Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you all for the comments above, some good stuff in there.
Update: this morning first thing I requested a one on one with the GM and laid it all on the line. Told him I was not feeling good about my experience, that I felt blindsided by the position they placed me in, and that I have spent a great deal pondering if this was the right move for all concerned. Basically, a 'nothing to lose' speech. The GM thanked me for being candid, and did address my concerns. I left the meeting at least content that everything I felt about the situation I expressed (tactfully).
I had a second meeting with the owner present 3 hours later. I won't bore you with the details, but I said that I don't fashion myself a quitter and was determined to succeed regardless.End of the day, I haven't quit....yet. This is my first week 'running the show', so far this morning I haven't gone off the deep end so we'll see how it goes. I know at the very least, I'm pretty much all they have( not saying Im indispensable) but that they wouldnt be able to bring in anyone else, or even use other staff, its too late. In essence, though half trained Im the second most qualified after Carla, so this morning I said eff it and decided to get on with it.
I still am not trusting of management and will continue to put money aside 'just in case'...
First of all, I'm just pointing out there are two sides to every story, is the job that bad or does he lack character and commitment? Let's hear from his boss... If he were able to go to school for two years and make himself more marketable, that would be a good thing, but.... what if he finds school to be too hard and wants to quite?
It takes character and commitment to survive in this world, he needs to prove he has it.
Life is tough, then you die...
There is, but this is an open internet message where some folks do practice discretion. This ain't Judge Judy. Don't expect to hear the other side of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nayabone
I sure would like to hear the bosses side of the story, because it could be interpreted another way. It could be we're dealing with an excuse making quitter who doesn't want to put in the work necessary to do the job.
Nose to the grindstone, do whatever it takes to do the job, if you have some failures, continue on and try harder.
You walk away from a job because it's too hard and you have to live with yourself. Quitters never prosper....
Show the boss he made the correct decision in hiring you and continue to kick butt until you're sitting in the chair next to him.. Life it hard, you can chose to be a winner or a quitter... Your life, your decision..
Yes, we have had slackers and folks on C-D who are on the naïve side, and otherwise oblivious to workplace and employment matters (some really extreme examples include "I sit home all day, but haven't received any offers!", or "but my photo on my resume is just right!").
However, I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt. I've been in some bad environments too where I relocated 700 miles for a job that was supposed to last at least a year, only to be done in 6 months. One of them was poison where folks just avoided 1 other person who was making other people's lives miserable, but that one person was never getting fired due to immunity. I thought it was me, but I've been told by 6 other coworkers saying there's a reason nobody sits next to him, move away from him with us and you'll be much happier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman77
From the get go, they misrepresented themselves during the hiring process. I was hired for position A, and then thrown into position B without warning for which much of the duties fall outside my experience. There's nothing to say I can't learn it, and I have been learning it and getting better by the week, but in a professional setting how realistic or rational is it to expect an employee to run a dept. without support after two months? Who's to say I haven't dug in trying to master the position? There's no two sides to that, or another way to interpret it that makes the employer right in what they did. 'Yeah, who cares if you were hookwinked, life is tough yadda yadda, is probably your reaction to that.' Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but I live by the rule that there's a right and wrong way to do things. I life by the rule that I treat people with honesty and fairness, and expect the same in return. Yeah, tough world, life sucks, grow a pair...something like that.
If the owner is dropping hints that others have been let go inside their probationary period for not grasping the position in like a matter of weeks, just perhaps there's something wrong with the process, or management's expectations? Is the onus strictly on the employee to have character, but not on the lying employer? Is the onus strictly on the employee to show commitment, while the employer drops hints that others didn't grasp the position in a month so they let them go? Where's the commitment on their end, instead of dropping people like flies because they aren't ready to run the company after a month? Character and commitment is a two way street, while we're at it I could just as easily say the employers are quitters because instead of supporting employees, its much easier to fire them and hire some other poor sap and let them sink or swim, rinse and repeat? This can be spun a few different ways....
The funny thing is, folks seem to be more pro-employer on these forums. If a candidate lied on his resume, he'd get blasted and shamed. When an employer misrepresents job duties and such important details, the candidate must've been mistaken some how, and the employer's always in the right here
The funny thing is, folks seem to be more pro-employer on these forums. If a candidate lied on his resume, he'd get blasted and shamed. When an employer misrepresents job duties and such important details, the candidate must've been mistaken some how, and the employer's always in the right here
Actually, I find that in general people just tend to a) offer up the other side, and b) respond to conversations.
So as a result, when someone presents their side (typically as an employee) posters offer up the opposite view. The OP will tend to respond, things continue and usually escalate(as they tend to do on the internet) and eventually it always seems like the OP is under attack. Or at least that's how it goes in any type of a "rant" type thread.
I've seen quite a few threads about new hires that weren't up to the task and the person here was complaining, to which C-D pretty much replied, "Well, it's your fault for hiring them and you should have screened them better."
Posters can't talk to the party who isn't here, so they talk to the one who is.
I started a new job in April with a wholesale food company, in a logistics position. First, in my interview they made it very clear what I was being hired to do based on my experience and the job ad.
... I have zero experience with most of the responsibilities of this position.
Err, which is it? You had the experience or you didn't/don't?
If you didn't/don't, they didn't misrepresent, YOU did.
If you did/do, what's the problem here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman77
This position is highly, highly detail oriented with a ton of processes and procedures, literally it is the work of two people rolled into one.
In other words it's hard work. What's the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman77
Well, after week 5 the company president calls me into his office, and asks if I felt ready to assume the full responsibility of the position. WTF!? I replied no, that I was understanding the individual processes on their own but that it would take a little longer until things felt intuitive and I understood the entire picture.
You are an example of why businesses don't trust employees. You're being handed - literally handed - a brass ring and a chance to shine and you tell them no? You refuse to push yourself that much harder to show you are that damn good? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman77
Carla said there's no way anyone can have the intricacies of the position down in 2 months, even double that time( I am on a 6 month probation BTW) to be able to manage the work load competently on their own. The owner then goes on to say that someone previously( before Carla) couldn't grasp things and they were let go. I am reading between the lines there. And to end the meeting, as a way to 'see where I am' progress-wise, the owner tells 'Carla' to not assist me from now on. I am to figure it out on my own.
In other words you need to step out of your comfort zone and step up to the plate. I don't care what Carla says. If her predecessor was lazy they deserved to be cut. If she was able to manage the job but not effective enough to train you in a way that let you pick up the "intricacies of the position" that's a failing on both her and you. Deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman77
It doesn't help that its an open office and I hear every cough, fart, whisper, personal chat( which has ranged from sports, to religion, to gay rights), cell phones ringing and whatsapp beeping. There is no HR department, no employee manual, no structure, half the people don't have job titles so I have no idea who to ask for what, and get this: they had their salaries in a protected program that an employee stumbled upon, which led to everyone knowing everyone else's salaries. I have no idea how this place survives.
Excuses. And the part about the salaries deserves firing if the company didn't intend to publish that information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman77
At this point I am prepared to quit before I get fired. I've been there 2 months so I wouldn't even list it on my resume. I have savings to last me well into 2017. Its beyond effed up what this company has done but I 'd rather not waste another week that can be spent looking for another job. The experience has literally sucked my soul away in 2 months and I'm so resentful towards management that I could barely function my last work day. I'm just curious what others would do in this situation, and have you have been in a situation that simply blindsided you.
Frankly, I'd step up to the plate and prove I'm better than Carla's predecessor, better than Carla, better than anyone else in the office. In return, they need to pay me big. As in, low-to-mid six figures. They've got a choice - let logistics go down the drain when Carla's gone, or pay me to keep the boat upright.
If they agree to that term guess what? I'm in the zone and I'll do whatever I have to do to make it work. But that's me - I don't make excuses over hard work and I don't accept "can't".
If they don't accept my term, I walk. No notice. Let the company struggle while Carla's out.
A smart president will see the writing on the wall and do what's best for business. So they can (A) violate Carla's rights and get sued and refuse to let her leave, (B) pay me to keep things running or (C) refuse me and put ops in jeopardy. It's not a hard decision. The other thing is, if they do choose option C for whatever reason, you'll have your evidence the company wasn't worth your time.
I see you're still there, but mentally are you? Or are you just going through the motions? You need to express passion with the opportunity if it's lucrative and worth the money they're paying you. If it's not worth the money they're paying you, demand more or leave. But if the money is good, show them why you belong in that role despite not being "qualified" for it.
You are an example of why businesses don't trust employees. You're being handed - literally handed - a brass ring and a chance to shine and you tell them no? You refuse to push yourself that much harder to show you are that damn good? Really?
In other words you need to step out of your comfort zone and step up to the plate. I don't care what Carla says. If her predecessor was lazy they deserved to be cut. If she was able to manage the job but not effective enough to train you in a way that let you pick up the "intricacies of the position" that's a failing on both her and you. Deal with it.
^^^^
So much this x10
He has been handed a prime opportunity to do something big and all I've read is a bunch of whining. It's too hard. blah blah blah.
I'm a consultant. I don't have months to learn something about a company. Heck I might only be there 3 months total on a project! When I walk in the door, I am ready to go and I find out everything I need asap. It means I am proactive and a go-getter. I am productive on day one and I certainly know the job before 2 months. Heck at most places, I know a piece of software I have never seen before better than people who have been using it a decade after about 2 days. And that my friends, is why I am paid the big bucks.
Err, which is it? You had the experience or you didn't/don't?
If you didn't/don't, they didn't misrepresent, YOU did.
If you did/do, what's the problem here?
First, what purpose would it serve to 'lie' about a situation to strangers on the internet? I suppose you will respond with 'why discuss it at all', but I was sharing my experience to see if anyone else had ever been in a similar matter. It would be of no benefit to me to lie about it.
Also, if the owner asks me after 5 weeks if I'm ready to run the entire dept, and I'm not, what purpose does it serve to either party to lie? Its not the kind of position you can fake your way through, any deficiencies would pop up immediately. Its interesting that you bring up trust, one would think trust would be lost by lying, not by being honest about the matter. Being hired for one position and then thrown into another would be a good reason for employees to not trust companies either? Or I guess there's absolutely nothing wrong with that....
Perhaps I didnt make myself clear in the first post, but the position they have placed me is not the one advertised or discussed in the interview. I applied for a specific position,one which I have a background in, and hired based on that as discussed in the interview. When I started the job, they did not put me in the position I was hired to do, but a different one entirely to replace someone going on maternity, for which most of the duties fall outside my experience. This is what I mean by misrepresentation. And to that end, which you may have missed, I did say that despite that I actually did want to take on the challenge of rising to the occasion. But because a lot of it is new ground, there is going to be obviously a learning curve. Hell, even if they had actually put me in the position advertised, there is still organizational knowledge, processes and procedures to get a grip on, this is in any professional position.
The main problem is they are expecting me to have learned enough in 5 weeks to be able to replace Carla, who has been there 3 years. The owner seems to think I should be at the same level as Carla after mere weeks. Now, forget the part about misrepresentation and all that, and focus on this paragraph alone. Does that seem realistic to you, or am I just an idiot who should have the entire company down well enough to run it singlehandely after 2 days, like the poster above would have done?
Last edited by Roman77; 06-09-2015 at 04:52 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I replied no, that I was understanding the individual processes on their own but that it would take a little longer until things felt intuitive and I understood the entire picture.
