3 ms·

This really is the worst way to treat your employees, if I was one of the lucky people who was told to continue as if nothing had happened I would do everything

by teddyuk 11y ago

This really is the worst way to treat your employees, if I was one of the lucky people who was told to continue as if nothing had happened I would do everything I could to get another job somewhere else asap. Corporations need to show more respect to their employees, outsourcing to india and then forcing the current employees to train the people replacing them is no way to treat people.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
I genuinely wonder what the quality of the training was. If I was being fired so the company could give my job to someone cheaper, and I had to provide training under threat of monetary loss, you'd better believe that I might forget a few key lessons.
- DannoHung 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY
at-fates-hands 11y ago
Agreed. My best friend works at Cargill, and they're doing the same thing. They get around the "outsourcing" rule by creating a Cargill office in India and then sending all the "business" to those offices instead of here. It's semantics, but its still outsourcing any way you look at it. She's heartbroken because she's in the process of finalizing people's year-end reviews who are going to be laid off within the next few months. Cargill also makes it a policy you have to train your replacement or else you lose your severance. So here she is, writing up year end reviews that have no value at all, while training a new team that will replace her entire team here in in the US. Not cool, not cool at all.
- gambiting 11y ago
  The only way out of this is for everyone to stand up and say they won't train their replacements, even if it means losing their severance. That's the only way. Sounds like....unions?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  How about we simply outlaw any conditions on severance?
  - pyrophane 11y ago
    Because companies have no obligation to provide severance, they often offer it as part of a larger exit agreement that contains other terms. This really limits the laid off employee's ability to negotiate because the company can basically say "take it or leave it" since they know how valuable severance is to someone in that situation. That is how they get away of forcing people to sign non-disparagement agreements and to give up their right to sue.

by teddyuk 11y ago

pavel_lishin 11y ago

I genuinely wonder what the quality of the training was. If I was being fired so the company could give my job to someone cheaper, and I had to provide training under threat of monetary loss, you'd better believe that I might forget a few key lessons.

DannoHung 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY

at-fates-hands 11y ago

Agreed. My best friend works at Cargill, and they're doing the same thing. They get around the "outsourcing" rule by creating a Cargill office in India and then sending all the "business" to those offices instead of here. It's semantics, but its still outsourcing any way you look at it. She's heartbroken because she's in the process of finalizing people's year-end reviews who are going to be laid off within the next few months. Cargill also makes it a policy you have to train your replacement or else you lose your severance. So here she is, writing up year end reviews that have no value at all, while training a new team that will replace her entire team here in in the US. Not cool, not cool at all.

gambiting 11y ago
The only way out of this is for everyone to stand up and say they won't train their replacements, even if it means losing their severance. That's the only way. Sounds like....unions?
s73v3r 11y ago
How about we simply outlaw any conditions on severance?
- pyrophane 11y ago
  Because companies have no obligation to provide severance, they often offer it as part of a larger exit agreement that contains other terms. This really limits the laid off employee's ability to negotiate because the company can basically say "take it or leave it" since they know how valuable severance is to someone in that situation. That is how they get away of forcing people to sign non-disparagement agreements and to give up their right to sue.