Sounds like she can quit for cause. Then she will be eligible for unemployment.
If she is working over 40 hours a week she should be keeping track of all hours she is working. Sounds like she will have much OT coming her way. Many employers will tell their employees they are salaried and not entitled to OT when infact they are. And California is very strict on this. My son received a settlement in such a case.
My opinion. She should meet with her direct supervisor and explain the extra hours that she is putting in. And ask for an assistant with in a week, or she is going to have to either cut back her hours or put in for the OT. Their response will tell her her next move.
BUT I WOULD NOT WAIT UNTIL SHE IS FIRED. If she is fired that can go her record as being let go for not completing her assignments.
In California you can get benefits right away. Of course, the state includes places like Silicon Valley, where companies hire right up until they announce layoffs. Perceptions maybe? I don’t know why they do it. I’ll also accept “incompetence”.
There’s also a cap. You’re not going to get your full salary if you earned over the limit.
Be careful with this. She might get laid off for cause. Unless you have money to spend on an attorney to argue with them, or at least give you advice, I’m not sure it’s worth the risk.
If she is a salaried employee, she will have no OT coming her way. I would advise her to start recording all of her hours immediately, just in case. I would also have her save all emails regarding requests for extra hours or days. Essentially, she needs to be prepared to make the argument that the job wasn’t as presented and that she was not laid off for cause.
She shouldn’t quit or ask, at this point. It’s 4 more weeks. Document. If she is comfortable being more assertive, she could make suggestions about how the job could be improved or managed better, if she has any. It’s better that those read as solutions not complaints, if possible. For example, “I notice that there are a lot of last minute requests. In order to use my time most effectively, I will prioritize requests as follows [insert criteria]. If I have already started a project, unless the new request meets [requirement] I will finish the item I have started. It is inefficient to constantly switch back and forth.” Or “Can we meet every morning (or afternoon) for 15 minutes to quickly align on projects and priorities?” She doesn’t have to do the suggestions bit, but it would give her more credibility in arguing that she was not fired for cause.
How is this a “reasonable assumption” from what little information we have? Or are you saying your biases make you feel this is reasonable?
Being thrown into the deep end is unfair and unreasonable but what gives you the impression this was the case? The op stated his wife was on a probationary period which is used to ease an employee into a position and for the employer to assess their suitability as an employee. It takes time and money to hire for a new position and there is no incentive for them to hire and fire every three months. This makes it reasonable for me to assume someone must have been helping her so she’d stick with the company.
There is a wait period. The wait period is one week. So not a long wait.
She may be a salaried employee. but she may not be an exempt employee and if she is not exempt she will be entitled to OT. The basic rule is she managing other employees? In the past few years many retail companies have been required to pay OT to what they were calling salaried employees, managers. When infact they were not exempt. That was the basis of my son’s pay out.
This thread illustrates the importance of asking, whenever you interview for a job, “What is the turnover rate in this position?” Or at the very least, “How long did the previous person in this job stay in the job?”
Yes, there is some responsibility on the jobseeker to suss out what is involved. The OP’s wife changed jobs after 20 years - I assume it was not for a pay cut. Maybe she thought she could handle it. Maybe she just made a mistake. There are various ways to try to get an idea of an organization’s culture.
I wish her luck in finding a position that suits her better.
I disagree with your last sentence. I know that when I was on unemployment ( I grew up in an area where seasonal unemployment was/is the norm every winter) on the application there was a distinction between an employee being negligent or basically just "trying your best’ and not being up for the job. So, “not being competent” at your job certainly is covered in at least some cases. Most people are terminated for things like habitual tardiness, no show/no call, or violating some policy. Showing up every day and making an effort and just not being cut out for it certainly is a “reason beyond their control.” The employer made an informed decision to offer the position and the employee attempted the job to the best of her abilities.
So the company has a lot of turnovers and the wife’s nature is to try her best and cry at the stress. How are any of what you quoted a rebuttal to the company not doing enough to help her?
And in any case, as you noted, those quotes came after you made your post. So I’ll ask again. What were the factors that lead to you to believe your assumptions were “reasonable”?
Usually in a company, employees set goals with management and then have a meeting about those goals to see if they meet or exceed them. If there are deficiencies, the employee works with their supervisor to map out a plan to address them within a timeframe. Perhaps more training or whatever they decide.
If someone is on probation and the supervisor determines this isn’t working out, they can terminate the employee without going through that procedure. In other words, they aren’t going tp spend any more time with attempting to improve their job performance and just want them gone.
But this is subjective depending on the job and management. They can still fire someone with no warning and for no reason or any reason.
UPDATE:
Because of the coronavirus, sales at my wife’s work plummeted 80% in the last week. As a result, she and a significant number of her coworkers were laid off this morning. Heading to the UI site now… Stay healthy everyone
Well, that sucks. Except that being part of a large layoff pretty much guarantees the company can’t fight unemployment for any of them. And it makes explaining why she’s looking for a job a lot easier when we’re on the other side of the pandemic.
I didn’t say I assumed the company wasn’t doing enough to help her, the specific two things that I said I was assuming that she had
a) been honest in representing her own abilities
b) putting a good faith effort into doing her job as best she could.
Are any of those quotes I repeated in any way compatible with a person who was likely to misrepresent herself in an interview? Or a person who’s slacking off right now? Because I don’t think they are.
**Malice’s **wife got the job because some person in hiring who’s getting paid money to find people who could effectively do Job X - whatever it is - thought she could. If they instead hire a person who right out of the gate can’t, however hard she tries, do Job X … well, they screwed it up. Their only possible defense to the proposition “well, you screwed up that hire, didn’t you?” is if the person they hired was actively trying to pull the wool over their eyes, or that they could do it but just don’t wanna. If neither of those things is proven true then the person with the greater power, and more information about the situation, owns the result. That is - some person or people in the company itself.
As to how I guessed beforehand that **Malice’s **wife would turn out not to have been a shyster or just plain lazy … I guess I’m just that good at reading between the lines.
@**Malice **- Condolences or congratulations to your wife, whichever is appropriate. I hope she finds a better job soon.
Did she get any sort of severance package? Also, what state is she in? In California, layoffs over a certain size require larger payouts by the company.
Whether she had misrepresented anything or not, (and I don’t anyone think anyone even suggested she had), why would you assume the company didn’t do anything or enough to help her? As I mentioned earlier, the probationary period is generally for that purpose and a general assumption would be the company tried their best to train her but it didn’t work out for a myriad of reasons that we probably couldn’t delve into without talking to both of them and doing an actual assessment, even if perfunctory.
What makes you see this as a binary situation? Does one need to be right and the other wrong? Is it not possible both parties did their best but it did not work out because… we’re human? So your thinking is if she couldn’t handle the job, it was the companies fault for hiring someone incompetent, but if she did an exemplary one, the company should get all the credit for hiring the right person?
You don’t even realize how ridiculous this sounds, do you? There wasn’t even an iota of a suggestion by anyone she was lazy until you yourself came up with that conditional remark out of the blue. Most of us already assumed correctly she tried her best and didn’t need to read between any lines because we never doubted her. We didn’t need to place some ridiculous “Well if she didn’t misrepresent herself…” condition to come up with a villain where there was none. All of this suggests a lot more about your biases and prejudices than it does about your deduction skills.
