3 ms·
Unless they're downsizing, companies don't generally want to fire people, because it's expensive to replace them, and it wastes all the time and effort spent tr
by entuno 3y ago
Unless they're downsizing, companies don't generally want to fire people, because it's expensive to replace them, and it wastes all the time and effort spent training them. If an employee isn't performing well, it's in everyone's interest to address that issue, rather than just firing them and then trying to find and train a replacement.
And if you live somewhere that had decent employment rights, companies are often required to do a PIP (or something similar) and to demonstrate that they've taken reasonable steps to try and resolve the issue before they resort to firing.
- wakmak99 3y agohelpful. Based on my cursory research I've learned that in California employers can fire an employee for any lawful reason or no reason at all. They don't have to show cause or give any warnings or multiple chances
- sokoloff 3y agoThis is true for most employers in the US. Nevertheless, most employers would rather help an employee (especially one whose situation is temporary) to succeed, because hiring and onboarding is way more effort than getting a previously good employee back to where they can perform well again. But, once a point of no return has definitively been reached, I think it’s best for both sides to not drag out the separation with a checkbox PIP or other theatrics. Pay the employee a reasonable severance and separate quickly. (I’ve seen genuine PIPs succeed and result in long-term continued employment; theatrical, check-the-box for legal/HR PIPs are cruel and wasteful.)