U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2008, 10:03 AM
 
5,527 posts, read 6,125,875 times
Reputation: 1827

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon Transplant View Post
Of course anytime someone is fired they need to look within them selves to see how much of it is their fault and personality based.
Agreed!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2008, 12:23 PM
 
Location: PA (work in NJ)
6,773 posts, read 8,795,108 times
Reputation: 13408
The OP should also accept that the "not a good fit" reason was sort of a "gift." Now he can get unemployment benefits without much of a problem.

When an employer terminates someone for cause, like misconduct, they end up having to fight unemployment for the ex-employee. It's a big pain to go through, especially when in labor friendly states, the ex-employee ususally wins, no matter what he/she did to get fired. But you still have to go through all the appeals if your insurers require it.

To fire someone and say they just didn't fit in is basically saying "we didn't like you personally, or how you worked, but we're not going to make a big deal out of it and fight your unemployment benefits."

When I first got into mgmt, and I had to term people, I was all gung-ho about having all sorts of documentation about their misconduct, so I could go and prevent them from getting unemployment, out of my idealistic sense of justice. After a while, and after learning that employers rarely win in a labor-friendly environment, even when ex-employees have committed horrible acts of misconduct, I stopped being so gung-ho & idealistic. It ends up being much less of a hassle to just term someone for something like not fitting in as part of the team.

It's perfectly legal under the employment at will doctrine, as long as you're not firing them for an illegal reason like a protected characteristic. And "due process" is only guaranteed in law, not in the workplace, unless there is CBA or company policy that says otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 06:32 PM
 
25,169 posts, read 34,398,254 times
Reputation: 6709
LOL what are "horrible acts of misconduct"? Somebody taking too long in the restroom and or getting into an verbal fight with the supervisor LOL....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracySam View Post
The OP should also accept that the "not a good fit" reason was sort of a "gift." Now he can get unemployment benefits without much of a problem.

When an employer terminates someone for cause, like misconduct, they end up having to fight unemployment for the ex-employee. It's a big pain to go through, especially when in labor friendly states, the ex-employee ususally wins, no matter what he/she did to get fired. But you still have to go through all the appeals if your insurers require it.

To fire someone and say they just didn't fit in is basically saying "we didn't like you personally, or how you worked, but we're not going to make a big deal out of it and fight your unemployment benefits."

When I first got into mgmt, and I had to term people, I was all gung-ho about having all sorts of documentation about their misconduct, so I could go and prevent them from getting unemployment, out of my idealistic sense of justice. After a while, and after learning that employers rarely win in a labor-friendly environment, even when ex-employees have committed horrible acts of misconduct, I stopped being so gung-ho & idealistic. It ends up being much less of a hassle to just term someone for something like not fitting in as part of the team.

It's perfectly legal under the employment at will doctrine, as long as you're not firing them for an illegal reason like a protected characteristic. And "due process" is only guaranteed in law, not in the workplace, unless there is CBA or company policy that says otherwise.

Last edited by artsyguy; 08-18-2008 at 07:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 07:51 PM
 
4,629 posts, read 6,265,176 times
Reputation: 4116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
its not you, the new system is employment at will.
this is what you get without unions. w/o unions, what is "rights" to an employee is "attitude" to an employer
Agreed! Good unions rock...I'm sure we could all tell horror stories about what happens to people who work under a feudal system without protection of a union (in other words, the law).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracySam View Post
It's perfectly legal under the employment at will doctrine, as long as you're not firing them for an illegal reason like a protected characteristic. And "due process" is only guaranteed in law, not in the workplace, unless there is CBA or company policy that says otherwise.
Tracy, are there not exemptions to the at will doctrine? Such as states like Missouri where if the offense didn't rise to that of a crime that would be prosecutable, then an employer could fire a worker for, let's say, not wearing a skirt to work (as in following the dress code), or not attending church on a regular basis (as in a moral standards clause in company policies). Am I wrong here?

Sassberto - Well said, and I agree with your statement as well.

OregonTransplant, progressive discipline is a protection offered by unions, not the employer. Don't ever depend upon the good graces of a company to look out for your best interests. Those days are long gone, if they were ever here to begin with. I hope that you find a decent place to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 09:43 PM
 
Location: PA (work in NJ)
6,773 posts, read 8,795,108 times
Reputation: 13408
SeeBee: Yes there are exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. Federally, they mostly consist of belonging to a protected class. But many states have additonal exceptions. The OP was discussing a more general issue of not being "a good fit" in the workplace. I didn't think this was the place for a dissertation on all the obscure State exceptions to employment at will, or all of the strange examples that come out of case law. Besides I don't have any strange Oregon exceptions available at my fingertips, and that's the OP's State. If you have any, that's cool, add them here.

Artsy: How about physical abuse and threats against people with disabilities in the employee's care? Is that "horrible" enough for you? Of course I have examples of the people who were on the clock with us and seen by multiple witnesses in bars, or even at second jobs at the same time. And the person who went out on worker's comp for a back injury, and was witnessed running a 10k race while on leave. But the person who threatened people with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities with broomsticks definitely fits into my definition of "horrible." Wouldn't you agree? (If you were joking and not serious, sorry for the emotional content of my response.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 09:58 PM
 
25,169 posts, read 34,398,254 times
Reputation: 6709
can you please explain the broomsticks story please......you lost me there

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracySam View Post
But the person who threatened people with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities with broomsticks definitely fits into my definition of "horrible." Wouldn't you agree? (If you were joking and not serious, sorry for the emotional content of my response.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2008, 05:52 AM
 
146 posts, read 414,959 times
Reputation: 95
Most mid sized to large companies, have a program where a single manager does not have the authority to fire a person on a whim or in a moment of anger. He/she needs approval of their manager and a Human Resources person and needs to go through the progressive discipline process. Exceptions can be made and the requirement is not made in stone but a expected policy. Exceptions have to be signed off by senior management.

Of course there would be immediate termination in case of gross misconduct.

In my case, I was not working for a progressive organization so I was not given any counseling, or progressive discipline of any kind. I assumed every thing was going fine and then the boss came in and fired me because he said it was "not a good fit". He would not explain why there was no due process or why it was not a good fit. He would also not explain why all over employees who were fired went through a system of progressive discipline. His boss was on vacation and was not involved in the firing decision. Every rule of Human Resources was broken. This has happened to me twice in the last ten years. I assume I was fired because the boss did not like me but I do not remember any conflict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2008, 11:49 PM
 
1,218 posts, read 2,680,917 times
Reputation: 1082
It's too bad the shyster companies don't get burned by the shyster employees. Why is it the good employees get creamed and the good companies get screwed? Is there some sort of culling process to get the jerks to work for the jerks so they each screw each other???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2008, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
15,738 posts, read 15,883,796 times
Reputation: 14074
I'm surprised you have been fired multiple times on short notice. It is not uncommon for managers to be let go when there is a 'change in direction'. But what I've seen is they give the exiting mgr a few months time to look for something else, or give them a check to cover them for some time while they look for another job.

The words of choice change with time. With the litigious (sp?) society we are in they dont usuaslly get as specific as they should.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2008, 09:31 PM
 
25,169 posts, read 34,398,254 times
Reputation: 6709
lol I noticed that happens....when they hire managers or employees they make sure that they actually like to be unhappy and bombarded with high stress, paranoia, and anxiety...go figure...I think hiring managers have a sixth sense for that type of person.....any opinions on my hypothesis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmulk View Post
It's too bad the shyster companies don't get burned by the shyster employees. Why is it the good employees get creamed and the good companies get screwed? Is there some sort of culling process to get the jerks to work for the jerks so they each screw each other???

Last edited by artsyguy; 08-23-2008 at 09:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top