Husband and I have been debating whether or not this was appropriate for a while. Perhaps you can help us come to a resolution?
I left my corporate job as a marketer about a year ago to go to graduate school, and left behind a good friend at the company. We’re social, so I get all the news about what’s going on in the department. I’ve been nervous for her: the company’s been slowly laying off people, although they’re doing it one at a time to keep their “we’ve never had cutbacks!” slogan for the future. Fortunately for my friend, though, she’s been so busy that she’s spent many days late at work on projects and the department has even hired two new people…both of whom are to replace me (polishes smug self-satisfaction): one earlier in September, the other the week in which this story takes place. She felt pretty secure in her job.
Then they eliminated her position because they “didn’t have enough funding” in the department to keep her. Funny, the SAME WEEK fired her, they hired a new person. The company, in a rare gesture of kindness, actually gave our friend two weeks, so she could finish out the pay period. Our friend’s last day on the job was during the week when the new girl started.
And, sadly, this isn’t the inconsideration that’s caused confusion.
No, the “is this or is this not weird?” question came from the “We’ll Miss You!!” picture they took of the department and gave to our friend as a parting gift – that included the new girl who’s hiring caused our friend to be fired.
So, answer us this: is including the laid-off person’s REPLACEMENT in the “goodbye we’ll miss you pick” strange (and inconsiderate) or not?
It seems to be in poor taste to give a “We’ll Miss You!!” photo to someone who was laid off. I mean, they obviously don’t miss her that much if they fired her.
But once you already made that call, I don’t see anything additionally rude about including her replacement in the photo. If it’s a department photo the you have to include the entire department. If you don’t want to include the entire department then you skip the photo.
Did she have the next job lined up by the time her last day rolled around? That might make it more acceptable, then everyone can pretend it was just a transfer.
Your terms are confusing to me. Was she fired or laid off? If she was fired, it seems unlikely that she would be able to transfer to the parent company. Is her new job in the parent company a promotion, demotion or the same position? Even the same position in a parent company could be a promotion. And the answers to those questions would affect how I felt about the picture.
As far as the picture, it’s hard to tell about how it would feel to her. Is she the one saying it’s strange and inconsiderate? Did she know about the transfer when the picture was given to her? A lot of what goes on is so specific to the situation. I think if I were in her position, I’d be a lot more concerned about my job than I would the social niceties (or faux pas) going on.
It’s akward any way you cut it. It would be akward if you are the new person and are asked not to participate in the group photo. It’s just an akward situation, but it’s important to remember all the new person did was accept a job, she had no way of knowing the situation with your friend.
Silly European! The US is, for the most part, an “at-will” employment environment. People can be fired or laid off for no reason whatsoever, or for any reason that doesn’t violate discrimination laws. The exceptions are members of unions which have negotiated contracts prohibiting this, and some government employees.
I don’t think that the sentiment would be that out of place in a situation where a higher-up has told the department head, “I don’t care, you have to lay off someone, just get it done.” (sigh.) Whether it would be in great taste to give that person a reminder of what they’ve lost is another question, but certainly it’s possible for co-workers and the superior to miss the laid-off employee.
Of course, a situation where there’s a ‘replacement’ is a bit different, but I suppose that might also be a requirement imposed from without.
Or professors with tenure. But yeah for the most part we’re not that into job security. (I’m not an academic but I hear even the tenure-track tradition for profs is getting phased out)
She was fired a week after they hired someone new in her position in this department. Despite being fired, they gave her two weeks notice and a chance to interview at corporate in another part of town. She got the job (which is the same title as what she had), though there was no assurance of that occurring.
So, in essence, they hired the replacement knowing they’d be firing lionsaoi’s friend. At the point they lined up to take the picture, I’m uncertain whether she had gotten the new job. Most likely she had, but maybe not.
If they didn’t eliminate the position, technically it was a firing, not a layoff. But lack of funding does imply a layoff. What funding are they using to pay the new person?
I think your friend may be missing some part of the picture - either they really were firing her for performance or personality conflict or something, but said the bit about funding to try to avoid hurting her feelings, or there is something different about the person who was hired in terms of how she could be funded, the work she could do, etc.
Honestly, how the heck else would they handle the picture thing? Tell the new person - you can’t be in the picture because we fired Jane to hire you? That seems considerably worse all around.
Maybe your friend will never know the truth, but I think it would be best for her mental adjustment to assume it was one of the 2 scenarios above and move on from the topic.
How about not do a fucking picture? It’s completely inappropriate for someone who is not leaving the company by their own decision. Personally, I would have chucked it in the garbage or broke in over someone’s head.
To clarify a few things, the friend was basically “laid off” or simply “terminated”. The term “fired” is generally used to describe terminations with cause - drug use, gross incompetance, punching your boss, etc. You usually don’t get unemployment or severance in those cases. Laid off is the term people use to describe when you are terminated for economic reasons or because they simply don’t want you around any more.
Two weeks pay is not particulary kind or unusual. The standard severance package is typically two weeks pay for every year employed with the company.
Hiring a new replacement at the same time firing your friend is unusual, but it happens. Usually it’s because the request for the new position went in before the layoffs happened.
I don’t think putting the new person in the photo is either her nor there. It was probably insensitive to do the picture regardless. And if she was transferred to another job, she wasn’t really “fired” (not in the sense of being fired for cause), she just had her position eliminated, which is really not the same thing. She should feel fortunate that she still has a job and not dwell on something as ultimately trivial as who’s in a picture.
Hey, I didn’t take the fucking picture!:rolleyes: I actually agree it’s not a brilliant move for someone leaving under these circumstances, whatever they are.
But the woman in the OP doesn’t seem mad about the picture of her coworkers, she’s mad about it including the woman she sees as her replacement. It sounds like she would have liked the picture just fine if it were just the other coworkers.
I’m on the fence here. First of all, I’m not entirely certain what the situation is. The OP indicates that the friend was laid off/fired. The position was closed. So theoretically the new girl can’t be the friend’s replacement if the position was entirely eliminated. Right?
On the other hand, companies being what they are, maybe they just couldn’t afford the friend, so they told her her position was closed and hired someone on the cheap to replace her.
Either way, if you give the new girl the benefit of the doubt, she’s coming into a completely new company, unaware of the company’s politics and motivations (other than making money). So I don’t think the picture was at all rude. For all that girl knew, your friend was leaving her position for something better after it was closed.
If there is blame to toss around, I’d say it was the boss’s fault - or whoever organized the picture - for not being more sensitive or considerate to people the company had just fired.
Which may also explain the “funding issue” too. At my old job, they had to let go a marketing manager, but at the same time hired someone new for the marketing department. Their job requirements overlapped, 'tis true, but they were still very different positions, the new position was a junior position, and the new person’s salary was being partly covered by some government program (I vaguely recall it had something to do with a job-training program for students and/or recent grads.)
Totally agree that they can miss her, but that’s not an excuse to be tactless, you know? Coworkers can give their message personally if they want, or get together after hours to take pictures and give gifts. If they do something in the office as a department then it should be dignified, and a group photo isn’t really dignified for this situation. For one it assumes this person is so attached to their now-former job that they want to keep a photo of everyone’s smiling face.
And I agree with others, it sounds like she was laid off and not fired (so my wording up thread was off), and she is working within the parent company maybe folks saw it more as a transfer? The fact that they did a photo makes me wonder if someone didn’t have the whole story.