I get that this may feel demeaning, but come on, we're trying in the modern world to do something better than the inhumanity of locking the factory doors 100 years ago or yanking a guy's union book, and now people are complaining about how psychologically scarring it is to be treated with enough decency to receive a paycheck and be given a low enough stress role to find a new one? Jeez... recognize this for the progress that it is!
People are going to be upset about being fired no matter how it's done.
I worked in an agency once where we were unable to renew a contract with a large client. About a month later 75% of the agency was called into the gym for a discussion. Everyone who did not get called into the gym was let go. There was a lot of confusion about who was supposed to be at this meeting and it really was terrible for everyone involved. The people there were good and well-meaning, but that was the absolute worst way to do it.
I'm not sure how this was handled by the woman's manager in the article, but "We're starting to transition your responsibilities. We'll keep paying you, providing healthcare and you don't have to have a gap in your resume, but please look for something else" comes off as pretty respectful to me.
The individual stated they would rather have been fired instead of having to undergo that process.
"Eliza had effectively been frozen out by her employer. Barely a month later, she quit. “It was humiliating – I was made to feel worthless,” she says. “It was the worst experience of my career: I’d rather have been just fired on the spot and paid off than have to go through that.”"
I'm certainly sorry someone was made to feel that way, and I don't agree with the reasons she was sidelined, but in the absence of the specifics, the fact an employer who found someone to be performing differently than needed for a position, paid said employee to find a better fitting one is pretty good. The only improvement I can think of is to look for another position internally to try them in or retrain them? But if your entire business is narrow in acope, this may be impossible by inspection. Firing someone is denying them unemployment benefits in the US, and a bad culture fit is not sufficient for that. And being on unemployment isn't always the best look on a resume. They put this person on unemployment at full salary without it ever appearing on her resume, that seems like a really good deal.
The key difference is that she was never told she was being fired.
If the manager had simply said “hey this isn’t working for xyz, we are going to put you in a minimal role for 3 months to give you time to look for something else”, that would be generous.
By not telling her, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. She figures it out at some point on her own, and feels disrespected (rightfully), that the manager didn’t have the balls to tell her. Additionally the manager hurts the company by having this employee just there for who knows how long.
I imagine bosses engage in "quiet firing" specifically in order to avoid difficult conversations. Keeping someone on the payroll AND explaining that the role isn't working out seems like the worst of both worlds for a confrontation-averse manager!
I think what you propose is pretty similar to the system in place at Amazon (at least ~2019, when I left AWS). It was common knowledge (or at least was widely assumed) that the most likely outcome of a PIP was dismissal, so being put on a PIP was treated as notice that you should look for a new job.
I think in the context of communicating bad news, the PIP system Amazon had sounds like it sucks, but at least it was a way to communicate that you should find another job.
The problem with the person in this article is that there was no communication at all. It was extremely wishy washy.
Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever.
> Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever.
100%, but that requires that their manager be willing to have a difficult conversation with them. It’s not impossible that your whole reporting chain can be staffed with spineless, chickenshit managers.
Saying you'd rather be fired on the spot is really emotional and melodramatic. Some people depend on their income to feed their kids, so it's not all about making sure everyone feels happy and valued all the time. Saying you'd rather be fired is such a privileged position to be in.
> Saying you'd rather be fired is such a privileged position to be in.
it is rather generous of you to completely invalidate her opinion/views because they don't match yours.
I guess in her opinion, given a choice of being dehumanized and forced to quit, or being fired upfront she would rather "rip the bandaid off quickly" and be fired instead.
The end result was the same, she left but didn't need to be forced to quit first simply to avoid paying her severance.
People have different experiences, her's was she would rather be fired, perhaps you would rather be shuffled around and forced to quit instead and that is just fine.
"In the weeks that followed, Eliza’s professional life became much quieter. Instead of formulating the London-based events agency’s marketing strategy from the office or attending live shows as part of her remit, her main duties now consisted of simply being available between 0900 and 1800, sending the occasional email and completing the odd routine task from home. "
Seems she was doing important work, then made to do degrading work in an attempt to get her to quit.
When she joined, did she apply for a position doing this work? Did she apply for an internal transfer from her current position to this one?
It is astonishing that people such as yourself cant see what is clearly taking place here. She wasn't given an easy remote job.. she was transferred so she would quit and avoid a severance payout.
She was transferred...to an easy remote job. Yes it was not the exact job she had before, but I would hardly call that 'dehumanizing'. That was not my take on the article as a whole, merely a response to some overly-hyperbolic (IMO) language in the comment I replied to.
Do you really share the opinion that being fired on the spot is less dehumanizing than being given a chance to look for another job while being given a steady paycheck?
I'm not trying to be generous -- I don't want to live in a world where it's the norm for employers to rip the floor up from under people. I don't care if some people are so secure in their finances they prefer that world.
> Do you really share the opinion that being fired on the spot is less dehumanizing than being given a chance to look for another job while being given a steady paycheck?
Did you read what I wrote at all? SHE had the opinion that she would rather be fired...
She didn’t like the job and the expectations made of her. The job was a “poor fit”. She “feared the worse” (getting fired? I thought that is what she preferred). She was given a job that was less stressful and within her abilities, but that was “dehumanizing”. I suspect she was not doing the job adequately and that necessitated the company to make a change. Could there be a more gentle change?
In my opinion, she was given a gift. The opportunity to find another job while working with a safety net that would likely last much longer than a severance if it took a while to find the next “right” opportunity.
Yeah, but is that really true? I mean, I get that Eliza didn't enjoy the process, but there's no way of firing someone that they'll enjoy.
Several months fully paid for your job search, and no firing on your resume? Sounds very generous to me. I appreciate there would be stress from poor communication about what was going on - but telling someone they should look for another job would be constructive dismissal.
Yeah, but is that really true? I mean, I get that Eliza didn't enjoy the process, but there's no way of firing someone that they'll enjoy.
Severance packages go a long way. Last week I randomly met someone who was recently laid of from Peloton. They seemed pretty happy to move back to their home state with a lower cost of living where 6 months severance could last two years.
As I typed that out I just figured out how to sell this idea to upper-management. As a manager it must be hard to fire someone, especially when you know they support a family or just bought a house or whatever. If low level managers knew the people they fired were going to be given generous severance packages, they might be more likely to let go people that are under performing. Which could help the company overall. Though I suppose you would have to watch out for people slacking off on purpose when they are getting head-hunted for a new job.
As a manager by the time I get to the point of termination for job performance or other “issues”, it’s actually a relief. Managing to that point is what is hard.
However, lay offs are difficult, generally because in my experience you know for a long period of time they are coming (as a manager) and who will be affected, and you need to avoid treating those employees you are going to RIF as dead men walking.
But even her desire to be fired drips with privilege. She wanted to be fired and 'paid off'. She should realize that it's a privilege for an employer to give her money for getting rid of her. That's not how it works in many, many places.
If by law or employment contract, a company must pay compensation after a dismissal, there is now an incentive for companies to "force out" employees by making them resign by their own hand. It's quite clear this is what happened in this situation.
Such "constructive dismissal" is therefore a method of avoiding their legal obligations to their (former) employees, and so the practice should be - and often is - banned.
In any case, it should not be "a privilege" to be treated humanely by employers, it should be a right.
Definitely not the US, that's for sure. RIFed as part of a broader restructure and you might get some severance. Fired outright? I wouldn't count on it.
You won't get severance but unless you are fired for gross incompetence you will probably be eligible for unemployment insurance. Not so much if you quit.
The problem with being sidelined like this is that it can drag on and on until it's a resume liability. I'm at a company that's a bad fit right now - I hate it, my boss doesn't know what to do with me, but I was strung along for months without any discussion of my performance. I make a great salary but I feel like I need to stay long enough to make it not look suspicious, and every day I log on and do nothing for 8 hours I feel more burnt out and unprepared for a new role.
I don't know much about your current situation, but if you've got a short stint at a company it's not going to matter too much. "I joined expecting X but when I got there it was Y. I gave it a chance for Z months but it didn't work out" is one of the best answers to "why are you looking for a new role?"
If you've got 3-4 of these in the other hand, that's when you might just need to bring and bear it
I have gotten into discussions about this with colleagues and managers. The managers don't really care and just told me to chill and hang out (below my previous ambition level) and others have pointed out that they keep me around for insurance. Basically sand bag me until needed to fix a catastrophy or oversee other teams, departments, or initiatives that are at risk.
I don't really like it. I have (or used to have) a voracious work ethic that demanded I be busy on high-impact projects 24/7. However, these projects are rare.
Part of it is due to the constant adrenaline rush of being in a startup and having to save the company or a part of it on a regular basis. Sort of how soldiers have trouble adapting to ho-hum civilian life where the problems are mundane and they miss the trench-level comraderie.
Going from a startup where everything matters and you are surrounded by friends to a big company where nothing seems to matter and relationships are tempered by bureaucracy can be depressing as hell.
i get paid a monthly retainer to wait and respond to calls for help. often times i have nothing to do. but that's the definition of my work. i could go and find more things to do, but i don't have to.
maybe it helps if you reframe your current situation in that way. apart from that, if you can, i'd look at side projects that relate to your work
Not to mention in the U.S. health insurance is tied to employment. Firing someone not only stops income from coming in, but also doubles the cost (in a lot of cases) of insurance. On top of this, firing someone allows the company to dispute unemployment. Giving someone to find a new job would be an amazing gift.
If there was ever a situation where it was good and useful to implement last week's employer-complaint-of-the-week, people having two full time jobs, this is it.
Illegitimati non carborundum — Don't let the bastards grind you down.
Start interviewing, then start working, do the minimum required, and keep taking their money. Much easier in a remote situation, not so much if they stick you in a windowless office 9-5... so BYOD, VPN, tethering to your phone...
But no matter what, reject the insult from your brain and move on.
Agreed. I don't know what she is complaining about. For Tech people, we don't understand that getting a new job only takes a couple of weeks at the most. In some fields, it can take 6 months or a year to get another job. People getting the polite, "You are done working here but you are not fired", is a huge help for them. They can look for a new job while still pulling a check and not having that gap in their resume. Also, there are other options for people at larger companies like transfering to another department or whole other subsidiary.
Now that I think about it, as a person in tech, I would rather have this than just get fired. Atleast I don't have to explain to anyone that I got fired or come up with a awkward lie about why I am not a company and looking for a new job.
Progress is good, we should indeed recognize that things have improved, and you're right to say it. But complacency is the enemy of progress. As long as there are valid reasons to complain, then people should keep constructively pointing out the flaws.
A complaint is not a negative thing. It is the very driver of the same progress that you want people to recognize. If we'd like more of that in the future, then it is simply good and right to keep going.
If you want to try to do better by letting people keep a paycheck on a lower responsibility role until you push them out, it'd be better to have a system where the offboarding period is explicit, communicated amiably, and transparent. That could just take the form of severance pay, or it could be something new.
If on the other hand you're just avoiding confrontation and hoping sufficient misery will make the problem go away, there's nothing virtuous about this. You don't get to ask for gratefulness in that situation.
This. I get that the same experience can affect people differently, but this shouldn't be traumatic.
From my American perspective --
She had 'probation' extended. - My state is a 'right-to-work' state. Meaning a contract is pretty much worthless, and there's no probation.
She wanted to be fired and 'paid on the spot'? - Paid what? My manager could literally call me up this moment and fire me. For no reason. And I won't get any money, unless the company I work for elected to give me some pittance. There's no legal or societal expectation that they pay me anything.
In my experience, instead of feeling worthless, she should've taken her paid free time and brushed up her resume/skills for her next job.
There's a cultural expectation that a fired or laid off employee is entitled to severance (unless they were fired "for cause"), even in the absence of a legal requirement. You are also entitled to state unemployment benefits in the US if you are fired or laid off (again, unless fired "for cause"), whereas you're just on your own if you quit.
>her main duties now consisted of simply being available between 0900 and 1800, sending the occasional email and completing the odd routine task from home.
This sounds like a perfect opportunity to be paid while searching for a new job. I honestly don't see how employers still see this as a good idea. Please, by all means, stick me at home with nothing to do but collect a paycheck. I'll gladly clock in while filling out applications for a better role.
I'd 100% find a new remote position, not quit the now-joke-of-a-job, and collect two salaries for as long as possible. This sounds like a perfect setup tbh. They're trying to freeze someone out by giving them the Milton-in-the-basement treatment, except Milton doesn't have to physically sit in the basement anymore.
> I'll gladly clock in while filling out applications for a better role.
I would assume that's the point. You can turn over employees without the political headaches of firing. If you fire enough employees nobody will want to work for you (in the case of specific managers) and risk triggering an exodus as people lose faith in the company (and the best most employable employees leave first).
Not that I'd enjoy the process, but it also sounds like a pretty good retirement plan. I'd keep my resume up to date for when they'd give up on me quitting, but I'd also not be adverse to doing things I want to do in exchange for being available for the occasional email.
I would love to semi-retire with a role like that. It's not like I'm going to instantly turn off my Internet and forget how to do software when I'm 60. But, I'm also not going to be interested in running at full throttle grinding and chasing promotions, either. I would love to wind down my career with a role like "Grow a beard, answer E-mail questions, be available to help with emergencies, and mentor junior employees." I'd probably only ask for 25% pay for a job like that.
It seems like she invested herself and her ego too much into the job, almost caring more about the "position" than the money, which is very weird. I would just take the paycheck and the easy work.
For an extreme example of this, look up 'rubber rooms' for teachers [1] -
> It’s a June morning, and there are fifteen people in the room, four of them fast asleep, their heads lying on a card table. Three are playing a board game. [...]
> These fifteen teachers, along with about six hundred others, in six larger Rubber Rooms in the city’s five boroughs, have been accused of misconduct, [...] or, in some cases, of incompetence [...]
> The teachers have been in the Rubber Room for an average of about three years, doing the same thing every day—which is pretty much nothing at all.
With respect to NYC teachers thank the union for that. The rubber rooms are because of contracts and processes which make teachers extremely difficult to fire. The issue that happens is that teachers who might be unsafe to have in the classroom with children, will have a years long arbitration and appeal process before they can be fired.
This sounds like the inverse of "Work to Rule." Instead of employees doing exactly what they are told in the dumbest way possible to sabotage production, you have employers technically upholding a contract in the dumbest way possible to make workers miserable and outrage the public.
What do you do with a teacher who has been credibly accused of child abuse? They deserve a right to be heard certainly, but at the same time it would be the height of irresponsibility to put them back in a classroom.
> ...will have a years long arbitration and appeal process before they can be fired.
For the US, I read that as "it will be so expensive in attorney time to secure a litigation-proof post-firing outcome it is cheaper to simply pay them to sit and do nothing for the remainder of their contract". Above some amount of money thrown at these arrangements, it might come with consequences: future teachers unions might find long-term contracts or contracts at all rather problematic to negotiate.
I wonder what the union side of the picture looks like for these allegedly problematic teachers?
>For the US, I read that as "it will be so expensive in attorney time to secure a litigation-proof post-firing outcome it is cheaper to simply pay them to sit and do nothing for the remainder of their contract"
It's all done through arbitration, so much lower cost than the regular US court system.
>I wonder what the union side of the picture looks like for these allegedly problematic teachers?
I'll bite: why should management just be able to fire people unilaterally? All the union is asking is for the case for firing be proven in arbitration. It's management's choice to take these teachers out of the classroom while the case against them is pending and pay them to do nothing. Just look at some of the cases cited in the actual article: a lady they spoke to got bad perf reviews for two years from a new principal after 20 years of good ones. The writer spoke to 5 unnamed parents from the teacher's school who said that the new principal was good. Is it so obvious that the lady needs to be fired from her job?
It depends on who you see as the key stakeholders. If my kid were put in an incompetent teacher's class, and the school told me "she's only been incompetent for 2 years so she doesn't deserve to be fired" or "she'll be fired in 6 months or so", I'd be pretty peeved.
What if they put your kid in an incompetent teacher's class and the school told you "sorry, we are paying the competent teacher who used to teach this class to sit in a room somewhere, she didn't kiss the principal's ass enough"?
Then I'd still be peeved? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. I agree that schools should retain good teachers rather than firing them or freezing them out.
Well, which case was it here? There's a neutral third-party ready to make that decision, having been presented with the facts of the case by both sides.
> I'll bite: why should management just be able to fire people unilaterally?
Well because employment is an agreement to which both sides agree voluntarily. Workers can quit unilaterally, why shouldn't management have the same right?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not opposed to workers protections in general, but I think of them as a pragmatic benefit to the broader society. In general, I don't see it as immoral or unethical for either side to terminate an ongoing voluntary commercial relationship.
As is often the case with these types of things, there are serious power asymmetries that need to be considered.
My threat to terminate this voluntary relationship is that my employer will have some small amount of trouble, probably offloaded onto my ex coworkers. My employer's threat to terminate this voluntary relationship is that I may be kicked out of where I live, made homeless, unable to support my family, etc. Can we really call this a voluntary relationship where both sides have meaningfully agreed?
Yes, it is voluntary. Your employer has likely made consequential financial plans on the assumption of your continued employment. He might have entered into contracts, invested in equipment, etc. and yet you can quit and trash those and happily be at work the following day for someone else. At will employment is truly a voluntary exchange. (That is why many people have contracts.)
Again, however I agree some level of worker protections are reasonable for a pragmatic reasons at a societal level, but not because of a power asymmetry at the employer employee level.
As the article discusses, a lot of the time stems from the procedures in the union contract rather than arbitrary delays. Mohamed's case takes 45 days to hear, and only 5 of those days can be scheduled per month, so that's 3/4 of a year just spent conducting the actual hearing. (Perhaps the hearings are excessively long, but it's hard to imagine that the school system is pushing for that.)
Also (as you pointed out) 45 days at 5 days / non-summer month isn't 4 years which seems to be how long the case is taking (3 years of rubber room, 1 year of case).
Almost sounds like the 'jobs bank' General Motors had for autoworkers. They'd close their plants and then pay workers to sit at the union hall and play cards etc all day.
One of my early bootstrapped startup failures was a site for anonymously referring colleagues' cv's, linkedin and other profiles to a pool of recruiters with the intent that the person would get recruited away. The premise was that these neutral referals were higher quality leads for recruiters than reaching out via cold emails, and just because one of your co-workers would prefer to see you somewhere else doesn't mean you can't be great at what you do in a new role with new relationships. I spoke to one manager who had to do layoffs and said he would have loved to be able to get some of them recruited away, as it would have been a net-positive for everyone involved.
It was in the time when Tinder and other taboo breaking apps were coming to market, but it's better than the alternative. If it sounds mean spirited, consider it against the alternative of "managing-out" or "pip'ing out" people, which is a terrible artifact of labor law where instead of setting clear expectations and outcomes, it incentivises gaslighting people for months, sabotaging their mental health and relationships with their colleagues, and with knock-on effects for bringing that home to their families. Firing someone with clarity and closure sucks, but the band-aid comes off. Managers who avoid difficult conversations and use passive gaslighting instead can wreck the families and homes of people who are accountable to them. Referring out someone who isn't a fit to external recruiters (outrefer'ing) seemed like a relatively humane solution.
Free to out-referers, subscription fee for recruiters to get the warm leads by city/role and skills. Maybe the time for it will eventually come.
Back in the day at Kodak it was a common trick to give a bad employee a stellar review and put them up for internal transfer in the hopes that sone sucker would take the underperformer.
in the US bad teachers get managed the in a similar way. It's very hard to fire a teacher due to the union but you they can get moved around to different schools. They call it the "turkey shuffle".
My previous job was perfect, except for the terrible manager. I spent years wishing a product like yours existed, in the hopes that I could refer him anonymously without any risk of retaliation and another company could recruit him away.
Alas, society wasn’t ready for your startup, and I was the one allowing myself to get recruited away.
I had this happen to me at best buy when I was 19. The assistant GM didn't like that I had purple hair so he would essentially bully me every day. To the point that other co-workers noticed, and were telling me that I should say something to HR or OSHA[1]. As someone who made it through catholic grade school I prided myself on being able to take shit from authority with a smile, so I put up with it. Until one day I overslept and the thought of having to call in and say I was going to be 15 minutes late was too scary and I just didn't go back. Only time I ever no call/no showed anywhere.
More recently I had an "architect" on a team who felt threatened that I knew more about our tech stack than he did. He would constantly go against my recommendations without giving a reason, and would assign me boring things. If something broke he would spend the whole time trying to figure out how to blame me, instead of how to fix it. In return, I would just say it probably is my fault let's fix it, even when I knew it was someone else's fault, because who cares. I would also be very public about my technical opinions. The result was that management decided our team didn't need an "architect" and we now have a few Sr. engineers instead. If I didn't have that awful experience at best buy 20 years before, I don't think I would have had the courage to stand up.
[1] This is a funny story that I still tell. One day it was slow, he assigned me to wash the walls with a brush and bucket. One co-worker just kept saying "I've never heard of washing the walls. you paint the walls." Another said they would refuse do it unless they had all the appropriate OSHA safety gear. But the best part was that I was just spot washing the dirt and stuff, and the manager came over to me like an annoyed parent and said I was doing it wrong and showed me the right way. He grabbed the brush soaked in soapy water and used big aggressive strokes water dripping down, and so I followed his example. Within 10 minutes he had me stop because the carpet was stained from the paint dripping off the wall, because you don't wash walls, you paint them.
> If I didn't have that awful experience at best buy 20 years before, I don't think I would have had the courage to stand up.
Too me this is a key takeaway. Business is shitty in lots of ways. There’s a million ways the fit could be wrong. Our process of couple interviews and job offer doesn’t always allow for proper due diligence as both parties are trying to sell something. The goal for everyone is should be to make sure you have enough cushions in your finances and other parts of your life that you can politely say “fuck off” whenever or whyever you feel like you’re being treated poorly. Just don’t put up with it. It doesn’t mean walking off is the best solution, but sometimes you try to fix with communication and other things and this is your only option. I have an expectation that people treat me professionally in work. If people are being conniving, twofaced, or yelling and screaming it’s time to go. (I tend to experience yelling a lot. I think the stress/deadlines gets to certain people to where they just like to yell.)
The goal for everyone is should be to make sure you have enough cushions in your finances and other parts of your life that you can politely say “fuck off” whenever or whyever you feel like you’re being treated poorly.
I mostly agree, but it is very difficult to get there, and once you're there it's easy to forget how lucky you got along the way. So I would say the goal should be to have enough cushions to stand up for yourself and others, knowing you could afford to leave at any time.
"her main duties now consisted of simply being available between 0900 and 1800, sending the occasional email and completing the odd routine task from home."
Sounds like heaven, finally I could get some work done on my side project.
I understand feeling psychologically hurt by this as a young ambitious person but as someone that has 10+ years of tech experience my ego wouldn't be hurt by this and I would gladly take a role where I send a few emails a day and keep my salary. I would be killing it with my hobbies during the day.
I once worked for a company that transferred low performing engineers to customer service over the phone support rather than firing them. That way they could say they never lay off employees. Which you could argue is better that firing. But working customer support was the worst. They did have excellent phone support though.
The most common cases of constructive dismissal are where the employee leaves as a result of material changes in powers or duties. Usually, a main area of responsibility is removed or the employee's duties are decreased; for example, a plant superintendent whose duties are confined to those of yard foreman. Such actions are in fact a dismissal in disguise, whether or not they are accompanied by changes in salary or job title. Commonly, this form of constructive dismissal involves a significant loss of prestige and status as a result of a corporate reorganization or change in reporting arrangements.
That's what happened in Poland in 1990s when France Telecom took bought the local telco monopoly (Telekomunikacja Polska) from the Polish state. FT wanted to get rid of lots of relatively well-paid office workers (largely due to automation making them no longer necessary), but were unable to do so, as keeping employment was part of the sales contract. However, they were allowed to move people around the company, provided they still pay them the same salaries.
The FT's "solution" was to move hundreds (probably even thousands) of people into call centers and subject them to what today would definitely be recognized as mobbing. A family member went through that - she said that, whoever could quit quickly did, and people who had no alternatives stayed on the job largely only thanks to tranquilizers and other psych meds.
This is a very common practice at French telecom companies, and beyond. A massive lawsuit occured when a string of suicides at Orange Telecom in France happened. Managers would systematically psychologically harass workers till they quit, or die. All in order to meet "headcount reduction targets." Call that practice the good, old Roman decimation.
The French managing practice of moving someone in a spot where they will get bored out, if not killed out is called "placardisation," or "to put someone in a cupboard."
Demeaning and morally unacceptable, but something that business majors at French grandes écoles are taught is "une normalité," a given, a fact of business life.
In the UK this could be for very different reasons than in the US. It is particularly hard to fire there, this may have been seen as a cheaper and easier route.
I talked to someone who had a similar experience in New Zealand. As I understand it, this kind of treatment is more common in countries where the employment laws make it hard to fire someone. It is also more common when the employee's severance package is large and the employer is not just disappointed but upset with the employee.
Yes. And it’s generally considered something for which any employee could win at a labour board, if they wanted to take it there. Strictly speaking, constructive dismissal could be seen as a form of fraud (many unemployment schemes do not cover someone who has quit their job, only those who have lost their job without cause).
It’s going to be harder for the employer in the UK (for now, until the shambles of a conservative government finalizes the gutting of rights) and Europe, but it’s far more humane and effective to figure out where the employee can fit within the organization, and if there is nowhere to fit, to give the employee a generous termination package.
Employees who have been constructively dismissed like this need to remember to not sign any NDAs or arbitration agreements on the way out and to document the experience to take it to a labour board.
> In overt cases, this is known as ‘constructive dismissal’: when an employee is forced to leave because the employer created a hostile work environment.
Yep, I did some integration with a large firm in Japan in the mid 2000's. They had a whole room of people that just sat at their desks and napped or read a book during the day.
From what I hear it's almost impossible to get fired in Japan so it seems likely, I have no sources other than: "I heard it somewhere" for this however.
If an employee drags ass, but doesn't want to quit... and an employer tries to manage them out, but doesn't want to fire them... then I would say that it's a draw. And in this case, the employee generally "wins" in the event of a draw.
This was one of the most cowardly acts I ever experienced at an organization. And the organization is run by people who call themselves "leadership coaches" and who do "management consulting" and it frustrates me to no end they are teaching other people this is effective management.
Have some mercy on the employers; they didn’t want it this way. This is all downstream of law. Nobody wants to play Russian Roulette by being direct with people and risking a lawsuit or, more likely, a complaint at the EEOC. Even if everything is above board, just the existence of the case can harm your reputation in the future, like someone who has been arrested and cleared.
I get what you're saying - in that people will sue over anything. But.
If you being "direct" with an employee about their performance rises to an EEOC complaint, you absolutely need to think about what you're doing and why you're doing it.
>Even if everything is above board, just the existence of the case can harm your reputation in the future, like someone who has been arrested and cleared.
I have had several EEOC complaints files against me for BS reasons (I work in a field that works with folks with disabilities, and it can be difficult to separate disability and job performance for some folks). None of them have had findings, and none of them have ruined my career. I'm confused by your statement here.
> her main duties now consisted of simply being available between 0900 and 1800, sending the occasional email and completing the odd routine task from home
That's just asking for her to get a second WFH job... or enjoy the time off.
Honestly this seems good to me, I get that some person might feel that this is bad and I get the article but free money while searching for a new job just can't be bad.
This corporate capitalism system is evil, on the same level as gulags in the Soviet Union and concentration camps in Nazi Germany.
Workers can't perform according to the system? Then silently terminate them and nudge them into poverty.
"Freedom" in the Western world? No.
That's not really saying anything at all. Every alternative to the corporate capitalism system that has been ever tried ended with millions of dead people.
