Not necessarily. Same thing happened to me: twice. Once was a money-saving move, since they consolidated two positions into one guy who would take less money than either of us were making; life sucks, move on. But the other came out of the blue and I never got an explanation; and I was number two in the company! The CEO refused to meet with me to discuss it, and the HR guy just mumbled something meaningless and wouldn’t meet my eye.
It wasn’t even a proper dismissal: the CEO just popped her head in one day and said “I’m taking back operational control of the business”. I spent a week wondering what the fuck that meant, and didn’t find out that I’d been let go until the HR guy called me in and said “Do you understand that Friday is your last day here?” :rolleyes:
The only motives that I can figure is that either they wanted to make the bottom line look healthier, or there was an Alaska Native who wanted the job. Either way, it was a shitty way to treat somebody. My sympathies to the OP.
If they had a legitimate reason and gave it to you, you might not qualify for unemployment. This is the easy way out for them. I doubt in your future jobs “they” will use the easy way for you.
We recently interviewed and made a job offer to an individual. His former company had sold one of their product lines to a competitor. The competitor needed the former company’s field people, but not their office people, so all the office people were let go. This gentleman and all of his co-workers were told not to contact anyone still working for their original company for references as they would not be given. Yet our company requires three verifiable references from previous superiors in order to hire anyone. The gentleman we hired had worked for his previous company for 20 years, and yet he had to scramble about looking for co-workers from over two decades ago to give him supervisor references before we could hire him.
I guess the question here is who owes what to whom, if anything? Surely this gentleman’s former employer didn’t need to freeze he and the other office staff out of references when they lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And what real value did my company gain by obtaining twenty year old references?
I understand all of this cavalier behavior on the part of former employers is both legal and done to minimize the possibility of lawsuits being brought on the part of former employees. But surely one can sever ties with no longer needed employees without making it almost impossible for them to find employment elsewhere! More and more companies are becoming like mine…requiring a rote list of items to hire anyone, regardless of the situation of the prospective employee. But what if he’d worked 20 years for his former employer and this had been his first job? He’d have had no chance at all to find references from previous superivisors unless he’d had a clerking job at a local retail store during his college summers. And again, of what possible value is such a reference?
Sorry for the slightly off-topic diatribe, but this is something that strikes me as vastly unfair. Business needs sometimes require you to off-load employees. But if that’s the case, and they aren’t being released due to job inadequacies, tell them why they are being let go and provide them with references making it possible for them to find other employment. They are far less likely to cast about for some reason to sue you if they are gainfully employed elsewhere than if they are repeatedly denied employment due to lack of references.
And how exactly do you think this will help anyone? In my experience, if you’re getting fired for a personal problem (like body odor, or rampant racism, or general ineptitude), telling you that isn’t going to change anything.
The people will still be in the job market, now they just know that people think they smell, or that they’re racist, or that they suck at their job.
I’m not saying any of those is the reason OP was let go, but telling the person why, while it sometimes gives closure, doesn’t really change people. IMHO, YMMV, etc.
I was terminated from a job abruptly after being with the company for two years, and I’m quite certain the reason was that I got my nose pierced, but they couldn’t actually fire me for that, so they made up a few reasons… I’d been late (on a day when most of the office was late because of snowy driving conditions), I made a significant error in my work, (on a spreadsheet others had access to make changes to), and a questionable sick day. None of it was really helpful going forward, but I was fired ‘without cause’, given two weeks pay in lieu of notice, and still eligible for unemployment insurance, so I had to walk away and do my best at future job interviews explaining why I was let go.
A - I have no idea how that would be enforced. When I list references, I don’t list the person’s company number, just their name and personal number/email. How would the buying company know that happened?
B - Sounds like the bigger problem than references is the checkbox method of hiring done by your current company.
Oh it IS a problem on both ends, absolutely. The off-loading company offers nothing and the potentially hiring company wants everything. It puts the individual in a terrible spot with no real way to successfully navigate the job search.
On the other hand, I have heard on multiple occasions heard of aberrant negative performance reviews being entered for people before a layoff (recent story here). Clearly in such cases layoff targets are being selected for other reasons and performance measures are being “managed” to achieve the required result.
When I worked as a manager we had a couple of incidents when we were told we had to cut one person or reduce everybody else’s hours. We had a meeting to pick the person. In both instances the person was obvious–everybody agreed–for no particular reason, but the overarching reason was this was the least productive person for some reason or another. In one case it was a woman who did various things like: took a lot of personal time to be with her sick friend (not a relative or lover), could not just be unproductive on her own but also induced non-productivity in her coworkers, and could be very prickly. None of these things would have gotten her fired, but they did point her out as the weakest one when it came to culling the herd.
Also, none of it was something any of us wanted to articulate. She was entitled to the time she took off, and she had a decent reason, and if she thought that was why she was dismissed, well, that was part of it. But you can’t just tell someone they were laid off because of having an unpleasant personality. You can call it a “bad fit.” But we didn’t.
You have to be very careful when it comes to acting on perceived general opinion. People are prone to lazy mental shortcuts when it comes to forming opinions about others. I would suggest to avoid this, instead of coming to a group consensus, look through their personnel files and make it a merit-only decision. Remove your perceptions of this person from the equation, and this way people aren’t losing their jobs for perceived weakness or “some reason or another”.
This is precisely what worried me about losing my last job. People let politics and perception guide my fate.
I would think that letting people know any of these things would be extremely valuable. The body odor case would be a perfect example, as it is quickly and easily resolved.
While racism can’t be resolved through confrontation, you can certainly condition someone to govern themselves more professionally at work.
Even ineptitude can often be resolved by coaching and other active management strategies.
I am probably projecting a little here, but my experience is that this systematic stonewalling comes from managers who don’t like confrontation. Usually it stems from being a bad fit for a leadership role because they are not assertive enough, and have a hard time handling assertive employees.
It’s called being laid off. It happens all the damned time. Just about everyone I know employed in the private sector has been laid off at least once; I’ve been laid off 3 times.
If you are in a union, and have a due process clause in your contract, then what you describe would not be legal. Barring that, it is perfectly legal for any employer to terminate you far any reason without explanation in most states; this is what is meant by the term “right to work.”
I take it you have never dealt with someone that had consistently bad odor. It is not “easily resolved”, but it may involve a lot of arguing.
Or you can get yelled at for letting the liberals have their way as the master race is subjugated.
The time for that is well before the firing stage. If it’s too the point that someone’s getting the ax, usually it’s a hopeless case.
I think you typed “assertive employees” when you meant “argumentative employees”.
There are some people who just have toxic personalities. Pointing it out to them will do nothing but get you yelled at and usually they will dig their heels in and double down. “Avoiding confrontation” is not the same as “refusing to tilt at windmills”.
This is a fantasy. There are many subjective reasons why you wouldn’t want to work with someone. In fact, I would argue that personality is more important than technical skill for the vast majority of jobs.
There’s not a checkbox on the personnel file for “this employee is a jerk and nobody likes them”.
I’ve seen employees get laid off just because nobody liked working with them. They did their work fine, but they had various personality issues that made people not want to be around them.
I’ve worked at many contract positions in the technology industry for lots of different companies. Whenever I have a peer co-worker on my team who has much better technical skills than I do, I always ask myself, “Why is this person down here at my level?” And after a month or two the answer is usually obvious. Sometimes the answer is “We were just putting them through a probationary period before hiring them full time”. Usually it isn’t though.
For most jobs I do if you’re called in for an interview they’ve already decided you can do the job, they’re just trying to pick the best candidate out of a list of four or five resumes. The interview itself is just to see if your resume is a complete lie, and to see if they can imagine working next to you for a year or so.
Anyway, there’s no way anyone at the company that laid you off is going to say, “I just got tired of sitting next to you.” Not going to happen.
No, but there are code phrases that would be understood by anyone in management, but would look innocuous to a judge.
In any case, there’s no point wondering why this happened. You’ll never get the real answer, and it isn’t going to get reversed. Move forward with your life - the more time you waste wallowing in this, the longer it will take to get the next job.
*Hey, Jim. You stink. Like literally you smell bad. Jane who sits across from you vomits at least twice a day. You need to bathe.
*
Do you think it goes more like:
Ok, Jessica, I’ll get on that right away!
Or like this:
I have a disability that causes the odor. Now that you know you have to provide reasonable accommodations. That means I need my own office with a door. And if anyone mentions this again, I’m going to file a harassment claim. Oh, and I slipped and fell and now need worker’s comp. It’s a cumulative injury and I’m only at 50% capacity. You will have to provide reasonable accommodations to allow me a flexible schedule so I can work when I want, and from home too. If I go out on permanent disability because of the mental fatigue this ordeal is causing you’ll never be able to fire me and have to keep me on payroll forever. And I wont be doing any work.
That is just a loser right there. Never going to have that conversation not because of confrontation avoidance, but because it’s simply not necessary and has huge downside potential. There are lots of people who need work, no need to go through a bunch of shit to fix someone’s problems. They got issues? Fired.
My best guess is the reason you were let go is because your boss didn’t like you, and your work/skillset wasn’t enough to overcome that.
Note to self: middle-managers are sly wordsmiths and judges were born yesterday. Good to know.
I think “bad personality” is easily a fireable offense, but that doesn’t mean a boss is going to take the time to put it in an employee record unless their company requires some enormous paper trail to fire somebody.
EDIT: I agree with your conclusion; it’s time to move on whatever the reason is.
