4 ms·

>While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" Side note since you mentioned "firing". The article's title ("facing firing") may uninten

by jasode 8y ago

>While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" Side note since you mentioned "firing". The article's title ("facing firing") may unintentionally overstate what Amazon's appeal process is actually appealing. Based on the text, Amazon's "appeal process" is to challenge the status of being put on PIP - the Performance Improvement Plan. It isn't to appeal a firing. (Although I understand that some see that as no difference if a PIP is ~99% equivalent to getting fired eventually.) If the employee wants to keep working (at least temporarily) for Amazon, he/she doesn't need to appeal. What a successful appeal does is let them work without PIP targets hanging over their head.

mikeryan 8y ago
PIPs are basically a nice opportunity to look for another job while still at your current one.
- duxup 8y ago
  I've had to explain this to coworkers in the past, kinda awkward but at the same time I wanted them to not be surprised....
  - erric 8y ago
    PIPs, at least from what I’ve seen in 12 years at DoE, are a way for managers to retaliate against employees without raising the ire of the (completely useless) union.
    - extra88 8y ago
      A PIP is an explicit statement of the problems with an employee's current performance and what they need to improve to not be fired. A manager's complaints may be dubious but no more so than they would be if they were outright allowed to fire the person. I've never heard of a PIP actually succeeding (an employee improving to the satisfaction of their manager) so it delays the inevitable, perhaps allowing the employee to quit and find another job before their fired. It's definitely meant to avoid a wrongful dismissal lawsuit but I think that almost never works; either the employee is going to sue or they're not, "being given a chance to improve" isn't going to change that.
      - cthalupa 8y ago
        I've seen employees succeed at PIPs. If there are explicit goals or metrics to be measured, which I have seen in many cases, it's pretty clear what needs to be done to clear it. If they don't meet those goals, and they're attainable (e.g. other people in the same role are performing that well on average), it's a pretty clear defense for a lawsuit.
        workinthehead 8y ago
        I was offered a PIP once. It was purportedly due to poor performance, but it was clear that I was being gotten rid of for other, non performance-related reasons. The actual goal I was meant to meet was unachievable because I was simultaneously throttled in the amount of work I was allowed to take on at once. The whole place was a clown show that I was unhappy at anyway, so while I entertained the idea of taking them to court, when I realized the PIP is basically an elaborate attempt to defend against wrongful termination cases I ultimately just found a much better job.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I could see how that might work. Most PIPs that I've seen were pretty fair as they laid out pretty specific benchmarks. But I could see it working the other way if someone wanted it to.
optimuspaul 8y ago
PIPs are the worst. I've seen them basically emotionally destroy people when they were probably not the right tool. In many of those cases firing would have been better for them.
- philjohn 8y ago
  I've only ever seen one person successfully negotiate a PIP and keep their job (for another year, until they took a much better offer at a company that paid them more and treated them better). The biggest thing is to ensure that the targets in the PIP are both realistic and measurable. All too often I've seen people being asked to meet a bar far higher than is possible (and not even met by top achievers at a company) and with no real way to measure it other than "if I think you're doing good enough".
- orangecat 8y ago
  I've seen them basically emotionally destroy people when they were probably not the right tool. Yeah, it's a silly game where everyone has to pretend there's a chance you can "succeed". When in reality it's "rather than firing you and dealing with severance and lawsuits, we'll keep paying you for a few months while you find a new job, and then we'll agree that you voluntarily resigned". An employee who doesn't realize that is going to have a bad time, and would in fact be better off fired.

by jasode 8y ago

mikeryan 8y ago

PIPs are basically a nice opportunity to look for another job while still at your current one.

duxup 8y ago
I've had to explain this to coworkers in the past, kinda awkward but at the same time I wanted them to not be surprised....
- erric 8y ago
  PIPs, at least from what I’ve seen in 12 years at DoE, are a way for managers to retaliate against employees without raising the ire of the (completely useless) union.
  - extra88 8y ago
    A PIP is an explicit statement of the problems with an employee's current performance and what they need to improve to not be fired. A manager's complaints may be dubious but no more so than they would be if they were outright allowed to fire the person. I've never heard of a PIP actually succeeding (an employee improving to the satisfaction of their manager) so it delays the inevitable, perhaps allowing the employee to quit and find another job before their fired. It's definitely meant to avoid a wrongful dismissal lawsuit but I think that almost never works; either the employee is going to sue or they're not, "being given a chance to improve" isn't going to change that.
    - cthalupa 8y ago
      I've seen employees succeed at PIPs. If there are explicit goals or metrics to be measured, which I have seen in many cases, it's pretty clear what needs to be done to clear it. If they don't meet those goals, and they're attainable (e.g. other people in the same role are performing that well on average), it's a pretty clear defense for a lawsuit.
      - workinthehead 8y ago
        I was offered a PIP once. It was purportedly due to poor performance, but it was clear that I was being gotten rid of for other, non performance-related reasons. The actual goal I was meant to meet was unachievable because I was simultaneously throttled in the amount of work I was allowed to take on at once. The whole place was a clown show that I was unhappy at anyway, so while I entertained the idea of taking them to court, when I realized the PIP is basically an elaborate attempt to defend against wrongful termination cases I ultimately just found a much better job.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I could see how that might work. Most PIPs that I've seen were pretty fair as they laid out pretty specific benchmarks. But I could see it working the other way if someone wanted it to.

optimuspaul 8y ago

PIPs are the worst. I've seen them basically emotionally destroy people when they were probably not the right tool. In many of those cases firing would have been better for them.

philjohn 8y ago
I've only ever seen one person successfully negotiate a PIP and keep their job (for another year, until they took a much better offer at a company that paid them more and treated them better). The biggest thing is to ensure that the targets in the PIP are both realistic and measurable. All too often I've seen people being asked to meet a bar far higher than is possible (and not even met by top achievers at a company) and with no real way to measure it other than "if I think you're doing good enough".
orangecat 8y ago
I've seen them basically emotionally destroy people when they were probably not the right tool. Yeah, it's a silly game where everyone has to pretend there's a chance you can "succeed". When in reality it's "rather than firing you and dealing with severance and lawsuits, we'll keep paying you for a few months while you find a new job, and then we'll agree that you voluntarily resigned". An employee who doesn't realize that is going to have a bad time, and would in fact be better off fired.