Author Topic: Epic FU money stories  (Read 1733033 times)

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #900 on: December 30, 2015, 07:08:55 PM »
No, you just keep your best people trained. You keep them up to speed with all the new languages and they will be trained by who you want them to be trained by and not who ended up training them by chance.
You need to train your people but it's not the same thing as fresh blood:
New hire saying, I've been playing with docker and I think it could really help on this project because of x,y,z. 
Manager saying, I read in an airline magazine that containers are going to be big so I'm sending one random developer on a training course for whatever our current biggest supplier claims is their container technology. 
Or worse - you are all watching a 1 hour webinar on Azure tomorrow over lunch - so you will all be trained in cloud computing.

jlajr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Modi'in, Israel
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #901 on: December 30, 2015, 10:02:17 PM »
I disagree. You guys are taking it too personal. Before you quit, you came to work everyday at the agreed upon rate. It's not the employer's fault if you negotiated a poor pay package upfront. There is an unspoken agreement everyday you go into the office that you are OK working for the agreed upon rate. You need to be willing to walk away (quit) to get that rate changed and show that you aren't OK working for the current rate.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but only if there had been no negotiation or other discussion of employment terms before threatening to leave or handing in the resignation. In my particular circumstances, that isn't nor hasn't been the case.

Also, I don't think I'd be taking it too personal. Meaning, under the circumstances I just described, I feel it is a poor way of conducting business. It does not affect any personal feelings I might have toward my manager or the employer.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3553
  • Location: WDC
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #902 on: January 04, 2016, 08:50:56 AM »
Seriously? The time to handle this was months ago.

How often do I have this exact feeling?

Even if a current employer eventually offers terms I'm willing to accept, it would irritate me that they only expressed willingness to change the terms of my employment after I threaten to leave or announce that I'm leaving.

If they think that strategy works for them, great, but I don't have to enable or encourage it.

I agree-- if I was that valuable of an employee, then perhaps they should've offered that before I quit. :P

When I was still working "for the man", I liked my job and felt respected and was learning a lot.  A director of a different company that worked alongside me kept asking me to join them and I kept saying "not interested...don't want to even entertain your offer because I'm happy here...don't want to discuss the details." 
One day she just blurted out how much money she was talking about.  The base salary would have been a $35K increase.  All of a sudden, I was willing to hear the details and I was working for her within a month. 
But the first company kept me happy enough that I didn't feel the need to look elsewhere.  If the new boss hadn't been so persistent, I would probably still be at that job making decent money, but not life-changing. 

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8739
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #903 on: January 04, 2016, 09:46:36 AM »
Seriously? The time to handle this was months ago.

How often do I have this exact feeling?

Even if a current employer eventually offers terms I'm willing to accept, it would irritate me that they only expressed willingness to change the terms of my employment after I threaten to leave or announce that I'm leaving.

If they think that strategy works for them, great, but I don't have to enable or encourage it.

I agree-- if I was that valuable of an employee, then perhaps they should've offered that before I quit. :P

I disagree. You guys are taking it too personal. Before you quit, you came to work everyday at the agreed upon rate. It's not the employer's fault if you negotiated a poor pay package upfront. There is an unspoken agreement everyday you go into the office that you are OK working for the agreed upon rate. You need to be willing to walk away (quit) to get that rate changed and show that you aren't OK working for the current rate.

See what BlueHouse just posted.

I realize that "it's not personal, it's business", but it kind of is.  When you consider you are trading your time for money.

The company tries to get the best people for the least amount of money.

Yes, I negotiated this rate.  Four years ago.  I did not:
negotiate a rate to not change in four year
agree to get more work and responsibility thrown at me due to layoffs, at the same rate as four years ago
agree to hire four newer senior engineers at "going rate" (aka $12k to 30k a year more than I make)
agree to train, or just flat out do the work of, the two higher paid engineers because they are ineffective and/or lazy

The fact of the matter is, if a company is willing to hire "new blood" at market rate, they REALLY need to be careful about keeping current employees underpaid compared to market rate.  In the case of my company:
3/4 hires were "senior" to me in age/ experience, although once you get to over 20 years, it doesn't matter so much - it's more individual areas of expertise
4/4 were paid more than me
2/4 were fabulous and worth any penny. One worked for me.  I did not care that she made more than me.  Both of the 2 came in, figured things out, and got shit done.
The other two were unable or unwilling to do their jobs.  One of them, quite literally, would disappear for hours to walk on the beach.  I ended up doing his job.  The other one shared an office with me and another guy, and asked us how to do his job half the day.  Really dude, you make $30k more than me, I can train you on our computer system but I am NOT doing you job for you.

The company has decided what the job is worth, they should pay it.  Many  many people here have tried to negotiate better terms in light of the lack of raises.  The answer has always be "no", unless they choose to leave, then suddenly it's "name your price".  By then, for the majority of people, it's too late.  Then we are left with a big hole.  The replacement person both costs more AND has to come up to speed.  Hiring and training takes MONTHS.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #904 on: January 04, 2016, 03:42:25 PM »
Exactly.   one your employee has started looking for another job, it's already too late.

Kepler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #905 on: January 10, 2016, 02:33:52 AM »

Thanks Diane C - but don't worry - I'm okay.  I too feel like I'm playing hooky sometimes and it feels great. I just know that if I had been laid off, it may have felt like rejection.  But, I can't say for sure, as I controlled my own FIRE. 

As much as I usually don't give a shit about what people think, there is that small part of me that does. I can't pretend it away. But that's okay. I'm a social human. 

I'm puzzled by this, though: I would think layoffs would generally be driven by the financial health of the organisation, and therefore not reflect badly on the staff laid off? It had never actually occurred to me that someone would construe it as somehow reflecting badly on the person laid off - it's not like being individually sacked: they are generally letting lots of people go, and it could be for reasons like major projects winding down, relocations, etc.

I do understand that companies may try to hang on to their most valuable employees, and might want to lay off the least valuable by preference - but that assumes that companies are actually good at making that decision, and that they aren't doing layoffs by some abstract principle over which individual staff have no control (last hired, closest to retirement age, highest salary, etc.).  It also assumes that staff don't voluntarily opt in to being laid off because they want to move on anyway.

At my university, they periodically do calls for voluntary redundancies. The drivers are partially financial, but mainly designed to give the university some flexibility in responding to changing market conditions - and voluntary processes go down better on an industrial relations level.

Sometimes the calls are completely open - anyone who wants to take a voluntary redundancy can. Often, they are restricted in ways that you could construe to be about poor performance - most recently, for example, there was a call for voluntary redundancies that was open only to academic staff who don't have a PhD (for historical reasons, we have a certain percentage of these, but new national standards now prevent these staff from teaching postgrads, so the uni is trying to incentivise either their departure or their completion of a doctoral degree).  But the people who accepted this offer weren't necessarily bad staff. They were mostly just old enough that they didn't want the hassle of getting a doctorate, but also didn't want to be restricted to teaching only undergrads. It seemed a nicer way to deal with the changing regulatory environment than frogmarching people into a doctoral program... And most of the people who put themselves forward were close to retirement anyway. Their departures then opened positions for new staff.

Personally, I have every intention of taking a voluntary redundancy myself, if one comes up close enough to when I'm FI - a well-timed one could even let me leave a year or two earlier than would otherwise be viable. Now, I'm someone who won't care if others assume this means I'm a subpar researcher or whatever - but I would still consider someone who makes blanket negative judgements about people who are laid off, to be revealing that they aren't particularly savvy about how these things work.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8739
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #906 on: January 10, 2016, 08:40:49 AM »
Quote
I'm puzzled by this, though: I would think layoffs would generally be driven by the financial health of the organisation, and therefore not reflect badly on the staff laid off? It had never actually occurred to me that someone would construe it as somehow reflecting badly on the person laid off - it's not like being individually sacked: they are generally letting lots of people go, and it could be for reasons like major projects winding down, relocations, etc.
It hurts to not be a "chosen one".

I was laid off once, when the entire company went out of business and went chapter...whateve the reorg is. Laid off over 400 people, kept 20.  It was easy to not feel bad back then, as I started my new job the next day.

A local company that's been here forever just shut down, and my friends who I got laid off with back in Dec of 1999 just got laid off there.  They closed the whole place, except for a handful to shut down the tools and ship them off.

My current company has had 3 layoffs.  It's hard to get laid off.  The first one, we lost a lot of the younger people that I'd hired the year before.  Only kept 1.
The next layoff, they hit a lot of senior people who were highly paid.  It wasn't done very well because they didn't bother to ask the bosses who was actually doing the work.
The third layoff shut down our manufacturing area.  So all of the manufacturing employees and engineers were laid off...except for two engineers - myself (the first) and one other (the second).  We are in very different jobs now.  But I'd imagine it would have been hard for the others who got laid off - to have not been "chosen" for a transfer to a different spot.

Zaga

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2736
  • Age: 41
  • Location: North of Pittsburgh, PA
    • A Wall of Hats
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #907 on: January 10, 2016, 08:49:01 AM »
I went through a layoff at my last job, worst work day of my life.  And not because I was chosen either.  So many great people who had dedicated their lives to that company were let go.  People who had been friends for 30+ years hurriedly exchanging phone numbers as they were called out.

The worst part is that I was NOT dedicated to that job or that company, so I watched people who I thought should have kept their jobs leave while I kept my job but didn't really want it.  It was heart-rending.  The next year they asked for volunteers, I volunteered.  Hopefully someone who really loved it there got to stay because of me leaving.

So sometimes it's not good to be kept on after a major layoff, it can just suck majorly.

Kepler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #908 on: January 11, 2016, 12:21:40 AM »
I went through a layoff at my last job, worst work day of my life.  And not because I was chosen either.  So many great people who had dedicated their lives to that company were let go.  People who had been friends for 30+ years hurriedly exchanging phone numbers as they were called out.

The worst part is that I was NOT dedicated to that job or that company, so I watched people who I thought should have kept their jobs leave while I kept my job but didn't really want it.  It was heart-rending.  The next year they asked for volunteers, I volunteered.  Hopefully someone who really loved it there got to stay because of me leaving.

So sometimes it's not good to be kept on after a major layoff, it can just suck majorly.

Oh I can completely understand this sort of reaction - whether sadness that other people are being hurt, or sadness at losing a workplace cohort you liked or (for mm1970) had mentored, or anything like that.  Sorry if that was unclear - I can totally see how someone would be upset by a layoff. I was just baffled that, in the interaction described above, the person's poker mate would think it somehow reflects badly on the people laid off.  I would think people might judge people just deciding to quit more than they would people being laid off (not that I think people should either, but I've certainly seen snarky pushbacks on people discussing plans to FIRE...)

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #909 on: January 11, 2016, 03:44:05 PM »
I've worked for a couple of companies that did prolonged downsizing.   The first people to go were always  the people we thought weren't performing.   The only exception would occur if an entire business was being eliminated.   One company went out of it's way to try and hold on to their best people.   I was encouraged to trade my low-performers for high-performers from a product that was being shut down.    so I don't find it surprising at all that there can be a stigma attached to someone who's been laid off.

jlajr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Modi'in, Israel
Fired or laid off
« Reply #910 on: January 11, 2016, 11:42:45 PM »
A few years ago, I was surprised to find out that some people I know, originally from the US I think, distinguish between being fired versus being laid off:

  • Being fired meaning a company terminated employment due to poor performance
  • Being laid off meaning a company terminated employment due to reorganization, downsizing, and so on

Because I don't think many people would volunteer to family, friends, or potential employers that they were fired for poor performance, I figured anyone who makes the distinction wouldn't say they were fired anyway. Meaning, even if they were in fact fired for poor performance, they'd say they were laid off.

The point being, I was using the terms interchangeably, not realizing others might have been attaching different meanings to the terms.

A colleague friend of mine, originally from the UK, uses the term sacked for all types of employment termination, I think. I don't think that works for US audiences though.

Rubic

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Fired or laid off
« Reply #911 on: January 12, 2016, 08:02:36 AM »
A colleague friend of mine, originally from the UK, uses the term sacked for all types of employment termination, I think. I don't think that works for US audiences though.

I thought the UK term was "made redundant".

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Fired or laid off
« Reply #912 on: January 12, 2016, 08:27:23 AM »
A few years ago, I was surprised to find out that some people I know, originally from the US I think, distinguish between being fired versus being laid off:

  • Being fired meaning a company terminated employment due to poor performance
  • Being laid off meaning a company terminated employment due to reorganization, downsizing, and so on

Because I don't think many people would volunteer to family, friends, or potential employers that they were fired for poor performance, I figured anyone who makes the distinction wouldn't say they were fired anyway. Meaning, even if they were in fact fired for poor performance, they'd say they were laid off.

The point being, I was using the terms interchangeably, not realizing others might have been attaching different meanings to the terms.

A colleague friend of mine, originally from the UK, uses the term sacked for all types of employment termination, I think. I don't think that works for US audiences though.

I've heard friends and family use "fired" to describe when the were indeed fired.


Joggernot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Gulf Coast, TX
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #913 on: January 12, 2016, 08:32:10 AM »
In Washington, DC if you were fired for cause, you didn't get unemployment compensation.  If you were "laid off", you got unemployment.  When I was laid off, the company was good in calling it a lay off, not a firing for cause.  Just a personal experience for me.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Fired or laid off
« Reply #914 on: January 12, 2016, 08:41:59 AM »
Because I don't think many people would volunteer to family, friends, or potential employers that they were fired for poor performance, I figured anyone who makes the distinction wouldn't say they were fired anyway. Meaning, even if they were in fact fired for poor performance, they'd say they were laid off.

The point being, I was using the terms interchangeably, not realizing others might have been attaching different meanings to the terms.
I have friends who were honest about getting fired. They're the only kind worth having. ;)

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Fired or laid off
« Reply #915 on: January 12, 2016, 08:58:01 AM »
A few years ago, I was surprised to find out that some people I know, originally from the US I think, distinguish between being fired versus being laid off:

  • Being fired meaning a company terminated employment due to poor performance
  • Being laid off meaning a company terminated employment due to reorganization, downsizing, and so on

Because I don't think many people would volunteer to family, friends, or potential employers that they were fired for poor performance, I figured anyone who makes the distinction wouldn't say they were fired anyway. Meaning, even if they were in fact fired for poor performance, they'd say they were laid off.

The point being, I was using the terms interchangeably, not realizing others might have been attaching different meanings to the terms.

A colleague friend of mine, originally from the UK, uses the term sacked for all types of employment termination, I think. I don't think that works for US audiences though.

I've heard friends and family use "fired" to describe when the were indeed fired.

I've never known anyone to use the terms interchangeably. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6289
Re: Fired or laid off
« Reply #916 on: January 12, 2016, 08:59:36 AM »
A few years ago, I was surprised to find out that some people I know, originally from the US I think, distinguish between being fired versus being laid off:

  • Being fired meaning a company terminated employment due to poor performance
  • Being laid off meaning a company terminated employment due to reorganization, downsizing, and so on

Because I don't think many people would volunteer to family, friends, or potential employers that they were fired for poor performance, I figured anyone who makes the distinction wouldn't say they were fired anyway. Meaning, even if they were in fact fired for poor performance, they'd say they were laid off.

The point being, I was using the terms interchangeably, not realizing others might have been attaching different meanings to the terms.

A colleague friend of mine, originally from the UK, uses the term sacked for all types of employment termination, I think. I don't think that works for US audiences though.

I've heard friends and family use "fired" to describe when the were indeed fired.

I've never known anyone to use the terms interchangeably.

Neither have I.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #917 on: January 12, 2016, 09:17:52 AM »
Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #918 on: January 12, 2016, 09:43:50 AM »
There's really three categories:

Laid Off: exited as part of a larger restructuring, job eliminated or moved to another region, etc.  Generally impacts more than 1 person.
Fired/terminated: Let go for poor job performance, etc.
Fired/terminated for cause: did something severely against the rules, like sexual harassment, watching adult movies on company property, theft, etc.

Usually the first is relatively without stigma, assuming it's fairly well known the company is downsizing ("Acme co slashes 1,000 jobs!").  The second is not without stigma, but often a company will let a poor performer resign, and you still might get severance. 

The last is a big no no.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8739
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #919 on: January 12, 2016, 10:16:50 AM »
Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).
This is in fact not true.  Legally it's a big problem, specifically in California.  (I can't speak for other areas)

We've been instructed by our HR that if we are called for reference for former employees, we are ONLY allowed to confirm their employment.  Otherwise, it can be construed as interfering with a person's livelihood.

(I mean, all sorts of back door phone calls happen anyway, when you know someone who knows someone.)  By the way, this goes for good AND bad employees.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #920 on: January 12, 2016, 11:36:44 AM »
Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).
This is in fact not true.  Legally it's a big problem, specifically in California.  (I can't speak for other areas)

We've been instructed by our HR that if we are called for reference for former employees, we are ONLY allowed to confirm their employment.  Otherwise, it can be construed as interfering with a person's livelihood.

(I mean, all sorts of back door phone calls happen anyway, when you know someone who knows someone.)  By the way, this goes for good AND bad employees.

Really?  I don't have any first hand experience, but I always thought that was the purpose of calling former employers.  Seems really pointless if they are not allowed to disclose any information other than the person did in fact worked there (or not).  I mean if you were fired for a violent offense, or stealing/damaging company property, or not being able to perform your job (i've worked with people that could not perform basic tasks that were fundamental to their job) it would be critical information to the new employer.  It also defies the entire premise of a reference.  I mean what good is a reference if all my former employer can legally say is "yes frugalnacho worked here until X date"?

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but every single source I am finding on a quick google search is telling me you are wrong.  Your company may in fact have this policy, but the first 5 sources I checked said this is a common misconception and there is in fact no laws barring an employer from disclosing that information if they choose to.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 11:41:10 AM by frugalnacho »

AZDude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #921 on: January 12, 2016, 11:51:13 AM »
Its a liability issue. I listed my former supervisor at a govt agency as a reference and he flat out refused to say anything other than referring them to HR. I finally had to call and ask a personal favor before he would give an OK reference. Every other supervisor was more than happy to say something.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #922 on: January 12, 2016, 11:59:18 AM »
Its a liability issue. I listed my former supervisor at a govt agency as a reference and he flat out refused to say anything other than referring them to HR. I finally had to call and ask a personal favor before he would give an OK reference. Every other supervisor was more than happy to say something.

I didn't include it in my post above, but the one caveat all those sources mentioned is that the information must be true.  That shouldn't really have to be listed as a caveat though.  If you get fired for stealing, what liability is the company assuming by relaying that fact to potential employers?  I could understand if they suspected you of something but couldn't prove it, but fired you anyway because it's an at-will agreement and they can fire you, that they shouldn't be allowed to pass on that information.  But if it's factual  I don't understand where the liability comes into play.

AZDude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #923 on: January 12, 2016, 12:03:46 PM »
Rarely are things that black and white. If you were caught stealing, and there is a police report and conviction, then probably not a big deal. If the company says you were stealing, and fires you, but there is never a conviction or any legal consequences, then you have to be able to prove your assertions in court based on the most-likely flimsy evidence you have.

Much easier to just say "he was let go on XX/XX/XXXX involuntarily", which is impossible to argue.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #924 on: January 12, 2016, 12:10:18 PM »
The code questions are

"Is XXX eligible for rehire?" and "Was XXX let go as part of a larger reduction in force?"  No to either tells a hiring manager all they need to know.

rockstache

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6776
  • Age: 2016
  • Location: Northeast
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #925 on: January 12, 2016, 12:12:42 PM »
Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).
This is in fact not true.  Legally it's a big problem, specifically in California.  (I can't speak for other areas)

We've been instructed by our HR that if we are called for reference for former employees, we are ONLY allowed to confirm their employment.  Otherwise, it can be construed as interfering with a person's livelihood.

(I mean, all sorts of back door phone calls happen anyway, when you know someone who knows someone.)  By the way, this goes for good AND bad employees.

In my state it is the same way. The only thing that anyone can do is confirm that someone worked here.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #926 on: January 12, 2016, 12:27:16 PM »
Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).
This is in fact not true.  Legally it's a big problem, specifically in California.  (I can't speak for other areas)

We've been instructed by our HR that if we are called for reference for former employees, we are ONLY allowed to confirm their employment.  Otherwise, it can be construed as interfering with a person's livelihood.

(I mean, all sorts of back door phone calls happen anyway, when you know someone who knows someone.)  By the way, this goes for good AND bad employees.

In my state it is the same way. The only thing that anyone can do is confirm that someone worked here.

Are you sure this is state law and not just your companies HR policy?

As for mm1970's state of california this is the information I found:

Quote
California

Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c); Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1053, 1055

Information that may be disclosed:

• job performance

• reasons for termination or separation

• knowledge, qualifications, skills, or abilities based upon credible evidence

• eligibility for rehire

Who may request or receive information:

• prospective employer

Employer required to write letter:

• public utility companies only

Not that I intentionally want to be argumentative, but I trust the actual laws of california rather than what your HR department has relayed to you.  Maybe I am mistaken, but I just went and read the law for myself and it seems like they certainly can disclose the reason you were fired to a potential employer that asks.

turketron

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
  • Age: 35
  • Location: WI
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #927 on: January 12, 2016, 12:37:11 PM »
I worked in Payroll at my last job and since we had the employment records for everyone, any and all verifications of employment came to us to complete, including background checks for job applications, mortgages, etc. For liability reasons we were very careful about what we would release and how it was phrased- even with a signed release from the employee we would only release their dates of employment, pay rate, and if they were eligible for rehire.

This was for a temp agency, so for employees who were no longer working we were very careful to state that they didn't quit, nor were they fired. They entered into an agreement with us to work a specific temp assignment- 3 months, for example. After that 3 months, their assignment ended. The employee didn't elect to leave, nor did the employer fire them, so implying that either was the case would be inaccurate and could negatively affect things like state benefits, unemployment, or job applications for other companies.

Papa bear

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #928 on: January 12, 2016, 12:58:41 PM »

Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).
This is in fact not true.  Legally it's a big problem, specifically in California.  (I can't speak for other areas)

We've been instructed by our HR that if we are called for reference for former employees, we are ONLY allowed to confirm their employment.  Otherwise, it can be construed as interfering with a person's livelihood.

(I mean, all sorts of back door phone calls happen anyway, when you know someone who knows someone.)  By the way, this goes for good AND bad employees.

Really?  I don't have any first hand experience, but I always thought that was the purpose of calling former employers.  Seems really pointless if they are not allowed to disclose any information other than the person did in fact worked there (or not).  I mean if you were fired for a violent offense, or stealing/damaging company property, or not being able to perform your job (i've worked with people that could not perform basic tasks that were fundamental to their job) it would be critical information to the new employer.  It also defies the entire premise of a reference.  I mean what good is a reference if all my former employer can legally say is "yes frugalnacho worked here until X date"?

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but every single source I am finding on a quick google search is telling me you are wrong.  Your company may in fact have this policy, but the first 5 sources I checked said this is a common misconception and there is in fact no laws barring an employer from disclosing that information if they choose to.

In my experience, most organizations have an HR policy that limits information given in references.  (Some will outsource this information to third party firms, such as The Work Number) However, most candidates will provide references that will provide information "outside" of the HR policy.  Candidates that provide references that can't give any information usually don't have any good references to give.

Very rarely will you have a reference that will come out and say that the person was fired. 

Calling on references from a candidate's former organization typically will NOT yield information about if they were fired. Calling the HR department will almost certainly not yield that information.


Source: I've conducted thousands of references nationally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #929 on: January 12, 2016, 01:26:11 PM »
My last job, the supervisor wouldn't give the [phenomenal] intern a recommendation/reference for another internship... with her school. HR policy was that strict.


frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #930 on: January 12, 2016, 01:37:35 PM »
As has been established in this thread and countless other threads on the forum the HR department of most companies are usually divorced from reality, have policies that don't make logical sense, and are usually ill informed.  I understand erring on the side of caution and not wanting to bad mouth an employee (even if true) for liability reasons*, but I can't think of any reason not to give a positive recommendation for a phenomenal employee. 

* Actually I don't understand it after reading up on the laws.  It seems most states not only are you allowed to disclose that information, but many states have specifically drafted immunity laws to protect former employers for this exact situation. 

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #931 on: January 12, 2016, 01:44:32 PM »
As has been established in this thread and countless other threads on the forum the HR department of most companies are usually divorced from reality, have policies that don't make logical sense, and are usually ill informed.  I understand erring on the side of caution and not wanting to bad mouth an employee (even if true) for liability reasons*, but I can't think of any reason not to give a positive recommendation for a phenomenal employee. 

* Actually I don't understand it after reading up on the laws.  It seems most states not only are you allowed to disclose that information, but many states have specifically drafted immunity laws to protect former employers for this exact situation.

I know that the reason my last company had the “Yes he worked here” or “No, he did not work here” policy was the following true story, although I’m not sure if it was my former company or another one that had the experience:

A guy was hired, and he regularly brought a gun to work—in a secured office with little chance of anything happening. Not only did he bring it, he put it on his desk while he was working. This made a lot of people uncomfortable. When the company tried to tell them, he went all 2nd amendment on them. It was going to be a long tedious process of either firing him and having lawsuits, or figuring out a way to not let the guy bring it in. Eventually they paid him off with a severance package and a glowing letter of recommendation (and his work was phenomenal), and he got a new job. About 5 months into the new job, he goes off the deep end and kills someone with the gun.

The company that had hired him went after the company that wrote the recommendation. Not sure what the outcome was.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #932 on: January 12, 2016, 01:48:05 PM »
As has been established in this thread and countless other threads on the forum the HR department of most companies are usually divorced from reality, have policies that don't make logical sense, and are usually ill informed.  I understand erring on the side of caution and not wanting to bad mouth an employee (even if true) for liability reasons*, but I can't think of any reason not to give a positive recommendation for a phenomenal employee. 

* Actually I don't understand it after reading up on the laws.  It seems most states not only are you allowed to disclose that information, but many states have specifically drafted immunity laws to protect former employers for this exact situation.

I know that the reason my last company had the “Yes he worked here” or “No, he did not work here” policy was the following true story, although I’m not sure if it was my former company or another one that had the experience:

A guy was hired, and he regularly brought a gun to work—in a secured office with little chance of anything happening. Not only did he bring it, he put it on his desk while he was working. This made a lot of people uncomfortable. When the company tried to tell them, he went all 2nd amendment on them. It was going to be a long tedious process of either firing him and having lawsuits, or figuring out a way to not let the guy bring it in. Eventually they paid him off with a severance package and a glowing letter of recommendation (and his work was phenomenal), and he got a new job. About 5 months into the new job, he goes off the deep end and kills someone with the gun.

The company that had hired him went after the company that wrote the recommendation. Not sure what the outcome was.

Odd.  That anecdote actually seems to be in support of HR being more truthful and open, not more restrictive and secretive.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #933 on: January 12, 2016, 01:50:28 PM »
Not when you can consider the employee could sue for slander/libel if he doesn't like the tone. Just easier to say "Yes" or "No".

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #934 on: January 12, 2016, 02:02:56 PM »
Not when you can consider the employee could sue for slander/libel if he doesn't like the tone. Just easier to say "Yes" or "No".

But they can't, i've already posted the laws saying they can't.  It's not slander/libel if it's true. The real issue is whether he has a right to carry a fire arm into work and whether he can be fired for that reason.  Most job sites I work on (in several states) have a very strict no firearm policy.  You are not even allowed to have it in your car on company property, and almost every one of them stresses this fact before we are allowed onsite, and they also have it posted near all the entrance gates.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of these large multi-billion dollar companies are violating the law by not allowing firearms onsite, because they all do it, and they all have been doing it for my entire career.  Your company absolutely could have a made a no firearm policy, and fired him for violating that (after the rule was established and he was made aware of it obviously), and they could have absolutely disclosed that fact to other potential employers and could not have been sued over it. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #935 on: January 12, 2016, 02:10:06 PM »
Not when you can consider the employee could sue for slander/libel if he doesn't like the tone. Just easier to say "Yes" or "No".

But they can't, i've already posted the laws saying they can't.  It's not slander/libel if it's true.

What you're saying is true, BUT, it's up to the company to fight the battle in court to clear itself.  MUCH easier to institute a blanket policy "don't say anything".  Even being right can be expensive in terms of legal fees.

mistershankly

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #936 on: January 12, 2016, 02:17:58 PM »
Not when you can consider the employee could sue for slander/libel if he doesn't like the tone. Just easier to say "Yes" or "No".

But they can't, i've already posted the laws saying they can't.  It's not slander/libel if it's true. The real issue is whether he has a right to carry a fire arm into work and whether he can be fired for that reason.  Most job sites I work on (in several states) have a very strict no firearm policy.  You are not even allowed to have it in your car on company property, and almost every one of them stresses this fact before we are allowed onsite, and they also have it posted near all the entrance gates.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of these large multi-billion dollar companies are violating the law by not allowing firearms onsite, because they all do it, and they all have been doing it for my entire career.  Your company absolutely could have a made a no firearm policy, and fired him for violating that (after the rule was established and he was made aware of it obviously), and they could have absolutely disclosed that fact to other potential employers and could not have been sued over it.

What the law says and doesn't say has little to do with what transpires in a mediation if a former employee files a lawsuit.  Most businesses would rather clamp down on disclosure of information than deal with the costs of mediation and possible litigation.  Logical/legal or not, this is the reality that business owners need to contend with.  Unfortunately, the hiring process for the majority of skilled and good people are clouded with the "what if they or the next employer sues" fears of their former employer.  Yes, it is frustrating and unfair but this is the legal climate we all (predominantly in the U.S.) live in these days.

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4944
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #937 on: January 12, 2016, 04:00:44 PM »
Its a liability issue. I listed my former supervisor at a govt agency as a reference and he flat out refused to say anything other than referring them to HR. I finally had to call and ask a personal favor before he would give an OK reference. Every other supervisor was more than happy to say something.

I didn't include it in my post above, but the one caveat all those sources mentioned is that the information must be true.  That shouldn't really have to be listed as a caveat though.  If you get fired for stealing, what liability is the company assuming by relaying that fact to potential employers?  I could understand if they suspected you of something but couldn't prove it, but fired you anyway because it's an at-will agreement and they can fire you, that they shouldn't be allowed to pass on that information.  But if it's factual  I don't understand where the liability comes into play.


 When I worked in management, we would do nothing more than confirm dates of employment  to reference calls.  We're not in California, not even close, and the concern was liability.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #938 on: January 12, 2016, 04:09:36 PM »
Large tech companies up here won't fire you for poor performance because it's  ... just ... too ... much ... trouble.  It's cheaper to "lay you off" and give you a severance package to end the relationship quickly and cleanly.   To get fired, you have to sexually harass somebody, or break the law on company premises, or something of this nature.

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #939 on: January 12, 2016, 04:57:38 PM »
What's so upsetting is companies that require references, for example two references within the past 6-12 months, yet have a policy of only confirming the dates the employee worked there.

My wife would just walk around with a stack of blank reference forms (with fields such as hospital worked at, dates, the person's name giving the review, and a comment area). Toward the end of a contract she gets 3-5 people to fill one out for her (this isn't a problem, she's universally liked by all). One contract had this standard policy (prospective employee had to have multiple recent references, but they wouldn't allow references to be given) and were quite surprised that she, in fact, had references. Not just one or two, but a whole stack of them.

We (she) needed an official reference from one hospital for immigration purposes (we're from the US, went to Australia). Basically it had to say she was a competent nurse, was working there for X amount of time, etc. They wouldn't do it (the competent part). Immigration was not happy with the "Yes she worked here" letter, so we had to get another "Our policy is to only give dates of employment to any reference request"; luckily that was sufficient (though I'm guessing the immigration officer was scratching her head over that one).

Once we got the visa approved, she had need of said reference when she was applying for a nursing job in Australia. They absolutely required a letter from her manager stating she was a competent nurse and the dates she worked for them. Well, technically she didn't work for the hospital, she worked for an agency. So she got her recruiter to write her reference letter (on official company letterhead). That made them happy. They called him, apparently he sang her praises because they even commented on the glowing reference he gave her.

Needless to say, if/when we go back to the US and she takes up travel nursing again, we'll give strong preference to that particular recruiter.

Edit: I should probably throw in something FU money related.

As previously mentioned, my wife did travel nursing. Every contract she worked she got an offer to extend. She wanted the holidays off, so would simply not extend through those months, even if begged to. One hospital she worked at was pretty bad and she didn't want to go back (if you're reading this and recognize her...no, we're not talking about you, we're talking about that other hospital). The people were nice, just not the working environment (nowhere near enough staff). She simply didn't accept the extension. No bridges burned, no quitting after a couple months. Had we been desperate for money not only would she have stayed at that extremely stressful hospital, but she would have missed a lot of holidays while the kids were (are) still young.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 05:11:46 PM by NumberJohnny5 »

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #940 on: January 12, 2016, 08:28:18 PM »
Large tech companies up here won't fire you for poor performance because it's  ... just ... too ... much ... trouble.  It's cheaper to "lay you off"
If you are only getting rid of one person there isn't usually much difference between "fired" and "redundancy".
You pay them off for the notice period and get them out of the door fast.

It only really matters when you are dumping a % high enough to trigger union or shareholder reporting requirements

rockstache

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6776
  • Age: 2016
  • Location: Northeast
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #941 on: January 13, 2016, 08:48:46 PM »

Also it seems totally irrelevant what terminology you would use with a potential employer, as most can and will call your former employer anyway, and your former employer will almost certainly not have an issue using the term fired if you were in fact fired for any reason (poor performance, sexual harassment, stealing, damaging company property, etc).
This is in fact not true.  Legally it's a big problem, specifically in California.  (I can't speak for other areas)

We've been instructed by our HR that if we are called for reference for former employees, we are ONLY allowed to confirm their employment.  Otherwise, it can be construed as interfering with a person's livelihood.

(I mean, all sorts of back door phone calls happen anyway, when you know someone who knows someone.)  By the way, this goes for good AND bad employees.

In my state it is the same way. The only thing that anyone can do is confirm that someone worked here.

Are you sure this is state law and not just your companies HR policy?

As for mm1970's state of california this is the information I found:

Quote
California

Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c); Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1053, 1055

Information that may be disclosed:

• job performance

• reasons for termination or separation

• knowledge, qualifications, skills, or abilities based upon credible evidence

• eligibility for rehire

Who may request or receive information:

• prospective employer

Employer required to write letter:

• public utility companies only

Not that I intentionally want to be argumentative, but I trust the actual laws of california rather than what your HR department has relayed to you.  Maybe I am mistaken, but I just went and read the law for myself and it seems like they certainly can disclose the reason you were fired to a potential employer that asks.

I'm not in California so I don't know what they do there. We don't have an HR department either, it's just what the bosses have told us is the only legal response. I've never cared enough to check.

MMM98

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 113
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #942 on: January 14, 2016, 07:20:51 AM »
Here is one that actually is relevant to the topic

The setting was a Government agency, during a reorg placing employees is top priority.  Often the displaced person in a new position is unwelcome.  Even treated hostile.  Sometimes it’s a bad fit of job skills, sometimes it is simply the manager not getting to fill the position with who they would have chosen.

Samuel was placed in our office and was a bad fit and was not warmly received by our micromanager boss, Barb.  She lived to walk around each morning to see who came in on time, pour over time sheets, and check documents for proper punctuation but rarely added much content or value to the process.  Samuel was quiet and put up with this for 3 ½ years rarely divulging much about himself.  He always brought in his own lunch, occasionally mentioned his rental properties and drove a Toyota from early last decade.  He was sure proud of his later-in-life small child who was in every picture with his stay at home wife photos that covered his desk.  Unassuming is the word that would describe this guy, you could easily overlook him.

One day, on a Wednesday Barb came by and asked if anyone had heard from Samuel, he had been on vacation for two weeks and was due back Monday.  She only had his landline and he had shut it off some time ago.  Was he alright?  She did not want to be inconvenienced to drive over to his home to check on him so she reported him AWOL, Absent without Leave. Off went the report.  I am sure that she spent all morning documenting that she did everything right, all according with the appropriate regulation. HR, said he is not AWOL, he is retired.

HE CAN”T RETIRE! Barb said! He did not get me to sign off on that!

Now that is a FU story. 

Edit to English in punch line, I hate when that happens, thanks to Diane C for letting me know.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 11:54:12 AM by Toymiester »

G-dog

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15862
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #943 on: January 14, 2016, 07:38:04 AM »
^Go Samuel!

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8739
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #944 on: January 14, 2016, 09:11:00 AM »
Here is one that actually is relevant to the topic

The setting was a Government agency, during a reorg placing employees is top priority.  Often the displaced person in a new position is unwelcome.  Even treated hostile.  Sometimes it’s a bad fit of job skills, sometimes it is simply the manager not getting to fill the position with who they would have chosen.

Samuel was placed in our office and was a bad fit and was not warmly received by our micromanager boss, Barb.  She lived to walk around each morning to see who came in on time, pour over time sheets, and check documents for proper punctuation but rarely added much content or value to the process.  Samuel was quiet and put up with this for 3 ½ years rarely divulging much about himself.  He always brought in his own lunch, occasionally mentioned his rental properties and drove a Toyota from early last decade.  He was sure proud of his later-in-life small child who was in every picture with his stay at home wife pictures that covered his desk.  Unassuming is the word that would describe this guy, you could easily overlook him.

One day, on a Wednesday Barb came by and asked if anyone had heard from Samuel, he had been on vacation for two weeks and was due back Monday.  She only had his landline and he had shut it off some time ago.  Was he alright?  She did not want to be inconvenienced to drive over to his home to check on him so she reported him AWOL, Absent without Leave. Off went the report.  I am sure that she spent all morning documenting that she did everything right, all according with the appropriate regulation. HR, said he is not AWOL, he is retired.

HE CAN”T RETIRE! Barb said! He did get me to sign off on that!

Now that is a FU story.

Yes, this is awesome!

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #945 on: January 14, 2016, 09:27:18 AM »
HE CAN”T RETIRE! Barb said! He did get me to sign off on that!
Dude, the way my command tracks HR actions, I don't think I could pull that off, but I can imagine situations in which I'd try.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #946 on: January 14, 2016, 10:01:09 AM »
haha, FUCK YOU BARB!

woopwoop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #947 on: January 14, 2016, 05:23:34 PM »
Wow, that Barb story is amazing!

russianswinga

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Age: 37
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Truth is just an excuse for a lack of imagination
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #948 on: January 14, 2016, 05:29:03 PM »
haha, FUCK YOU BARB!

For some reason that reminded me of this "retirement" scene in the movie Wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7CXtxOflI

With This Herring

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Location: New York STATE, not city
  • TANSTAAFL!
Re: Epic FU money stories
« Reply #949 on: January 14, 2016, 06:21:06 PM »
Replying to follow.  :)