6 ms·

I take it you did not read the article? The individual stated they would rather have been fired instead of having to undergo that process. "Eliza had effectiv

I take it you did not read the article? 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.”"

whiddershins 4y ago
Fired and paid off.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Yes, better to be paid a severance than gradually frozen out.
- kennend3 4y ago
  Obviously they live in a country with labour laws which require things like severance pay, holiday pay, etc. I don't see the point you are attempting to make? They should be fired, but not get what they are legally entitled?
  - whoknew1122 4y ago
    Her humiliation clearly wasn't so bad that she'd forego her severance. So how bad was it, really?
    - kennend3 4y ago
      > So how bad was it, really? Did you contact the author and ask?
      - whoknew1122 4y ago
        No, because that's asinine. The question was rhetorical.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  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.
  - slillibri 4y ago
    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.
tinalumfoil 4y ago
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.
- schnitzelstoat 4y ago
  In the UK you get severance pay though. So it's better for the company if they can convince you to quit.
- kennend3 4y ago
  > 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.
  - tinalumfoil 4y ago
    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.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      > 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...
galangalalgol 4y ago
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.
- xivzgrev 4y ago
  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.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    That is a very good point. If it had been communicated even informally that would have been so much better.
  - giaour 4y ago
    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.
michaelt 4y ago
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.
- dec0dedab0de 4y ago
  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.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > As a manager it must be hard to fire someone 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.
whoknew1122 4y ago
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 she was that humiliated, she could've quit.
- williamvds 4y ago
  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.

whiddershins 4y ago

Fired and paid off.

nerdponx 4y ago
Yes, better to be paid a severance than gradually frozen out.
kennend3 4y ago
Obviously they live in a country with labour laws which require things like severance pay, holiday pay, etc. I don't see the point you are attempting to make? They should be fired, but not get what they are legally entitled?
- whoknew1122 4y ago
  Her humiliation clearly wasn't so bad that she'd forego her severance. So how bad was it, really?
  - kennend3 4y ago
    > So how bad was it, really? Did you contact the author and ask?
    - whoknew1122 4y ago
      No, because that's asinine. The question was rhetorical.
alistairSH 4y ago
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.
- slillibri 4y ago
  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.

tinalumfoil 4y ago

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.

schnitzelstoat 4y ago
In the UK you get severance pay though. So it's better for the company if they can convince you to quit.
kennend3 4y ago
> 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.
- tinalumfoil 4y ago
  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.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    > 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...

galangalalgol 4y ago

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.

xivzgrev 4y ago
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.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  That is a very good point. If it had been communicated even informally that would have been so much better.
- giaour 4y ago
  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.

michaelt 4y ago

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.

dec0dedab0de 4y ago
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.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > As a manager it must be hard to fire someone 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.

whoknew1122 4y ago

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 she was that humiliated, she could've quit.

williamvds 4y ago
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.