4 ms·
The common "nice" way to remove non-performers is a "Reduction in force", also known as "layoff" where they let multiple people go ritualistically, though I've
by unishark 6y ago
The common "nice" way to remove non-performers is a "Reduction in force", also known as "layoff" where they let multiple people go ritualistically, though I've seen it for as few as two people. Then they can argue it was about finances, not personal. They offer a decent severance that requires the employee to sign an agreement that requires, in part, they don't sue.
The word "fired" often is reserved for terminating someone for cause, where you really broke the rules and get no severance, not even the two weeks minimum that is customary. Non-performers usually aren't treated this way. I'm not sure this is really what happened in this story.
- machinelabo 6y agoEmployers need solid documented reasons for firing someone. Fired person needs proper recourse for appealing it if they felt it was unfair. Going to NYTimes is OK if there is solid proof of racism, the company needs to face the consequences - both legal and public image / media perception. If the fired person goes out to media and brings down the company without proof - we need to have mechanisms for that as well - I don't see us addressing that.
- unishark 6y agoIn an at-will employment state (i.e. most of them) companies do not need reasons. Maybe you mean to help their chances in a lawsuit or something?