Ship of Fools: Perp walks, HR's new best practice.

Thread: Perp walks, HR's new best practice. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027386

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Are you familiar with the human resource practice. An employee is being downsized, laid off or otherwise fired. The boss informs via email, memo or otherwise that there's a meeting tomorrow at 9 a.m. The worker attends the meeting, the boss brings in a couple of HR professionals, the worker is handed a letter, and then the security personnel walk in, the fired employee turns in keys and access cards, is marched through the office in front of all the other employees and into the parking lot. Best practices? Wow.

This came up after the university president at a western Canadian university fired the dean of a school within the university who disagreed with the top-down plans for his school. It ended with the president and vice president fired/resigned instead. It made national news in Canada, and family who live in Asia also saw the story on international news.

Link: Perp walk reflects badly on HR professionals

quote:
above link
We have seen it most recently at the university, but the so-called perp walk, when fired employees are paraded off the premises, under escort, right past their dismayed former colleagues, sadly, is becoming the new labour standard.

Human resources professionals who prescribe the perp walk defend it as "best practice."

"Best practice for who?" asks Dionne Pohler, a professor at the Edwards School of Business who specializes in human resources.

Do they do this in your area or the world? Should they?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

A friend is a senior manager at my place of work, and had to fire about half a dozen people last year (because of general downsizing - not for cause). HR insisted that the "perp walk" technique be used. My friend arranged to meet the firees in some location away from his office or theirs, so that they'd have some privacy and wouldn't be frog-marched past their colleagues, but he was unable to convince HR that the security guard was unnecessary.

The HR folks were genuinely scared that someone getting fired might flip out, grab some kind of weapon and attack them.

I don't think I can overstate how angry basically every one of my non-HR colleagues - from new hires to one level down from the CEO - is with the perp walk, and I have some hope that it won't be happening again.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Employees judge their company partly by how they see fellow employees treated, so I think this backfires.

In one job decades ago when our section was to be significantly downsized, the boss said he was suppose to tell people on a Friday afternoon they were terminated and walk them to their desk to get their things then to the door, the theory being terminated employees are poison who will drag down the morale of the whole remaining office spewing anger so you have to not let them stick around after they know they are losing their job.

He said he trusted us to behave professionally and gave us 6 months notice instead of waiting to the end of the 6 months to tell us on the last Friday. I have long felt grateful to him, it gave us time to job hunt or decide whether to go back to school and land on our feet while still churning out decent work that last 6 months.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The only reason I know about this behaviour is because aspects of it are fundamental to the movie Up In The Air. Specifically, the idea of calling in 'professionals' to handle the dismissal process. It does involve people being told to collect their things. I can't recall whether it shows security being present for this.

I've never seen such behaviour in real life. But then, I work in the public sector, maybe the local private sector does see this kind of thing.

[ 30. May 2014, 02:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I work in HR and this is fairly standard practice (except it is usually handled much much more discreetly.) But generally once the decision is made to terminate the employee, they aren't given access to their office. It seems (and is) harsh to the employee, but is meant to protect the assets of a company from retaliation or sabotage.
An employee who has been terminated may attempt to go in and delete important files or emails or misuse equipment or claim an onsite injury which can be used to stop a termination.

99.999999% of employees who have been involuntarily terminated aren't going to do anything but the 1980s and 1990s are littered with disgruntled employees shooting up a workplace or claiming injury to stay employed or other actions, so this has become the accepted practice to handle these decisions are made.

[ 30. May 2014, 02:44: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
99.999999% of employees who have been involuntarily terminated aren't going to do anything but the 1980s and 1990s are littered with disgruntled employees shooting up a workplace or claiming injury to stay employed or other actions, so this has become the accepted practice to handle these decisions are made.

Sorry, but I don't grasp the logic of this. Certainly not in relation to something like 'shooting up a workplace'. All you do is turn the headline from 'shooting spree by disgruntled employee' to 'shooting spree by disgruntled ex-employee'.

File security, yes, but in this day and age your file security and back-up should be a HELL of a lot more thorough than 'if a cranky person decides to delete it, it's gone'. That might have been a justification in the 1980s or 1990s. I can't see that being a sensible justification in 2014.

[ 30. May 2014, 02:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

In most large companies (which is what I'm familiar with) you have to go through a level of security to get into the workplace. It's far more difficult for an ex-employee to commit workplace violence than a current but involuntarily terminated employee. Again, it probably has to do with how security is physically managed at a worksite. We're talking about degrees of protection.

Every company I work at does daily backups of email and files but while email can be backed up, I don't know that anyone has an up-to-the-minute ability to back up files.

It's believed to be far less problematic to remove a fired employee than to keep him/her onsite. The potential risk is lower.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I work in HR and this is fairly standard practice (except it is usually handled much much more discreetly.) But generally once the decision is made to terminate the employee, they aren't given access to their office. It seems (and is) harsh to the employee, but is meant to protect the assets of a company from retaliation or sabotage.
An employee who has been terminated may attempt to go in and delete important files or emails or misuse equipment or claim an onsite injury which can be used to stop a termination.

99.999999% of employees who have been involuntarily terminated aren't going to do anything but the 1980s and 1990s are littered with disgruntled employees shooting up a workplace or claiming injury to stay employed or other actions, so this has become the accepted practice to handle these decisions are made.

I'd like to see actual statistics about the disgruntled doing bad things. When you say "littered", it contrasts with the 99.99999%. Do you have any? Mightn't security showing up cause problems? It would certainly get my negative attention. In this case, a dean of a university school. Senior administrator and academic. Doesn't sound like HR involved making judgements. Merely getting out the hit squad. Highly inappropriate.

I've heard of this before this occasion I posted about. The last one was also in the public sector.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

What? Terminated employees returning and committing violence? According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, in the U.S. alone there are about 70 workplace shootings committed by co-workers each year. The number that are prompted by a termination isn't broken out and the number of other acts of violence (where a firearm isn't used) isn't broken out either. Of course, this is a tiny fraction of the number of employees that are dismissed each year however it's a big enough concern that all the HR departments I have worked in over 30 years at 7 companies use similar preventive action when dealing with an involuntary termination.

[ 30. May 2014, 03:15: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I'm fairly sure you couldn't sack employees in permanent positions without some (more than an hour's) prior notice here in NZ. And I've never heard of the perp walk - thank God. I suspect the perpetrators of it would end up with their asses in the Employment Court being done over for improper practice.

Even in cases I know of where there has been just cause the employee was escorted in and out of the building after hours so they weren't exposed to the stares of everyone else - we had two such early on in my current place of employment.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It's varied at the companies I've worked at. In general the general plan is to make the employee go away without being seen by fellow employees. In mass layoffs, people will be called into two separate meetings. The ones being fired will be escorted to their desks to get personal belongings and leave before the other meeting is finished. In single terminations, the person is usually walked out and a time after work is scheduled to clean out personal belongings.

I did have a boyfriend once who was at a company that had such a mass layoff on a Friday. Around Tuesday they realized they had let go the wrong group and there were a lot of hasty phone calls to try to get them back.

I think it's as much not to depress the remaining employees as safety considerations. I work in software development so things are fairly loose, in part because it is not unusual to have to call said terminated employee with a technical question. Sales and Marketing people were treated much more strictly to make sure confidential customer information did not leave with the employee.

Of course this is fairly nonsensical in that you can copy all the information you want before you are terminated if you suspect it's going to happen. And the typical behavior at the places I've worked included drinks of the still working with the terminated at the end of the work day.

Some of the nicer layoffs included help with a job hunting consultant at a different location to help get a new job. Those don't seem as common these days.

[ 30. May 2014, 03:54: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

This happened to me in February.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I have heard of worse, mainly in financial institutions. People came to work and their security passes didn't function, they were then taken by security into a room and en masse told that they were being retrenched.

I also understand that in many US companies, if you resign as well as if you are terminated, you will do the perp walk-they give you a box and security takes you to your desk, you put your coffee mug and any personal effects in it and you are escorted off the premises. Supposedly it prevents you either stealing the company's intellectual property and/or sabotaging anything, eg computer data etc.

IMO, you are only surprised to think that the perp walk is HR best practice if you labour under the false impression that HR gives a rat's a*&e about the people who work in the company-they exist to protect the company, they are not the employee's friend-ever.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Palimpsest:

quote:
I think it's as much not to depress the remaining employees as safety considerations. I work in software development so things are fairly loose, in part because it is not unusual to have to call said terminated employee with a technical question.

And they don't tell the inquirers to stick it in their ear? Amazing.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

1980s and 1990s are littered with disgruntled employees shooting up a workplace

Most people don't take weapons to work on a regular basis. On the other hand, which thing do you think is going to make someone more likely to go home, get his guns, then return to work and start shooting people? Being treated like a decent, honest human being (and if you were employing him yesterday, presumably you do think that he's a decent honest human being) or being treated like a criminal?

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

Is this one of those "only in America things"? AFAIK in Australia most terminations are with notice (so the person has weeks or months to finish work) and the "perp walk" would only be used in rare circumstances (possibility of violence, classified information, etc).

The only time I was terminated (my contract as a University lecturer came to an end) about a week after semester finished and the results were all in, I just packed up the office, had drinks with colleagues, and drove into the sunset. Mind you, when they asked for my help a few months later I told them to [Mad]

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

I work for local govt in the UK. I just had to suspend an employee who has access to the whole computer system and, in the words of our security guy, could 'delete a whole department'. I took him up to HR, where an advisor and I met with him. We gave him a few minutes to go back to the office and get his things, while the HR advisor rang through my boss to get his IT account disabled When he came back, we checked whether he needed a lift home and then I took his security pass and escorted him out of the building. The HR advisor told me this is common practice if theperson is beleived to be a risk due to their securitty or IT access.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Palimpsest:
quote:
I think it's as much not to depress the remaining employees as safety considerations. I work in software development so things are fairly loose, in part because it is not unusual to have to call said terminated employee with a technical question.
And they don't tell the inquirers to stick it in their ear? Amazing.

It is hard to resist answering if the answer includes pointing out how your odious manager insisted on doing things the wrong way leading to the very problem they are asking about [Devil]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I work in the NHS, and I used to be a union rep.

In my experience, if you are being made redundant you gets months of notice. There is an internal redoployment process first (where they try and move you into any existing other vacancy you are qualified for) because they don't want to have to pay out for the redundancy if they can avoid it. Often, in that situation, staff would rather get the redundancy package - negotiate for early retirement or whatever.

If, on the other hand, you are suspended for investigation around some issue, they will walk you off the premises, and you wouldn't pack your stuff up or anything (no box with mug etc). Colleagues may not contact you until the investigation is over etc., but that is most likely to happen if you are accused of abusing a patient in some way.

Security wouldn't be involved though. Largely because we don't really have anything much. If we have security issues - e.g a few months ago someone lay down in the lobby in protest and wouldn't leave, we call the police. (And of course the police are not going to turn up to sort out our HR issues.)

[ 30. May 2014, 06:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
ing about degrees of protection.

Every company I work at does daily backups of email and files but while email can be backed up, I don't know that anyone has an up-to-the-minute ability to back up files.

I have this on my thesis computer. That is me as an individual person, not me as a multinational corporate body. What is more, it is both offsite and onsite backup. I suppose you can tell I work in computing by this. I also carry a third copy of my thesis around on my USB stick.

The technology is there, the companies who are not doing it are just too tight arsed to pay for it. Which shows how much they really value their data.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Dan

Here is the Wikipedia Article. Now go and read Piglets recent posts on the British thread in All Saints. Companies that need to have up to the minute data stored must implement these as virus creators are now getting viruses to hide the data and hold the data to ransom.

Jengie

[ 30. May 2014, 07:59: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I just checked, there are minimum notice periods under Australian law.

Although I suspect that technically this is about how long you are paid for. It is probably still possible to instruct someone not to come into work during the notice period.

EDIT: And then, like a smart person, I followed the link to another page and confirmed you can be paid out.

[ 30. May 2014, 08:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Standard practice in the Financial Sector since at least the early 1990's.

The worst case I've come across at first hand experience was someone who was sacked like this, his PA was told to bring take him home in his company car and bring it back. Whereupon she was dismissed in the same way.

The law may have changed but in the UK you could be dismissed for redundancy without any notice provided you were paid in lieu of that notice.

If the payoff was above a certain amount 9at one time £30k), then no one was bothered about abuse of process - the court couldn't award any damages as the person had already received more than £30K. In one well known UK Financial Organisation (still trading healthily) I was at a meeting where it was said "We're not concerned about a few industrial tribunals." Knowing a few of the current senior execs, I doubt much is changed.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Palimpsest:
quote:
...it is not unusual to have to call said terminated employee with a technical question.
And they don't tell the inquirers to stick it in their ear? Amazing.

Happened to me a few years ago. I was made redundant by an aerospace company which was downsizing its top security work. I was called a few weeks after my leaving date and quizzed by the one remaining person with a Top Secret rating about the work I had left. I replied that I had left everything with the project manager and the librarian and he should go and see them. It turned out that both my former manager and colleague had lost their security ratings during a police crackdown on kerb-crawlers and neither of them could access any part of the project documentation to pass on to a new project engineer. They wanted me back for a month to hand the project over to another division, the only time I ever had the ultimate power over negotiations! I made the dirty beggars rue the day.

As for how I was finished, I got stopped at the gatehouse one morning and all my security passes were taken from me. I was then presented with a cardboard box with all my personal effects from my desk and told to report to an office on the other side of town. I basically spent a month reading sci-fi and playing on an x-box in a rented office while people rang me up to ask me about various project documents, along with the other dozen or so people being made redundant. Not much fun being sent to Room 101 (I kid you not) but the company did not allow leaving employees to go on "gardening" leave, you had to report in every day or lose your enhanced redundancy pay.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I was made redundant from a FTSE 100 company. When I was told I was given a new IT login and ID card to enter the building that limited my access to confidential information. I was allowed to return to my desk and say goodbyes to my colleagues for as long as I wanted that day, but once I exited the building I'd only have access to the ground floor and HR floors thereafter until the end of the notice period.

I don't see how a security guard escort out of the building is the best way to protect data, it probably costs more, and it humiliates the person who has been let go. And in terms of violence - if as in my case the person has no access to their former desk once exiting the building, how can they go on a shooting spree? Do people have guns in their desks?

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

I only know of one person who has been escorted out of the building, though that was not for a redundancy or firing, but because he had handed in his resignation and told his line manager that he had accepted a job offer from his company's main rival. As he had access to client lists, the guard was there to ensure that he didn't breach the post-termination clauses of his contract.

I was "fired" once after highlighting a potential irregularity in the finances. I didn't have enough evidence to go whistleblowing to the audit committee but I mistakenly trusted the group financial controller. As I had only been there a couple of months, I was on a probationary period. After getting some unimportant subsidiary accounts signed, I was invited to a debrief meeting regarding these accounts. Then the meeting got pushed back from 4pm to 6:30pm. Then it got moved from someone's private office to the board room. When I walked in, a small panel were waiting for me with documents laid out on the table. I was informed that I had not passed my probationary period and that my employment would be terminated immediately. While I was in that meeting, my IT access was cut so I couldn't gather any necessary evidence that may have been helpful.

Since then, both the finance director and the chief executive have resigned, I complied with all requests made by the serious fraud office who were informed by an anonymous whistleblower (not me, though I think I know who it was) and the company has since changed its name.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I've heard of heard of a number of examples of this kind of thing. Two of which happened to close friends of mine (both in North America).

In the first instance, everyone was taken into a room. Were told that there would be an envelope on a tray at the back of the room with their name on it. The envelopes sent people to one of two rooms. One lot were told they were being kept on - the other lot were let go. Shades of the sheep and goats here.

In the other instance everyone was told to pack their bags, and sit at their desks with their coats on and expect a phone call from HR that would tell them whether to leave, or stay.

Ironically, in the canonical example of people 'going postal' they were actually employed in a place that wouldn't have a 'fire at will' policy (The US Postal Service). I suspect what's happened is that whilst the actual incidences of people flipping out after being fired is tiny - the FEAR of it is huge, and this is what leads to silly HR policies.

In reality most of those workplace shootings seem to have occured whilst the individual was still in full time employment.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

If the payoff was above a certain amount 9at one time £30k), then no one was bothered about abuse of process - the court couldn't award any damages as the person had already received more than £30K. In one well known UK Financial Organisation (still trading healthily) I was at a meeting where it was said "We're not concerned about a few industrial tribunals." Knowing a few of the current senior execs, I doubt much is changed.

Yes, it's very much seen as just a cost of doing business, and will remain so as long as breaking the law of the land ends up with derisory penalties.

When a prior employer went into chapter 11, the large accountancy firm that was employed to manage costs pulled a number of employees into a room to fire them. It was pointed out that they were all over the age of 55 and so would have been expensive to make redundant in normal circumstances. The accountants admitted on recorded audio that this was the case - afaict even though the case went to court the sanctions were a tiny fraction of the fee being charged.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

Norway has a minimum termination period of one month. (14 days during the probationary period). I've seen others mention similar periods in other countries. To my knowledge, this hasn't really been a problem. No serious destruction of the former employers property, no deleting of work. (I work with the unemployed, and see a huge amount of cases on a daily basis.)

This makes me think that it might be the time frame itself that (at least partially) triggers those few cases that ToujoursDan talk about. Panic and anger at having everything pulled away from you, with no real time to let the news settle. Ordinary people committing acts of vandalism, tends to be the result of extraordinary circumstances. By having a significant notice period, the normality of the situation is to some extent returned, and gives the employee a time frame to work on getting a new job.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

When I received a layoff notice 8 years ago my supervisor took me to a meeting with HR, encouraged me to ask all the questions I needed answered, and to take the rest of the day off if I needed to do so. I think I received 4-6 weeks notice. Fortunately, during that time period another job was found for me in the department. I filled in for a mat leave and when she decided not to return I remained in that position.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

In my own redundancy in 1995 I was given 3 months notice. On my last day I was out of the office until 4.30 ish. On my return they'd already removed my initials from my reserved parking spot.

Last laugh: I went back to the same desk next day as a freelance consultant on double the pay.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

When my comrades were fired, they were told to take their things and leave the building before noon. They were of course paid for the required two weeks of notice, but they were not to come back. However when 6 or so months later my department was laid off, we were just told that our contracts would not be renewed next month. Then of course they had to ask us to stay another three months because things weren't ready for us to leave. All in all it felt pretty civilized really for big business.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

This happened a loooong time ago.....

One of the companies I worked for had a boss who was renowned for her ruthlessness in firing people. One employee famously went off on holiday for two weeks. On his way home, he dropped off at the office to check how things had gone (which shows that he was probably more conscientious that I ever would have been). As he walked into reception, he was puzzled by the strange looks people were giving him. Conversation with work colleagues was rather strained. Then the boss appeared.

"Have you been home yet?" She asked.

"No - I'm just going home now."

"Well, I suggest you go home now."

There, waiting for him, was the letter telling him he had been fired and the box of stuff from his desk.

(And yes - she DID know he was on holiday. The timing was not accidental)

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

Sounds unnecessarily horrific, as a general rule.

I work in the publishing sector. Over the last few years our department has had a couple of rounds of redundancies. In general the way they were managed was reasonably satisfactory and humane:

Two meetings were called, on separate floors of the same building. All those whose positions were being retained were sent to one meeting, with our director; those who were being made redundant to another, with the head of HR. In both cases, a preprepared, identical, text was read - and no questions were taken, at that stage. But everyone being made redundant was then offered a series of meetings, over a period of weeks (the redundancies taking effect 1-2 months after he meeting), to discuss possible alternative positions, redundancy payments, and outsourcing placements to recruitment consultants. And then there were rounds of individual consulting meetings (at which a union rep or another chosen individual could attend alongside the person concerned.)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A secretary at work was terminated with one full day notice so she could turn over all the records in neat order. No severance pay. She and the other secretaries pointed out that they are expected to give two weeks notice, shouldn't the company give the same transition courtesy?

From then on, any secretary who quit (that I knew of) gave no notice. She usually told her friends at work when she was ready to walk out the door at 5.

(I was a contractor, outside the direct employment system.)

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Palimpsest:
quote:
I think it's as much not to depress the remaining employees as safety considerations. I work in software development so things are fairly loose, in part because it is not unusual to have to call said terminated employee with a technical question.
And they don't tell the inquirers to stick it in their ear? Amazing.

I was once let go without notice from an IT managerial position when the company, behind my back, decided to outsource the IT operation.

People used to e-mail me with technical questions for awhile afterwards, and I always answered back that they shouldn't take it personally, that they knew I thought the world of them, but that if the present IT support team could not answer their question, then the company might want to rethink its decision.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

This happened to me. Meeting at 10AM, "frog-marched" out of the office by security guy. The company had recently broken its union (labour jurisdiction: Ontario, Canada) and had a nasty reputation. I was there for 2.5 months. They did not provide a reason for this termination, which means they had no good one. No severance was due to me under Ontario law.

No it's crap and undignified. Also very rude.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

We have this discussion every few months on here it seems.

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I'm fairly sure you couldn't sack employees in permanent positions without some (more than an hour's) prior notice here in NZ. And I've never heard of the perp walk - thank God. I suspect the perpetrators of it would end up with their asses in the Employment Court being done over for improper practice.

..

Quite the opposite here in Canada.

Notice is provided in writing.

Severance is at the discretion of the employer but usually is given within Labour Law framework.

The phrase "perp walk" is not used by HR. You'd love to do this before anybody else gets there, but realistically, that's not going to happen. Any HR department that actually tries to humiliate somebody is going to get sued. Humiliating somebody does absolutely no good.

What you want to do, is let them go, escort them to their desk so they can get any personal items, and then escort them off the property.
Why?

Two reasons

a) The afore mentioned "they might do something"

b) so nobody accuses them of doing something (You'd all be surprised how often people don't actually like somebody who has been fired)

c) Cause having them talk with their now former colleagues while at work is going to cause a lot of issues.

This is not easy for anybody, and the idea that bosses enjoy this is false.

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

As a Brit working in the US in an "at will" state I've witnessed it several times in my office and it's horrific. The thing that shocks most is the way the ex-employee is whisked away without any opportunity to say goodbye, and they are never mentioned again. It's mostly happened for performance reasons, so the firing was not a surprise for everyone else but the method is awful and terribly demoralising for the rest of us.

Apart from my OK performance reviews, the only thing that gives me any sense of job security here is that it is in my contract that the company will pay full cost to repatriate me should they decide my services are no longer required. I'm expensive to 'let go'.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Quite the opposite here in Canada.

...The phrase "perp walk" is not used by HR. You'd love to do this before anybody else gets there, but realistically, that's not going to happen. Any HR department that actually tries to humiliate somebody is going to get sued. Humiliating somebody does absolutely no good.

What you want to do, is let them go, escort them to their desk so they can get any personal items, and then escort them off the property.

Uh... which differs from the above-described "perp-walk" how, exactly? What you've described is EXACTLY what we've been talking about, just from the other side of the transaction. I can't see a single thing different in your chronology. So, while it may feel to you as an HR professional like you are being kind and avoiding humiliation and being responsible for all the reasons you just delineated... what you are actually doing is experienced quite differently by those you have terminated. Maybe you have good reasons for the way you are doing it, maybe you do hate it almost as much as the person who is now trying to figure out how to feed his/her family... but don't pretend it's not humiliating.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

There is a firm of solicitors here (no names, but they boasted of being part of a world-wide group in the days when that was basically unknown) where the practice was that an employee would return from lunch to find what had been the contents of the desk now in a green garbage bag on top. This without any notice - the actual dismissal followed.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

It seems to me that having an HR hitman or woman do the nasty is avoidant and allows supervisors who should look the person in eye to avoid confrontation. It sounds inauthentic in terms of relations with others. Lacks integrity. As a business owner, I have only ever let people go directly myself. I have consulted but cannot imagine contracting my responsibilities.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

c) Cause having them talk with their now former colleagues while at work is going to cause a lot of issues.

And having them talk to those same ex colleagues out of work, after the additional ignominy of the perp walk, isn't going to cause any issues at all?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The practice seems to assume vindictiveness, or at least the risk of it. Pay in lieu of notice used to be regarded as a kindness, enabling someone to start immediately and without distraction on the hunt for a new job.

In my mid-50's, I was made redundant (very willingly) as a result of a privatisation exercise. It was a good deal. I served three months notice, did some useful work during that period and organised a farewell "do" for friends and colleagues on my last day. At the "do", I was thanked publicly for my thirty-odd years of work for the same organisation and made an acceptance speech in reply. It was a good occasion; some regret but mostly thankfulness and relief. But it belonged to a different era, a different work culture - the public sector in the UK in the mid 1990's.

So the information on this thread came as a bit of a shock to me. The world of work has become more Darwinian, more ruthless, less concerned with the damage to "losers" in the battles which determine the "survival of the fittest". The approach seems likely to foster bitterness in those who leave and fear in those who remain. However it may be justified, it strikes me as nasty.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

We aren't like this yet in the UK public sector, and one of the reasons I like working there (more than I would in the private) is that this sort of vindictive public shaming isn't part of the culture.

The HR people who think this is "best practice" would in a former age presumably have been public hangmen, or held the whip hand in public floggings. Cunch of bunts if you ask me.

Essentially this is treating people as things. When that happens, the devil dances a happy dance.

[ 31. May 2014, 14:20: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Those are good points. Is there a sea change in the world of work, which I have missed and am behind the times?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
the method is awful and terribly demoralising for the rest of us.

Maybe that is why they do it - to keep everyone else 'on their toes', working harder, in case it's their turn next.

[ 31. May 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
the method is awful and terribly demoralising for the rest of us.
Maybe that is why they do it - to keep everyone else 'on their toes', working harder, in case it's their turn next.

I've never really been convinced that "pour encourager les autres" is a particularly successful style of management.

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe that is why they do it - to keep everyone else 'on their toes', working harder, in case it's their turn next.
I've never really been convinced that "pour encourager les autres" is a particularly successful style of management.

It certainly doesn't at my place, it only encourages others to polish up their resumes. We've even had someone pulled out of a meeting they were running with external visitors to be fired, great PR.

On a related note, people who resign and generally give the polite-but-not-required two weeks notice are forbidden to tell anyone. What this secrecy is supposed to achieve I don't know, as the resulting disappearance of colleagues has exactly the same effect as the walk of shame.

I could write an essay on the differences I've found in employment culture in my industry on both sides of the Atlantic. As we have management reporting relationships that extend transatlantically, I've tried to make a point of explaining the UK culture and law a bit to my colleagues here. What I've found in my company is the US is more 'quick to hire, quick to fire' and has a higher turnover of staff. Whereas in the UK we are a lot pickier about who we employ - subsequent length of service is longer, and we put more effort into development of underperforming staff.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe that is why they do it - to keep everyone else 'on their toes', working harder, in case it's their turn next.

Alternatively, HR departments realise that if every dismissal is "difficult", they can claim that they're necessary to deal with these situations...

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

I have been made redundant twice over the years, in contrasting circumstances.

The second time, I was working in the motor industry, for a company making air filters. This was the late 1990's when motor manufacturers were amalgamating wherever you looked. The company for which I worked saw its customer base shrink from 30 companies to 6 - all the same customers, but now amalgamated.

One of the customers (Ford motor company) realised that, with their increased purchasing power, they could now dictate to their suppliers, enforcing prices and so on. The result was that my employers had no choice but to dispose of 19 staff, of whom I turned out to be one.

It was very civilised - at the beginning of September, all those eligible were called to a meeting and the situation explained. Voluntary redundancy was offered, and some accepted this. Thereafter, we were told, decisions would be made as to which posts were essential, and which could be lost.

I was told that I was redundant a week before Christmas. This was a Friday morning. I was told that I could go immediately, or finish the day at my discretion or stay until the end of my term, whichever I preferred. Whichever option I took, they would treat my finishing date as 4th January 2000, which gave me 4 years service with the company. In recognition of which, they would pay me 4 months salary. In the event, I finished the day and took an extended Christmas break.

My first redundancy was not far short of the perp walk mentioned above, back in 1987. Admittedly, my employer was an interesting character who had left Saudi Arabia in a bit of a hurry - unfriendly people were closing in - and who had been obtaining employment grants from the WDA on, shall we say inventive grounds. Moreover, I was the company's chemist, and had access to some interesting materials. I think my boss was fully aware that I had the capability to seriously diminish his assets if left to my own devices. I was escorted off the premises with just 5 minutes' warning.

On the other hand, I did better than my remaining colleagues. I at least got a month's pay in lieu of notice. My remaining colleagues received neither pay in lieu, nor pay for their last month in work. They turned up on a Monday morning to find no trace of the company and no means of contacting the boss. On the whole, I got off lightly.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
the method is awful and terribly demoralising for the rest of us.
Maybe that is why they do it - to keep everyone else 'on their toes', working harder, in case it's their turn next.

What I have observed is that it encourages others to: a) work more defensively, basically to provide insurance through upwards service delivery rather than doing their job, b) increase in distrust and learn to plot effectively against their managers, and c) keep their résumés up to date and their roladexes polished to serve their future needs. In few cases did the process serve the organization.

With respect to Og, I fear that I have heard HR people use the term 'perp walk' in their off-the-record discussions, although the only time I have seen it in play was for the dismissal-for-cause of one of my colleagues. The two other dismissals-for-cause I have seen were off-site, with registered letters telling them not to come in, but there would be interviews set up if desired. In those cases, electronic passes were invalidated electronically and their stuff was boxed up by admin staff with union reps present, and then sent on.

I fear that I have seen some bosses take much glee in this, but their senior managers and HR specialists sat on these middle managers' testosterone immaturity and made the difficult process more professional.

While I have rarely been a fan of public service management, I will say that in my department they handled downsizing exercises with admirable professionalism and pastoral conscientiousness-- often better than churches or human rights organizations. Staff were prepared well in advance with information that so many had to be cut, and cash and personnel numbers were provided up front to the union reps, and senior managers faced uncomfortable questions in bearpit sessions. Attrition kept the axing down, and many of the downsized could be accommodated elsewhere, even if not in the best circumstances. I found that even the vilest of managers were working hard and long hours to see people placed as fairly as possible.

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

I've recently learnt that there isn't really a general concept of 'being made redundant" in the US. Whether you are let go because of downsizing, poor performance or anything else, the process seems to be exactly the same. Goodbye and if we're generous we'll pay you to the end of the week.

Whereas in the UK, most people's experience of being let go (including mine) is of redundancy. Generally, this is handled in a relatively dignified way, as per the examples in this thread, and gives you time to adjust, hand over your work and a financial cushion to help until you find your next job. It's actually quite hard to just fire people, you have to have a good reason. If you are bad at your job and undergoing a "performance improvement" process, and can't see it getting better, in my experience people see the writing on the wall and resign. Much easier to bluff your way through the "why did you leave your last job?" question at interview when you know the reference won't say "sacked".

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

With respect to Og, I fear that I have heard HR people use the term 'perp walk' in their off-the-record discussions,

And honestly, I don't really care much what term HR folks use to describe it, whether off or on the record, nor do I think the terminated staffers care. The point is that to the terminated employee it is, as this thread has demonstrated, experienced as a humiliating and insensitive "perp walk" even if HR chooses to employ some euphemism ("escorting personnel to the next passage in their occupational journey"...) that seems to me designed to make themselves feel better about the process, not the terminated employees. Honestly, most terminated folks I know (and sadly, I know a lot) would prefer you just come right out and say it ("this sucks, and frankly, the process from here on out is gonna suck because we care more about protecting the brass upstairs than a redundant underling, so good luck with that, bucko").

[ 31. May 2014, 19:47: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
I've recently learnt that there isn't really a general concept of 'being made redundant" in the US. Whether you are let go because of downsizing, poor performance or anything else, the process seems to be exactly the same. Goodbye and if we're generous we'll pay you to the end of the week.

That may be true in some state in the U.S. but in the states I know of, they have to pay you two weeks notice.

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
Goodbye and if we're generous we'll pay you to the end of the week.
That may be true in some state in the U.S. but in the states I know of, they have to pay you two weeks notice.

thanks for the correction but it's still a long way from what is received in the UK for redundancy.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... and then there's the variation where they offer to pay you a certain amount of severance pay, but only if you sign their legal document swearing never to sue them or to give negative publicity to the company in any way, shape or form. Regardless of whether it's true or not. In other words, a bribe to a person who usually has no (financial) choice but to accept it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
I've recently learnt that there isn't really a general concept of 'being made redundant" in the US. Whether you are let go because of downsizing, poor performance or anything else, the process seems to be exactly the same. Goodbye and if we're generous we'll pay you to the end of the week.
That may be true in some state in the U.S. but in the states I know of, they have to pay you two weeks notice.

It varies greatly from state to state.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

In those jurisdictions where a company has to give 2 weeks notice, it's common to give no notice but pay the person for those two weeks. But this is increasingly uncommon in the U.S. where "at will" employment is the norm for non-union employees in the private sector. When an employee is hired, they are notified and must acknowledge that they are in an "at will" arrangement. This means that the employee can quit with no notice, without any liability to the employer and the employer can terminate with no notice for any reason or no reason at all. Every private company I have worked at, as an adult in the U.S., has been "at will" company.

Even in an "at will" arrangement, what actually happens at termination varies depending on the action reason. If there is a layoff of 50 or more employees the company may be subject to WARN legislation which requires a notification 60 days in advance.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I only know of one person who has been escorted out of the building, though that was not for a redundancy or firing, but because he had handed in his resignation and told his line manager that he had accepted a job offer from his company's main rival. As he had access to client lists, the guard was there to ensure that he didn't breach the post-termination clauses of his contract.

Too late. Someone who job hunts, interviews, lands a job, has done his pre-planning including copying any files he wants to take with him. I've seen it often.

I've seen people leave and take their secretary with them; come in at 2 AM using their building key, clean out their desks, if it's one of the higher ups who selected his own office furniture, that is moved out too. By 3 AM they are gone. Usually they leave a note saying "goodbye" but not always, the empty office tells the story. Morning comes, people show up for work, find an empty office and an empty secretarial station.

They moved to a competitor and you bet they called all the clients they worked with a day or two before - while still legal to contact them - and let them know of their new contact info.

You think the boss is the first to be told of a move to a competitor? Nope, the last.

That's why job hunting is itself risky; if the boss finds out you are job hunting, you get fired so you can't have more time to copy files, tell co-workers which other companies you've discovered are looking for good workers at higher pay, or any other "disloyal" activities.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And yet... if they only treated us like human beings, or even half-sentient monkeys, they wouldn't HAVE to cope with routine disloyalty. Assholes.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

In the UK if you are being made redundant I think you get a legal right to time off to look for another job.

I find it difficult to understand this thing of taking your clients with you, I do business with a business, I don't really have a relationship with a specific employee. Even if I liked them, I am probably not going to the hassle of switching my business elsewhere just because they have moved job.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

...and the individuals where you might consider [switching for].
They'll be the ones that know your name, company (and most of your problems/bits that make the deal interesting) by heart anyway.

[ 01. June 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

I find it difficult to understand this thing of taking your clients with you, I do business with a business, I don't really have a relationship with a specific employee.

But sometimes you are doing business with an individual, who happens to work for a particular company. This could be a financial advisor, an agent or PR person, a hairdresser, a lawyer, or anyone else where you're dealing with an individual that happens to work for a company, rather than the company en masse.

If you like the way Debbie cuts your hair, and Debbie moves to a salon three streets away, you'll probably move too. On the other hand, you wouldn't change coffee shop because you like the way Debbie brings you a coffee.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

I find it difficult to understand this thing of taking your clients with you, I do business with a business, I don't really have a relationship with a specific employee.
But sometimes you are doing business with an individual, who happens to work for a particular company...
If you like the way Debbie cuts your hair, and Debbie moves to a salon three streets away, you'll probably move too. On the other hand, you wouldn't change coffee shop because you like the way Debbie brings you a coffee.

Good example, I have followed a hair dresser, though it's sometimes hard, they don't usually collect phone numbers of regular customers, and the shop they left refuses to tell you where they went, the shop wants you to not follow them but stay with the shop.

Even when the customer is a business, if you are the primary contact for the person who decides where to take their outsourced work, they may follow you. In a job like accounting, advertising, law, many others including anything with creative input, if you are the primary person handing some business's work, the contact at that business is used to working with you and may want to follow you. When you job hunt one of the questions asked by the new accounting firm, advertising firm, law firm is "how many clients will you be able to bring with you?"

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Quite the opposite here in Canada.

...The phrase "perp walk" is not used by HR. You'd love to do this before anybody else gets there, but realistically, that's not going to happen. Any HR department that actually tries to humiliate somebody is going to get sued. Humiliating somebody does absolutely no good.

What you want to do, is let them go, escort them to their desk so they can get any personal items, and then escort them off the property.
Uh... which differs from the above-described "perp-walk" how, exactly? What you've described is EXACTLY what we've been talking about..

The perp walk is bringing a person in front of everybody on the EXPRESS purpose of shaming them.

That's what "perp walk" means.

Anybody who does that gets sued.

If you think managers LIKE confrontation and LIKE humiliating people, then you are assuming that the % of bastards out there is pretty damn high.

Its not.

People have to be let go - it happens.

People CAN'T be allowed to hang around once they are let go - that is reality.

And, people start work with other people around.

The idea that you can let a person go and allow them to chat with everybody else is assuming that the % of bastards among non-managers is pretty damn low.

The % of bastards is the same for all occupational stripes.

And, like it or not, its the bastards that have made this process necessary.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Inter alia, Og writes:

quote:
If you think managers LIKE confrontation and LIKE humiliating people, then you are assuming that the % of bastards out there is pretty damn high.

Its not.

I think it is high-- depending on the department in the Public Service, between 10% and 25%. I had occasion some years ago to work in proximity to the Staff Relations office of a certain agency-- as I was a handy literate Anglo, not always overwhelmed with paper, they called me in to edit their stuff.

A good chunk of their workload was reining in managers who wanted to do exactly what you described (and worse). Even the most basic knowledge of hiring and letting people go was anathema to these folk, and I know from my paperwork at least two cases of officials fired at whim-- one of the cases involved him being manhandled in front of witnesses and knocked down, then ejected from the building. That took a fair bit of cleaning up. Human Resources offices exist so that procedure is followed and there is a shot of fairness. If they weren't necessary, they wouldn't exist. Not all managers are vile, but there are enough that we must have procedures to restrain arbitrary behaviour.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

c) Cause having them talk with their now former colleagues while at work is going to cause a lot of issues.
And having them talk to those same ex colleagues out of work, after the additional ignominy of the perp walk, isn't going to cause any issues at all?

What, they'll talk to each other? So what?

What people do outside of work is never controllable. If people act differently at work because of what they do outside of work with a former colleague, that's their problem.

Your job at work is to be that person at work, doing something, being something.

Don't do the escort and guess what happens.

People start yelling.

People start accusing others right in front of others.

People say things they will really later regret and wish others didn't hear that.

People at work are not able to do and be.

And to be blunt, after somebody is let go, its a manager's job to make sure that the people at work are doing OK.

Somebody was let go. They are not there anymore. There is fear. There is loss. And that is a HECK of a lot easier to address without a scene being made.

But, hey, lets just let somebody person scream, yell, rant, rail and abuse.

Like it or not, the bastards who do that (and they are not always those leaving) ruin it for those who everybody would wish would be allowed to leave with dignity.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In those jurisdictions where a company has to give 2 weeks notice, it's common to give no notice but pay the person for those two weeks. But this is increasingly uncommon in the U.S. where "at will" employment is the norm for non-union employees in the private sector. When an employee is hired, they are notified and must acknowledge that they are in an "at will" arrangement. This means that the employee can quit with no notice, without any liability to the employer and the employer can terminate with no notice for any reason or no reason at all. Every private company I have worked at, as an adult in the U.S., has been "at will" company.

Without disagreeing, I live in an at will state too, and we have to get two weeks pay. (Yes, I call it pay not notice, because that does seem to be how it works.)

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Inter alia, Og writes:

quote:
If you think managers LIKE confrontation and LIKE humiliating people, then you are assuming that the % of bastards out there is pretty damn high.

Its not.
I think it is high-- depending on the department in the Public Service, between 10% and 25%. I had occasion some years ago to work in proximity to the Staff Relations office of a certain agency-- as I was a handy literate Anglo, not always overwhelmed with paper, they called me in to edit their stuff.

A good chunk of their workload was reining in managers who wanted to ...

10-25% still is lower then most people seem to think management is made up of.

On another note, this discussion reminds me of Tim Hudak and his 100K firing pledge...and the ONDP who want to fire 60 000 Ontario management and hire 80 000 non-management types.

Easy to say - difficult to implement.

Its all chalk board talk for the pols - the most management Hudak has had to do was a year at Walmart. Wntil we've walked in the shoes of those who have been on both sides, its really easy to think there is only one view on the issue of how to let people go..

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

And, for the record:

I've had the escort done to me twice.

I've also had a chance to leave with dignity over 3 months (mainly because if that social service agency had just let us go, it would have costed them too much in lost funding).

Yeah, I know darn well which one I prefer, as would anybody.

But, like it or not, there are times when the escort is necessary - which in my experience is 95% of the time.

I have been involved in the escort process about 20 times over the years. Didn't ever enjoy it, even for the most cancerous of co-workers.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Quite the opposite here in Canada.

...The phrase "perp walk" is not used by HR. You'd love to do this before anybody else gets there, but realistically, that's not going to happen. Any HR department that actually tries to humiliate somebody is going to get sued. Humiliating somebody does absolutely no good.

What you want to do, is let them go, escort them to their desk so they can get any personal items, and then escort them off the property.
Uh... which differs from the above-described "perp-walk" how, exactly? What you've described is EXACTLY what we've been talking about..
The perp walk is bringing a person in front of everybody on the EXPRESS purpose of shaming them.

That's what "perp walk" means.

Anybody who does that gets sued.

If you think managers LIKE confrontation and LIKE humiliating people, then you are assuming that the % of bastards out there is pretty damn high.

Again, despite your protestations, the procedure you keep describing sounds EXACTLY like both our definition and YOUR definition of a "perp walk". The only difference I can see is that you claim your escort service doesn't have the "EXPRESS purpose of shaming" and that "managers don't like confrontation and humiliating." But the procedure you are describing is precisely the same as the one everyone else has been describing-- exactly. It's the same procedure everyone here-- the people who have been on the other end of your escort service-- experience as shaming and humiliating. That may not be your intent, but it IS the experience-- one that has been testified to over and over again. Reread this thread-- several times. Then explain to me how your "escort service" is going to feel any different to your fired employees than the perp walks we've described here, just because you have such a big heart and really are a nice guy.

Sure, I believe that most managers don't like confrontation-- because that seems to be exactly what this is all about-- helping the manager avoid awkward, uncomfortable conversations. Helping the manager and/or HR professional feel like a decent human being. And they probably are.

BUT... this isn't about you. It isn't about whether or not you feel like a good person after you've done the nasty. It's not about whether or not people like you. It's not about whether or not you have to have an awkward uncomfortable conversation. Because-- say it with me-- it's not about you. It's about some poor schmuck who lost his job. Maybe s/he deserved it, maybe it's just the economy. Doesn't matter-- it's still about them, not you. Always.

Oh, and those other employees you're so worried about? Let me relieve you of that burden. You may not get that it's about the fired schmuck-- but they do. Yes, it will be awkward and uncomfortable having the "long good-bye." That's OK. They can handle it, much better than they can handle the anxiety of wondering if they'll be the next one walking that walk of shame.

[ 02. June 2014, 00:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

Somebody was let go. They are not there anymore. There is fear. There is loss. And that is a HECK of a lot easier to address without a scene being made.

But the post to which I was responding didn't say anything about making a scene, it said they shouldn't even be allowed to talk to ex colleagues. Which is nonsense, because if people are going to be spooked by talking to the sacked guy in work, they'll be equally spooked by talking to them out of work.

If the sack-ee makes a scene, then sure, call security. But although making a scene may be disruptive in the short term, it is at least likely to convince me that the sack-ee was unstable and management was right to get rid of them. Whereas the current belief that sackings should be handled with no discussion whatever seems designed to breed mistrust of management even when management are acting perfectly reasonably.

[ 02. June 2014, 07:15: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
People CAN'T be allowed to hang around once they are let go - that is reality.

Sorry, but it's not the reality at all.

Before Christmas I had to apply for my own job. I got it, but half a dozen colleagues didn't.

The period they had in which to try and find another job was 7 months. None of them actually stayed that long, most were gone within 3 and they're all gone now with a couple of months on the clock.

Now, I realise I'm in the public sector and it's all very cushy, but the idea that you simply have to walk people out the door the second they've been told they're going to lose their job is completely false. They CAN be allowed to stay, and in some workplaces they ARE allowed to stay.

You yourself went on to say, after making this statement that people simply can't be left hanging around, that you once had 3-month period. So not even your own past history backs up this claim that pushing people out the door immediately is essential.

[ 02. June 2014, 08:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

It’s another world out there.

In the leftist pinko-commie state where I live, the only circumstances in which someone can be dismissed the same day are for gross misconduct (we’re talking trying to set fire to the building). Even then, I’m fairly sure the procedure would actually be suspension while the evidence is gathered, and then firing.

While I was a staff representative, I had to accompany someone who got fired for being incompetent (which she was – although AFAICT they’d already figured that out by the end of her trial period and it would have been better for everyone concerned if they hadn’t kept her on at that point).

Standard procedure: the employer has to send a registered letter summoning the person to a meeting where the employer sets out their grievances and the person has the opportunity to defend themselves. They are entitled to be accompanied by a Trades Union or staff representative (délégué du personnel – people elected from the workforce to represent their interests to the management: when the workforce is over a certain size, it is a legal requirement to have these). After this, the employer must wait at least 48 hours before making a decision. If they decide to terminate the person’s employment, they will usually be entitled to two months’ notice or payment in lieu, depending on how long you have been in the position. This can be shortened in the case of (gross) misconduct. If you set fire to the building, you will not get any payments of any kind, although IIRC, you can still claim unemployment benefits.

If any of this is not observed, the person can take their employer to court and sue the backside off them.

The flipside of this is that the notice period is also quite long if you resign. I think the rationale is that the two sides (employer and employee) have a contract, and it is quite difficult for either one to get out of it.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

My one experience of redundancy was a curious mix. Our new Director of Strategy got the go-ahead for his plans to repurpose the Marketing Dept. He was so eager to play with his shiny new toys that he bypassed HR and sent an email at 10.30pm that night summoning us all to a round of meetings in two days time - he was out of the office the next day. The email included the report of the consultant upon which he was basing his actions, which included some highly actionable comments about our manager, who was popular and highly regarded within the company. If I hadn't by chance checked my staff mail from home for a completely unrelated reason, and called him, then my manager would have found out about this the hard way when he got into work the next day and turned his computer on.

So, come the round of meetings, my manager was first in and first out. HR had by now caught up and I think read the Riot Act to the Director, so they sat in and this bit was all done properly. The rest of us were called in one by one; the situation (redundancy, or apply for another position in the company) was explained; and we got given a long weekend to think it over - all entirely within our rights as per contract of employment. We weren't walked to the door, just trusted to make our own way out and not steal anything en route.

So, I did okay and can't really complain about how I was treated; I got the equivalent of nearly a year's salary in one form of payment or another, plus the chance of some freelance work for the same company while I found something more permanent. My manager, on the other hand, was able to sue for a settlement that saw him very nicely through both the next 18 months until he could begin a teacher training course, and the course itself.

I found this ironic, given that the Director of Strategy self-describes on his LinkedIn page as a "problem solver".

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Please forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain the word 'perp'? Is it an abbreviation or acronym?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

short for perpetrator as in a perpetrator of a criminal act.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Thanks, but how is being sacked a criminal act?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Thanks, but how is being sacked a criminal act?

That's the point. That HR firing practices mimic those of a policeman taking in a criminal, with all the requisite shame & humiliation.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

(Mind you "perp-walking" someone who is not yet convicted is dubious anyway.)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Whatever you do don't allow the person sacking you to delude himself with the fictional "We're letting you go."

Make sure you reply with "No you're not, you're sacking me or making me redundant." Don't allow them the pleasure of hiding behind eupehemisms.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Thanks, but how is being sacked a criminal act?

In the UK, there is "wrongful dismissal" which differs from "unfair dismissal" in that the latter is to do with the reason for the dismissal while the former is to do with the process that has been followed.

In other words, if you have been told via text message that you are being made redundant with immediate effect, without having gone through the proper procedures then they could be guilty of wrongful dismissal.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Thanks, but how is being sacked a criminal act?
In the UK, there is "wrongful dismissal" which differs from "unfair dismissal" in that the latter is to do with the reason for the dismissal while the former is to do with the process that has been followed.

In other words, if you have been told via text message that you are being made redundant with immediate effect, without having gone through the proper procedures then they could be guilty of wrongful dismissal.

That is a civil wrong, not a criminal act. The remedy is to sue, not to have someone arrested.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Og:

I agree fully with cliffdweller. "Perp Walks" are never called for. It is humiliating to a former employee and undignified to all involved. And your justifications sound like just so much pleading. I am sorry the system has gotten to you so.

Moreover, I question your knowledge about "severance". In Ontario, "Severance" as a right only applies to businesses with more than $2.5 million in payroll and to employees of those businesses who have worked there for more than five years. What you are really thinking of is the Reasonable Notice Period, which is governed both by the Employment Standards Act and Common Law. The Common Law is by far the more generous of the two.

What is commonly thought of as severance is actually pay in lieu of a reasonable notice period. And it's not at the employer's discretion at all.

I can provide legal citations if you like.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Whatever you do don't allow the person sacking you to delude himself with the fictional "We're letting you go."

Make sure you reply with "No you're not, you're sacking me or making me redundant." Don't allow them the pleasure of hiding behind eupehemisms.

"We are releasing you into the freedom of the marketplace." - Gus Hedges, Drop the Dead Donkey

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

[ tangent: i now understand why most of my now-adult children utterly refuse to work in corporate business. No amount of money is worth such a lack of respect.]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

[continuing Ethne's tangent]Indeed. It's part of why I have always preferred to work in the public sector and why I lament it becoming more like the private sector every day[/tangent]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[continuing Ethne's tangent]Indeed. It's part of why I have always preferred to work in the public sector and why I lament it becoming more like the private sector every day[/tangent]

This. Exactly.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Except that in my original example, the perp walk was in the public sector. The local health authority, also public, did the same thing a couple of years ago. It became a more enjoyable thing when the HR manager who fired and perp walked out 11 people, was two weeks later frog marched herself.

I've developed more understanding of the public enjoyment of hockey fights and public executions myself.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I was speaking to the UK situation where this sort of thing, so far, would be most unusual.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Given that most sensible people wouldn't choose to put themselves in this position, WHY then do people choose to work in situations where this possibility hangs over their heads?

Is it the money?
The stability of having a job?
The pension pot?

Just Why would anyone risk this being Their future?

…..i'm asking because i really really don't get it and someone here might be able to help me….

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Given that most sensible people wouldn't choose to put themselves in this position, WHY then do people choose to work in situations where this possibility hangs over their heads?

Is it the money?
The stability of having a job?
The pension pot?

Just Why would anyone risk this being Their future?

…..i'm asking because i really really don't get it and someone here might be able to help me….

Well, it's not like this is part of the job interview. They don't say, hey, we'd like to over you X position at Y salary and when you are found redundant here's how we're going to treat ya. You wouldn't have access to that info until you're already on the job and get a chance to witness the perp walk first hand. And at that point, it's too late--- there's no way to get out without a perp walk, regardless of who initiated the transition. So all you can do is emotionally dis-invest in the workplace so that when the inevitable perp walk ensues you won't care enough about those perpetuating or witnessing it to feel the desired sense of shame. Which, of course, is not particularly good for the workplace efficiency Og is apparently so concerned about, but big picture thinking doesn't seem to factored into these sorts of decisions.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, it's not like this is part of the job interview.

Quite. How would you phrase it, in among the usual questions that are expected at any interview: "when you fire me, how will it be handled?" Sadly you might as well just ask why anyone puts themselves in a position of, you know, having a job. And even when you see it happen to someone else, and realise that it might lie in your own future, it's not always easy to change jobs. And you might not want to. The sure and certain benefits (financial, emotional, whatever) that accrue to your work here and now may well outweigh the possibility of a perp walk further down the line.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Dunno about you, but most of us I know don't get the chance to choose between more than one job at the same time. It's usually a case of "this job, or go hungry." That's certainly how I wound up taking a job that does not provide unemployment for its let-go workers--I knew it wasn't ideal, but what options did I have? Maybe when/if the job market ever recovers.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Given that most sensible people wouldn't choose to put themselves in this position, WHY then do people choose to work in situations where this possibility hangs over their heads?

Is it the money?
The stability of having a job?
The pension pot?

Just Why would anyone risk this being Their future?

…..i'm asking because i really really don't get it and someone here might be able to help me….

Because when you haven't got a job, and you are offered one, and you turn it down because you don't like the way they fire people, you lose your benefits for six months and live destitute on the streets.

That's why. It's also why meeting complaints with "well you knew what the job was like" is also bullshit of the highest order.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0