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.
Your mistake is assuming that it was the right thing in the first place.
At what point, ever, is doing something that goes against your own integrity ever the wrong thing. If you agree to train them, you agree to train them. It is that simple. So, yes, doing what you said you were going to do is the right thing. Pretty much always.
I would probably stick it out and "train" them. You can't fully train anyone, let alone a foreigner with limited English skills, how to do a job like these Disney IT people did in one month. Not even in 3 months.
It's senseless, but stuff like this happens. It's happened to me. Wanted me to move to Taiwan. Nope. Lost my job. 20 years ago. Guess what? I got a better job, made more money, and got more more more. God just keeps on blessing me. Lay me off again, I will just get another awesome job. My God has never let me down.
The company that hires me is going to win win win. I can't believe these companies that want to hire cheap foreign labor. They just can't do what we can. It's dumb.
There's another ploy---talk faster than they can comprehend. After all, the company hired them, so they must have all the necessary skills for the job, right? Including English comprehension, right? Look, teaching ESL isn't one of your job duties and you never put yourself forth as being bi-lingual English and their version of mashed up English. I would be cold, just short of rude, give as little information as possible, and speak as quickly as possible, let them make whatever they can of that. WTH are they going to do, complain? Oh, yes, Mr. Boss, Joe isn't training me correctly, see, I don't know WTF I am doing and I am taking over his job because I am cheaper?
There's another ploy---talk faster than they can comprehend. After all, the company hired them, so they must have all the necessary skills for the job, right? Including English comprehension, right? Look, teaching ESL isn't one of your job duties and you never put yourself forth as being bi-lingual English and their version of mashed up English. I would be cold, just short of rude, give as little information as possible, and speak as quickly as possible, let them make whatever they can of that. WTH are they going to do, complain? Oh, yes, Mr. Boss, Joe isn't training me correctly, see, I don't know WTF I am doing and I am taking over his job because I am cheaper?
I am not intending to call you out, specifically...this is more directed to those in this thread who have said similar things to what you posted...
So, you go to work and collect the severance...while being mean to someone who likely has as much to do with the situation as you did. It is very unlikely these people said "I will only take this job if I am able to displace another worker". So, all of these plots and ploys to make them, and the company, suffer...don't they drain you even more? For someone already losing their job, sure seems a lot to add to the situation going out of their way to be rude, cold, talk extra fast, etc...sounds pretty draining to me. Nevermind, were it me, I would start to feel pretty rotten treating another person that way. No matter how angry I am, there really is no justification that I would be able to find to treat someone else badly...especially someone who is just trying to make a living.
Whether or not that is the case. Life is messy and it is rarely black and white. I have said it before, but the person is losing their job either way. So, at the end of the day they are unemployed with integrity or they are unemployed without it. To me, it is a simple choice. Yes, a complex situation...but simple at the same time.
No different than when an airline takes market share, and eventually firings occur at airline losing share. The former "took" your job at the "latter".
I disagree. The reason for the discharge is not refusing to train the replacements, but the company's decision to outsource the work. I started representing employees in unemployment cases in probably 1978 and I would do that case any day. And win.
Even using CA regulations (which favors the employee over the employer), EDD's BOR has refused to accept that failing to train a replacement even if they are taking your job, does not make for justifiable quits and is misconduct if terminated. So long as training a person is part of your job, (or there is a pattern of the employee doing it) be it your own replacement or some new guy hired to replace Joe who died, it's part of your duties.
Now, that doesn't mean a smart and intelligent employee can't set the employer up to make it a non misconduct job termination or quit with just cause so that they can collect (BOR has accepted this), but how many employee do you think is smart enough to seek assistance to learn what to do before they actually act?
And when he doesn't accomplish that he will say, "I never said I would do that". What a guy.
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.
