3 ms·
They could fire Charlie without cause. Sounds like management just doesn't want to pay out UI or severance. So they'll let you suffer to document a cause. So C
by yardie 3y ago
They could fire Charlie without cause. Sounds like management just doesn't want to pay out UI or severance. So they'll let you suffer to document a cause.
So Charlie is such a big problem they need to get rid of them, but not enough of a problem where the solution is money.
- 13of40 3y agoNo, it's all about the company being averse to getting sued. Even though I'm in a state that allows that in theory, it's not uncommon for people to sue for a six figure sum and get a settlement if you don't do everything perfectly.
- yardie 3y agoYeah, that's what severance is for. Sign this paper that holds us harmless. We give you money to never see you again. This is a problem that could be solved with money. If Charlie is as bad as described the boss would pay for them to go away instead of dragging it out through a drawn-out documentation process.
- brewdad 3y agoSo, the problem is money just like the previous poster said. You can pay the poor employee for a few months while building documentation to CYA or you can fire them immediately and potentially owe them the 3 months (and likely more) from a settlement. Taking months to fire an underperformer is simply an exercise in risk management not a legal necessity.