Loyalty to the company ceased when companies stopped being loyal to the employees.
I view my job as a situation that is best if works for both me and the company. If it only worked for me (i.e., I was getting paid, but not performing), the company would dump me at their earliest convenience. When it only works for the company (i.e., when I bust my butt & get no recognition for it), I am off to look for someplace else to work. Mind-numbingly simple, eh?
Loyalty? Ha.
I fulfill my obligations to the company. They don’t pay me enough to be loyal.
I’m loyal to people, not organizations. From time to time, one of those people is my boss.
One thing to be careful about with unemployment. It is taxable income. But they don’t withhold taxes (at least when I was on NJ unemployment about 15 years ago). It’s easy to get whacked with a big tax bill at the end of the year if you don’t make plans for it.
Reputable companies will normally only give someone that treatment if they feel it is essential to mitigate their own risk. More on that in a minute. In most other cases, it is worth it for the company to part on more amicable terms. For the small cost of severance, you have the possibility of contacting the former employee with questions, keep the office gossip to a minimum, and can ask for a non-compete (unenforcible, but you can ask), etc.
However, in cases of financial misdealings or sexual escapades with subordinates, it is often worth it for the company to end employment immediately in order to be able to claim that they have dealt with the situation decisively if there we ever an investigation.
I’m not making any assumptions about the friend. This could be an unsophisticated company and a case of office politics gone awry.
You can elect to either have taxes withheld or not.
I am sure it was neither financial misdealings or sexual escapades. The one that crossed my mind was that a black employee quit 2 weeks ago and was complaining about the extra work that the parts guys had to do. I am wondering if he is claiming discrimination and the owner decided it was easier to fire my friend, then to fight a false claim.
Pretty sure that unemployment will differ from state to state. I was not given the option. Like I said, that was about 15 years ago and they may have changed things in New Jersey.
They have. I had withholding when I was on unemployment.
Discrimination would fall into the same category.
That would be pretty weak as the other 4 parts guys remained and are doing their jobs.
He is still suppose to have an exit interview. Hopefully, he finds out when soon and then why.
Jim
Firing your friend wouldn’t make such a claim go away. People who sue generally aren’t looking for justice, they’re looking for money.
Maybe its a blessing in disguise.
If your friend really enjoyed taking the crappy department and making it work again, he might want to look into this .
What a bunch of crap. Both employees and employers enter into a work situation in order to make money. If either party can make more money by a change, they should do so. Firing a worker to save money is no worse than an employee leaving a company to make more money elsewhere.
Unless you also condemn employees who leave one employer to take higher paying jobs elsewhere then you have no right to condemn employers for hiring someone who will do the same job for less pay.
Hey guys, maybe you can take your lovely loyalty debate off to someplace like a Great Debates thread.