Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what I always find really obnoxious? When they have to have security escort you out during termination. That is a really antiquated practice. An employee does not become a criminal just because the employer has decided not to continue to employ them. It is really unnecessary to treat them like they are. If the person is being fired for theft or fraud or something egregious, then by all means they should escort the person out. Ditto if the person gets hot headed during the termination meeting and shows no signs of cooling off. If I were fired, I know that I have several people who will give me a reference. That plus the fact that the economy is good, I'm sure I wouldn't have any problem finding another job. If I were to do something malicious like steal or sabotage, that would really be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Firstly, I would open myself to criminal prosecution. Secondly, I would not be able to find a job at McDonald's.
You know what I always find really obnoxious? When they have to have security escort you out during termination. That is a really antiquated practice. An employee does not become a criminal just because the employer has decided not to continue to employ them. It is really unnecessary to treat them like they are. If the person is being fired for theft or fraud or something egregious, then by all means they should escort the person out. Ditto if the person gets hot headed during the termination meeting and shows no signs of cooling off. If I were fired, I know that I have several people who will give me a reference. That plus the fact that the economy is good, I'm sure I wouldn't have any problem finding another job. If I were to do something malicious like steal or sabotage, that would really be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Firstly, I would open myself to criminal prosecution. Secondly, I would not be able to find a job at McDonald's.
LOL, you are correct. In the two that I reference too. The first was a Supervisor who was the smartest man in the room(no really he was) and had been here 27 years.
The people upstairs as I call them implemented a new system to use, after 3 years and it never being able to work which this Gentleman who had told all the Supervisors above him before it was purchased it did not fit out needs was asked to "retire" early because he was not a team player and was a hindrance to the team. We were never a team and the State spent a fortune on a warehouse system it does not use. No HR person in sight.
I remember working in an office once. It was a power systems company. The sales operations manager was a woman who was very nasty at times. She was difficult to deal with. No one in the office liked her except the senior vice president, and that was the whole ballgame. There was an Admin Assistant who worked for her. The two of them just did not get along. They were like oil and water. The manager never treated her well. She treated her like a slave instead of like an employee, and instead of trying to talk it out with her or go to HR and try to resolve the situation, she just bottled it up until she exploded. One day, when the company was in the process of being acquired, we had to provide the buying company a lot of documentation. The manager wanted her to pull files. The admin assistant had hurt her wrist the night before. She got really angry. She went into the manager's office and shut the door. We heard raised voices for a few minutes and the admin assistant came out and the manager was like, "GET YOUR S--- AND GO!" The admin assistant packed up her personal items and was gone.
This is a case where HR definitely should have been involved, instead of the manager unilaterally firing her. For starters, the woman was African American. It could have potentially led to a discrimination claim. Even though that manager was a miserable human being, I actually think the admin assistant was more at fault in that case. If you come in to work, your supervisor has the right to assume you can do the job. You can't be screeching at your manager. That is just looking for trouble. And it wasn't the first time they had a big fight. They had had another screaming argument a few months before that. That admin assistant worked there about a year and a half and the only big shock after seeing how she got along with the manager was that it took that long for the explosion to happen between them. I am sure they gave her a couple weeks severance and agreed not to contest her unemployment in exchange for her signing a separation agreement. I am also sure manager took some flak from the HR director after it was over about the way she handled the situation. She probably said something like, "I am not saying you were wrong. But the way you handled the situation could have really caused problems, and I would have been the one to have to deal with the aftermath. Instead of acting on impulse and unilaterally firing her, you should have sent her home for the day and come to me and let me handle it."
Last edited by MJoseph42286; 10-30-2023 at 12:41 PM..
Because their work was their livelihood , I have a pension I went back to work becuase I wanted to not becuase I had to and I don't like people being bullied. I assume you have no idea that HR stands for Human Resources and is there to help both sides.
After a 45+ year career of course I understand what HR stands for! Personally, I've never had much trouble with any of my employers' HR departments. I know their influence and purpose is limited not only by labor law and regulation, but by company policy and that their jobs can be thankless. Employees hope and want HR to be on "their" side even if they're in the wrong. Then they want HR to be impartial (as long as their impartiality favors THEM), to be referees, to be inhumanly perfect and all knowledgeable. They can't win for losing.
I also understand that the word "livelihood" means different things to different people. Many folks choose the work they do for reasons other than $. If money was all that mattered, they probably could have chosen something that paid more. No way to know unless you ask them. Being sanctimonious about how selfless you are isn't a great look.
Honestly your OP was confusing and your replies even more so. So, you decided to be offended at the manner in which some worker's dismissal was orchestrated. And you weren't (and shouldn't be) privy to the details. Being offended is a choice you made. It may not be relevant to anyone else.
Last edited by Parnassia; 10-30-2023 at 04:49 PM..
After a 45+ year career of course I understand what HR stands for! Personally, I've never had much trouble with any of my employers' HR departments. I know their influence and purpose is limited not only by labor law and regulation, but by company policy and that their jobs can be thankless. Employees hope and want HR to be on "their" side even if they're in the wrong. Then they want HR to be impartial (as long as their impartiality favors THEM), to be referees, to be inhumanly perfect and all knowledgeable. They can't win for losing.
I also understand that the word "livelihood" means different things to different people. Many folks choose the work they do for reasons other than $. If money was all that mattered, they probably could have chosen something that paid more. No way to know unless you ask them. Being sanctimonious about how selfless you are isn't a great look.
Honestly your OP was confusing and your replies even more so. So, you decided to be offended at the manner in which some worker's dismissal was orchestrated. And you weren't (and shouldn't be) privy to the details. Being offended is a choice you made. It may not be relevant to anyone else.
From your reply I honestly don't think you do understand what HR is suppose to do. To add your understanding of the word Livelihood is also spun to fit your agenda as a Boss and or a Supervisor .Your response seems to have a bias agenda to it that doesn't seem relevant to the thread.
i work for a federal agency. And yes, there have been people who come to work on Monday morning, to find they are being let go due to "activity" over the weekend on their own time. When you work for the government, there are a whole bunch of things that can cause you to lose your job including things you do on your non-working time.
i work for a federal agency. And yes, there have been people who come to work on Monday morning, to find they are being let go due to "activity" over the weekend on their own time. When you work for the government, there are a whole bunch of things that can cause you to lose your job including things you do on your non-working time.
I understand and you're 100% right but these two situations weren't that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After a 45+ year career of course I understand what HR stands for! Personally, I've never had much trouble with any of my employers' HR departments. I know their influence and purpose is limited not only by labor law and regulation, but by company policy and that their jobs can be thankless. Employees hope and want HR to be on "their" side even if they're in the wrong. Then they want HR to be impartial (as long as their impartiality favors THEM), to be referees, to be inhumanly perfect and all knowledgeable. They can't win for losing. 
