this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1084 points (98.0% liked)
Videos
14424 readers
276 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She did really good! Almost drove it home, she was so close... As a former manager in HR, here are my two cents. Note that I'm from canada, might not apply as I have it in mind in the US. If they're trying to frame a layoff as a firing for cause and poor performance, her first way of handling it is excellent. Ask pointed specific questions on what about your performance was lacking and more importantly can you demonstrate to me that I've been communicated clear quantifiable and Timely objectives that I've been communicated means and ways to be coached and trained to meet those objectives and that I've been communicated milestones of me not meeting objectives, with proper corrective measures and coaching to then change course before a firing for poor performance.
If you can't communicate any of these to me, the objectives, my performance against his objectives, the milestones, and the coaching I received to meet objectives when I did not, then this is not a poor performance related firing. If you're missing any of these information then I am not yet terminated and I am at your employment until a subsequent meeting where you can come back with that information. On the other hand if what you meant to say is that this is a layoff because you have hired too many people, and that this letting Go has nothing to do with my performance, okay no problem, let's talk, but in this case it will be with X months of severance and a glowing recommendation letter.
Lastly I want to make you aware that I've recorded this conversation, in which it's now clearly documented that you have no clear tangible indication of any notion of documented poor performance about me, and thus I am still at the employed of my employer until you either provide those, or provide me with coaching that I then fail to put into practice to meet objectives, or until you come back with the severance package for a layoff that has nothing to do with my performance.
Something along those lines...
It's insane the hoops you guys have to jump through to not get fucked over in America/Canada. It really makes the social achievements we have in my country stand out that much more.
Yeah sure, if she has no emotions I'd say that'd be a great way to handle it.
Unfortunately she's trying to keep herself composed while going through an extremely traumatic event in her life. A layoff is something that may seem routine for you - but for me I still process through my layoffs years later. She's holding back tears. I held back tears. I'd say she did remarkably well while having her life plans crumble around her.
I put 100% of the blame on HR and the company - even if it's completely her fault for getting fired I wouldn't put any blame on her for not using the perfect wording.
Please allow me to offer a nuance on the topic of HR. I see a lot of hate about HR on this thread and quite a bit is founded... But on the other hand, two things:
the HR folks themselves are not to blame for the fact that the company overhired, are cutting people, or even to some extent some shitty strategies like pretending people are fire for cause instead of laid off. It's decided by executives ans the CEO, and HR operationalizes. I'll fully grant though that they sometimes (often) operationalize shittily.
and more importantly, HR is shitty in a shitty company, and pretty decent in a (quite rare) decent company. Fundamentally HR's job is to help manage humans as a resource, and among other tasks it means to protect the company against human-related risks. There are different fundamental beliefs and philosophies companies can have around how to avoid that risk - and their HR strategy is set accordingly.
Some decent (rare) employers believe that to avoid risks like being sued or unionizing, the best strategy is to provide employees with a healthy work environment, competitive pay and to remove toxic managers and executives quickly. In these companies HR plays a very strong policing role ensuring that managers don't cause human related risk by abusing workers. I know it sounds idealistic and I'll 100% grant that it applies unfortunately to a very small sample of employers, but it's true.
Of course way more common are companies with the philosophy that to avoid these risks you need to squash people, back your managers at all cost, never admit a fault, etc - and that's the shitty strategy operationalized by shitty a HR department.
Lastly the governmental labour laws framework of a country plays a big role too - in some countries where those laws are super weak like the US, particularly if your employer is your only way to access half decent healthcare, you can't afford to change employer - and the shitty strategy becomes a much lower cost than the decent one (found a bit more often in Canada, way more in Europe and even more in Scandinavian countries)
Sorry for the walltext rambling
Nah. They are the blame. If your work requires you to do shitty things go find other work. If that is too difficult of a concept then you have to wonder why they are doing it to other people. Getting a new.job is super easy right?
I get your point, but just playing Devil's advocate here: don't work in real estate because it's fraud and landlords are thieves, don't work for McDonald's because your work make people fat and unhealthy, don't work retail or manufacturing because your work encourages capitalism and all its evils...? I mean.. don't like 90% of all jobs require you to do shitty things?
Most people in HR went in the field with pretty decent intentions. They have debts and families to feed and the job they landed is sometimes for a shitty employer.
If you want to hate someone, don't hate the HR person who's dealing with their own shitty problems, blame the uber rich, that maintain everyone else in a constant state of infighting while they lobby or buy lawmakers to ensure the poor get poorer so they get richer. There the ones maintaining a hyper capitalistic society and making sure executives are ordering the cuts (often ending with cutting the HR folks after they finish the layoffs)
I might see that point of view if they didn't act like they drank the Kool aid.
In any case there is plenty of moral work. Mine is.
If you're asked to fire people in this way then you should stand up for yourself and your coworkers and say "sorry, but I'm not going to treat people in this way and contribute to traumatizing them. We need to be more transparent and give them clear reasons why they are being fired."
If you just do whatever you're told with no concern for the consequences for others then you are supporting the company's actions and you are a shitty human being.
Pretty good, although really difficult to vocalize under stress. I'd say if you're given a chance to provide a written statement, there's a good opportunity to be precise like this.
Also, as an aside, many states have laws about recording conversations. Some require consent of all parties, some two, some one (yourself). And almost all require consent before the action. I feel like if you ask, they will say no, and you'll get an overnight letter letting you know about your termination.
While they can totally do that in some states (like where I live in California) that letter/email/alternate contact doesn't absolve them from having to prove they did their due diligence in warning you and trying to fix your performance
You are fully within your rights to demand that proof from them and to not let up, though talking to a lawyer immediately is probably the wisest move. And by immediately I mean when they say "no" to the recording
100% on the recording, fair pt.
On the letter: that'd be good - go ahead and give me written evidence...
You get the letter either way, in my experience.
Generally virtual meetings in companies like these are being recorded anyway, so there was likely a prompt before joining that everyone got.
I am glad you have moved on to more moral work.