Assuming the OP is in a right-to-work state, there is absolutely no upside from the employer’s point of view in giving a reason for the termination.
All that’s required is “we’re going to have to let you go.” If the employer intends to contest unemployment benefits, then it’s “we are terminating you for cause.”
Agreed, but the OP seemed concerned about the woman’s future. I’ve seen it many times in companies that I’ve worked for where they fired people for misconduct, but didn’t press the challenge to unemployment benefits.
Sometimes good business practice isn’t strict adherence to the bottom line. I don’t know what kind of business the OP is in, but do you want it spread around the community that the company fired some poor little 60 year old, church-going good Christian lady for making a couple of minor mistakes and THEN even challenged her unemployment! The heartless bastards! I’ll never do business there again!
It should be noted that the employer’s failure to contest unemployment claims has a persuasive effect in terms of other lost wage claims - in a wrongful termination or workers’ compensation suit, for example.
Persuasive in which way? Good or bad? I can’t imagine what relevance there would be between contesting unemployment benefits in one case versus a workers comp claim for a different employee. The factual situations are completely different.
Bring in a pint of Ben and Jerry’s on Monday. When she helps herself to it, fire her for theft.
Goes to whether the employer considered the termination to be for cause.
If you don’t want her feelings hurt and you want her to feel respected, and you don’t want the world badmouthing the company, don’t fire her.
hh
Any update?
StG
I’ve never heard this one before. I wonder if it’s the inspiration for Durmstrang.
I’ve been told to move slowly, but steadily. We’ve just made a new hire, so until she’s trained we need the warm body. Even with the new person we’re still short handed.
It looks like what my boss wants is a three month process. That’s how long it will take to train the new person and then find a second new hire to cover fired girl’s hours as well. So, there will be meetings with HR and more performance plans and whatnot.
It’s incredibly uncomfortable since the office space is really small, I’m counting the days.
The advice in this thread has been really helpful though. I’ll be meeting with HR to figure out how to create smart goals for the stupidity issues, and I feel more confident about the eventual meeting of doom.
Also, you know, PM me if you’re looking for a low paying admin job in a super cool SF Bay Area nonprofit.
It is, yes. The phrase means “storm and stress,” basically.
Good, except at step 6 do **NOT **give any reason(s) for termination. Just tell them they have been terminated and give them the paperwork involved, plus whatever money they are owed. Sometimes there’s severance pay that usually comes with a waiver where they promise not to sue.
If you can do so, make their status “laid off” so that they can get unemployment, that will be a nice gesture.
Why not force her into retirement?
This is what we will be doing, purposely overstaffing and then a layoff. She’ll get unemployment and move into retirement. No hard feelings and I get a better team.
It’s slower than I would like, but it’s a good solution for everyone.
I’ve found that if one gives good feedback about performance, which you have been doing, the person being terminated isn’t surprised and is almost relieved that it is over. If they are with it enough to know they are not performing, it is stressful. Most people who have never been in management think firing someone is a lot easier than it actually is, and so expect the axe to fall at any minute.
She’s 60 years old, too young for Social Security and doesn’t have a pension. Mention “retirement” in that context and the OP would be hit with an age discrimination complaint.