4 ms·

>As a manager, it's your job to do that BEFORE you have to can them. Absolutely. And I did so in every case. The problem is the sort of person who's clueless

by tsotha 12y ago

>As a manager, it's your job to do that BEFORE you have to can them. Absolutely. And I did so in every case. The problem is the sort of person who's clueless enough to actually get fired is the sort of person who going to ignore what you're saying, either because they think your real problem with them is that their a woman/black/gay/old/whatever or they have a big ego that won't allow them to consider they might be doing something wrong or because they figure they have a lot more slack than they really do between "you need to shape up" and "here's a box for your stuff". If you're actually going to fire someone for cause you need to need to have a paper trail, which would make that all official. But. If you establish a paper trail and then try to pretend you're getting rid of them because there's no money you're going to get sued. So companies usually don't go the "for cause" route at all.

phkahler 12y ago
>> If you establish a paper trail and then try to pretend you're getting rid of them because there's no money you're going to get sued. Wait what? I know you can get sued for all sorts of things, but what is the reasoning here? Is it that the given reason is money, but there is evidence that the reason is something else? So what? Would they claim you lied because you don't really have a strong case for the real reason? I'm just confused by this.
- tsotha 12y ago
  First off put the thought that the law makes sense out of your mind. It doesn't. Basically the outline of the suit is going to be "You always wanted to fire me because I'm black/Latino/gay/old/fat/thin/sick/whatever, so you tried to pretend I was doing a bad job. But then when it became clear I was such a good employee you couldn't do that you pretended it was an economic decision." Now, this may or may not fly in court, but from the company's perspective it's a crap shoot, since you never know what a jury is going to do. They'll settle if they can. Which means lots of people will sue just looking for free money, even if they know it's all bullshit.
  - yuhong 12y ago
    I think anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed. I think they should be killed, but with an exception allowing the EEOC, anti-trust or similar to order particular sets of companies to stop discrimination for a period of time if necessary.

by tsotha 12y ago

phkahler 12y ago

>> If you establish a paper trail and then try to pretend you're getting rid of them because there's no money you're going to get sued. Wait what? I know you can get sued for all sorts of things, but what is the reasoning here? Is it that the given reason is money, but there is evidence that the reason is something else? So what? Would they claim you lied because you don't really have a strong case for the real reason? I'm just confused by this.

tsotha 12y ago
First off put the thought that the law makes sense out of your mind. It doesn't. Basically the outline of the suit is going to be "You always wanted to fire me because I'm black/Latino/gay/old/fat/thin/sick/whatever, so you tried to pretend I was doing a bad job. But then when it became clear I was such a good employee you couldn't do that you pretended it was an economic decision." Now, this may or may not fly in court, but from the company's perspective it's a crap shoot, since you never know what a jury is going to do. They'll settle if they can. Which means lots of people will sue just looking for free money, even if they know it's all bullshit.
- yuhong 12y ago
  I think anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed. I think they should be killed, but with an exception allowing the EEOC, anti-trust or similar to order particular sets of companies to stop discrimination for a period of time if necessary.