centric officials - which seems to be the chief complaint of this thread - those who have most reason to bitch and whinge are the ones who no longer have means to pay their bills, their mortgage, the kids' education etc. And if they've been at the sharp end of a ballsed-up redundancy they're really not going to spare a thought for the administration mis-applying the process. And nor should they be expected to.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The use of the word let is not always passive. Let can mean a decisive act by a person.
If I let go a rope, I am the one that falls.
When I let go a person from my team, we are the ones that move on.
Its not weasel words. Its what happens. We let go of somebody.
The phrase let go of you has been turned around when talking to the person and is now "we are going to let you go." But, it really means the company is letting go of somebody.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Oh, and to be perfectly blunt, some people deserve to be fired. I let somebody go once and not only did the whole team do better, they all felt better.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You can moan, whinge and bitch as much as you like, but until you have worn the shoe on the other foot and had to take responsiblity for the many not the few I will take your opinions with a very large pinch of salt.
At the end of the day, the one left with money in pocket and a job is the better off.
No, I am not saying that being the one to pull the lever is always easy or enjoyable, just that the one at the end of the rope hurts a bit more.
In a well run organisation, a redundancy should not be a surprise. Not for the company nor the employees.
------------
I had a boss who made every effort he could to soften the blow for me. I did not appreciate this at the time and ruined a friendship. Doubly unfortunate in that he'd no choice in my redundancy, but his positive efforts were all his choice.
We tend to view these situations from the chairs in which we sit. IMO, the view from either is not always unobstructed.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
