As of the first of the year, we’ll be receiving 25% less money for our data. That means the president is looking to save money. And our data supposedly doesn’t need cleaning up and reformatting, so they’re not going to need an Easytrieve programmer. My boss will only need company-provided insurance for another 10 months, until she switches to Social Security. She says she’s retiring in three years. She says she’ll tell the president that even without the reformatting and cleaning, there’s too much data for one person, so she needs me. And when she retires, I can take her position. So if the company can hold out, they can keep me. But I’m pessimistic. I’m just hoping I can finish out the year. Ten and a half years is the longest I’ve worked in one place, and I like the company and the people. But business models change, and positions are eliminated. Time to update my résumé on Linked In and Career Builder, and get one on the Worksource site. 
I apologize, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to imply that our HR person would willfully retaliate. I just mean I don’t think she knows any better. She’s not really an HR person – she heads a totally different department that has almost nothing to do with HR.
I don’t know why you’re so scared of being laid off or let go and having that on your PERMANENT RECORD. I work in the tech industry, and it happens every five minutes.
But yes, it seems like you’re going to be shown the door soon. The really insulting thing is that they think you’re too stupid to know.
Just do your job as per normal, start looking for your new position right now. They’ve been telling you that your performance was fine in all your performance reviews, right? So if when they let you go and try to tell you that it’s because you weren’t doing your job, you can ask why that was never communicated to you.
But they aren’t going to do that. What’s in it for them? Instead they’ll just say “Hey Bob, it’s not working out. Your last day was five minutes ago. Security will box up your stuff and leave it out on the curb for you.” They surely aren’t going to tell new employers that they fired you for cause, because that would be a lie, and it could get them sued. Instead, if someone really does call them, they’ll just say “Bob worked here from March 2014 to September 2017”.
There is no law that states that, no, but there are liability issues, so most companies do not offer anything more than they need to.
In any case, should she say he was fired for any cuase, then she would not be making truthful statements, and therefore, would be breaking the law.
I once had someone call me about someone who used to work for me. I knew the guy I was talking to (he was a “competitor”).
He asked if the person was eligible for rehire. I answered, “possibly, if someone had a gun held to my head”. He thanked me.
Unless there is a cause. Maybe the OP isn’t giving us the full story and there’s a clear cause that they’ll cite, or they they are documenting something that is technically a cause, or maybe he’ll follow your advice to deliberately not train the new person, get caught at it, and then that will be the cause for firing.
What do I have to gain here by not telling the full story? Seriously, sometimes you guys baffle me.
If he followed my advice, he would not be deliberately not training her. I specifically said he should train her mostly normally, but that there would be things that they would get to later, things an assistant would not need to know, once it was made official that she would not be an assistant, but on the same level. It would only be the case of them suddenly firing him without warning that those skills would not be imparted, in which case, that’s kinda on them.
So, if he followed my advice, and they made the claim that you just did, then they would lying and make themselves open for a lawsuit.
To answer the question directly, you could get a bunch of sympathetic posts by not including the unsympathetic parts. That’s incredibly common on the internet, I’ve seen a lot of hilarious threads on dating advice where everyone is saying ‘oh you poor dear’, then someone who’s involved with the actual situation says ‘well, actually here’s some facts’ and the opinions reverse. In the broader sense of 'why wouldn’t you have the complete story, there may be something you are doing that is a problem that you don’t think is a problem that they haven’t told you about, or there may be other circumstances you aren’t aware of, or something similar. If you’ve ever read threads about what to do in a legal situation, for example, after it’s been going for a while you’ll see the person suddenly mention something that completely alters the advice that they had no idea was even relevant.
I bolded the part where you said he should deliberately be insubordinate and not follow the instructions to train his replacement, which would be a legitimate cause for firing and for denying unemployment benefits. Maybe he would be clever enough that they couldn’t catch him at it, but I generally advise that people don’t do things that have a high potential to greatly worsen their situation.
You bolded a part, and you also snipped it out of context, which changes the meaning to something that vaguely, but poorly, can be stretched to support your claims. In context, it does not, not at all.
I take it that every job you have had you were trained on every single thing in the first day? Or even in the first week?
This may be one of those jobs, the OP hasn’t given all that much detail, if that’s the case, no big deal, apparently, it doesn’t actually require much training. If it is the type of job that requires actual comprehensive training, then there are going to be parts that are not introduced on the very first day, as you seem to think should be done, but instead, can be delayed until the OP gets a better idea of what is needed. If he is training an assistant, sa was claimed by his bosses, then she does not need to know these things. She only needs to know them if she is replacing him. If that is the case, then management needs to be upfront about that, so that she can be trained properly.
I am not sure why you are so insistent that a failure of management should reflect poorly on an employee put in a difficult position.
I don’t think they can fire you for that.
It’s always easier to get a job when you’ve got one.
Do not do this.
Look, they are almost certainly not gonna fire you for cause. You will be “laid off” and thus eligible for Unemployment.
It also looks better: “I quit as i thought I was gonna be fired.” sounds horrible.
“I was laid off” is bog standard.
First off, is it possible that you have read the situation wrong and that you might be up for a promotion.
Secondly, the worst is that you are going to be fired. Depending on the industry you are in, this may be no big deal. Get your resume updated, contact people in your workplace that might be willing to give you a reference, without having to go through HR. Start networking with people in your industry if possible, and start collecting corporate data, email and customer information for offsite storage.
Unless you get real lucky and are able to snag another job with more money and better package, wait to be fired. Your just giving up what ever severance you might be able to collect, along with fuck off money if your entitled to it. Quitting with no job waiting is not a real good idea.
Hey, it’s entirely possible you do not know the whole story. 
That would be a hilarious turn of events, but I’m 100% certain I am not up for a promotion. I asked if I would at least be made the “senior” [job title] when the new hire came on board and I was flatly told no.
So thanks everyone for your feedback. Honestly, I don’t think I understand the difference between being laid off and getting fired. I always thought getting laid off was, like, “they would keep you if they had the money but they don’t,” and everything else (outside of some kind of impropriety on either the employee or employer side) was a firing.
Because can’t any reason for dismissal be interpreted as poor performance (and thus a firing)? If it wasn’t for budget reasons, the bottom line is that you were replaced because they thought you were doing a poorer job than someone else could do.
I will reiterate that I’ve not been served any kind of notice at all, so if they’re collecting actionable complaints about me, I’ve never seen or signed them. I haven’t even signed the employee handbook, because they never gave it to me.
Separately, it was genuinely interesting and surprising to hear how negative the opinions were of quitting. I would have thought that someone going out on their own terms and having the courage to leave a toxic situation without a parachute would engender more respect than someone who stuck around until they were forced to leave.
Ok, really any termination can be called a “firing”. But in general, “being fired” means fired for cause. Stealing, insubordination, drug use on the job, etc.
I doubt if they will try to make up “cause”- it causes legal issues. They have to specify a reason and then they can be sued. Otherwise they just terminate or lay you off. They then dont have to specify a reason, they rarely do, and you can get Unemployment.
Quitting looks really really bad. After all, your prospective employer cant verify it, and they will doubt your reasons- and of course you are bad mouthing your prior employer and that always is bad. Now sure “I left for a better position” is always OK, but then it’s your employer after next you are telling that to.
While it looks like it worked out, I’m afraid I don’t quite understand why the replacement though he’d been played in addition to you. Did he think he was in over his head (workload-wise or ability-wise), or thought that the job functions had been misrepresented? I can also see him not wanting to work for someone so unreliable, but that would come off as him being afraid of being played rather than actually being played.
The opinions on you quitting are not personal opinions about you or your character, but rather the ramifications to you if you choose that course of action.
I’ve filled out a number of unemployment claims, some justified, most not. If you quit, you are not eligible for unemployment in most if not all states except under some pretty extenuating circumstances. The standard that I was informed on was the “reasonable person” standard. If a reasonable person would find the job to be too toxic to stay around, then you can make a case for (certainly not guaranteed) getting unemployment. Unless you can prove some pretty serious cases of abuse, you are probably not going to win that.
If they let you go, they need to let you go with cause if they wish for you not to collect unemployment. Cause is something that needs to be in some way documented, or it will be easier for you to challenge it, and if you can show that they lied about it, then unemployment may just be a small part of your payout. In another thread, we were talking about nazis and whether we should be allowed to fire them. If I fired a nazi, then I would be protected in that action from a discrimination lawsuit, but it is not a cuase that is recognized, so the nazi would be able to collect unemployment.
As far as performance, most states will allow you to collect unemployment if the reason for severance was poor performance, as long as it was not discipline related. I don’t know what state you are in, so I would check that out first, but probably you are in a state that does not hold the poor performance against employees.
If they start making disciplinary documentation now, after they have hired your possible replacement, that documentation will not be worth all that much. It can be reasonably shown that the timing was such as to try to get you out with cause. Your states department of jobs and family services, as well as the courts aren’t entirely stupid, and such shenanigans have been tried by employers to get out of paying unemployment since there has been unemployment insurance.
Now, as far as you leaving for a better job, that I would absolutely support and recommend. If you can find a better fit, especially if it is also better pay, go for it. But it is never a good idea to be jobless, you never know how long it will take to get another one, or what it will be or what kind of compensation you will be getting. I’d strongly recommend against quitting without something else lined up. If they want you gone, make them terminate you, so at least you get unemployment while you are looking. That way, you don’t have to take the very first job you find in order to pay your bills, and you can spend a bit more time looking for the job that meets your needs and expectations.