9 ms·
As an HR would say, those people are "a bad cultural fit", which legitimately raises the probability of them being laid off to 100%. Simple.
by bananaquant 3y ago
As an HR would say, those people are "a bad cultural fit", which legitimately raises the probability of them being laid off to 100%. Simple.
- hkt 3y ago"legitimately"? I'd be surprised..
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- banannaise 3y agoThat's the argument HR would make, as a means of laundering the actual reason.
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoYou might need an /s, this is a perfectly plausible comment on HN.
- dathinab 3y agostill not legitimate, because then any laying of on union members/leaders could be legitimized that way in any country which properly enforces labor protection law laying of any union leaders without the agreement of the union is extremely hard and requires missteps of the members like e.g. stealing. Or really unusual situations like you lay of half of the members and over half of the members have young children (or e.g. are disabled, project leaders etc.) but non of the union members have any of that. The likelihood of which is basically 0 in practice.
- pydry 3y agoThat sounds plausible as a rationale. In my experience "bad culture fit" has been used as a stand in for "I don't want this person working here and I don't want to explain why" about 80% of the time. The reason is often racism. This time it could legitimately be illegal union busting.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- seanhunter 3y agoIf that went to an arbitration, the HR would have some difficulty unless they could show a paper trail (eg emails in which people expressed concern about the cultural fit of these individuals) ahead of time. They could of course have paved the way by preparing such a trail ahead of time… But that would lead the way to the question of why this was a redundancy rather than dismissal for cause. Im not any sort of lawyer let alone an employment lawyer, but I’m sure there are some employment lawyers getting in touch with these folks now to test their interest in pushing a case.
- skeeter2020 3y agoif these employees were focused on the organization efforts it seems reasonable that it would be pretty easy to show them as subpar performers against the corporate-oriented performance expectations, compared to others who were focused only on their work tasks. Stacked Ranking is reprehensible but not illegal.
- gruez 3y agoThere's probably a performance component as well. If you're high performing, can pick whatever job they want, and therefore get paid well above your peers, why would want to join a union?
- watwut 3y agoI have to say, this claim goes against what I have seen in real life. As in, people active in unions or other activism are not lesser performers.
- paulcole 3y agoBecause one day you won’t be high performing and you’d like to have some protection for your job? Among many other reasons…
- filoleg 3y agoIs this a direct admission that unions are for protecting low-performers? Because if yes, that’s not a good look for them at all and is kind of a perfect ammo for the anti-union side.
- slikrick 3y agoit's directly saying that unions protect against anti-worker bullshit corporate speak. which you seem to eat up and want to spit right back at people
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y agoNo. Unions are for protecting employees against abusive employers. Your highest performing state is temporary. There will be times where you’ll have off days. You will deal with death in the family. You will be eventually injured. If you aren’t already disabled, you will eventually be (this is just old age). You may become a parent. You might immigrate and come under restrictive visa. You’re a human being with fluctuating states, same as everyone else, and an abusive employer shouldn’t get to power trip over you just because they don’t think it’s legitimate enough for them or something. So yes, there’s a lot of reasons why a “high performer” might want to be in a union. There’s a lot of life shit we all go through. Edited to add: this is not the mention your employer might just pull some crap like nepotizing a promotion over you, where a union would come in handy handy!
- chmod775 3y agoBad culture fit is hard to argue when those 8 people were literally elected by their peers to represent them. One might say they're as perfect a representation of company culture as you could find.
- HelloMcFly 3y agoCompetent HR professionals would not do this to current employees because their documented performance record will render this "soft judgment" more than dubious in any litigation.