July 21, 2010 at 8:22 am
Yes exactly...tomorrow is somebody else's job..that somebody can mean somebody on top or somebody in your place. In other words don't assume that just bcoz what you said came true they are going to be happy and pay more regard to what you say in the future - it can work exactly the other way, they want someone who is less loud about things even if they are right and can get you out. It all comes down to this, what the organisation wants - you can judge this after you have been there some time and after you observe the working in general. And cound't say it hard enough, cover your back and make sure someone on top is paying attention or it is not worth talking about no matter what it is.
July 21, 2010 at 9:22 am
The US is very litigious, but I don't think that extends to employment very often, sexual harassment being the most prominent, maybe race/age discrimination.
However HR departments are very conservative here and concerned about the threat of lawsuits, so they typcially require documentation before they will fire someone. I've had a few departments say that there would need to be 3 documented incidents to fire people. Personally I think that if the manager finds egregious behavior, they should let them go. However I would hope that HR or some third party would require that it was unprofessional behavior and not petty behavior by the manager
July 21, 2010 at 9:59 am
Steve Jones - Editor (7/21/2010)
The US is very litigious, but I don't think that extends to employment very often, sexual harassment being the most prominent, maybe race/age discrimination.However HR departments are very conservative here and concerned about the threat of lawsuits, so they typcially require documentation before they will fire someone. I've had a few departments say that there would need to be 3 documented incidents to fire people. Personally I think that if the manager finds egregious behavior, they should let them go. However I would hope that HR or some third party would require that it was unprofessional behavior and not petty behavior by the manager
Most companies today (at least down here in Florda) require you to sign a "at will" employment agreement before accepting their offer which basically means they can terminate you for any, or no reason at anytime without notice. The flip side to this is that you can also leave the company for any, or no reason at anytime without notice as well. It works both ways. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 21, 2010 at 11:22 am
Until Red Gate, I had always worked at "at will" employment places. Still didn't prevent HR from being scared to terminate people.
July 21, 2010 at 11:55 am
Steve Jones - Editor (7/21/2010)
Until Red Gate, I had always worked at "at will" employment places. Still didn't prevent HR from being scared to terminate people.
Really? I find that "at will" employment agreements makes it much easier for HR to terminate people for any or no reason without a worry about being sued. I have seen it alot in the past, at least down here in Florida anyway. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 21, 2010 at 12:05 pm
TravisDBA (7/21/2010)
Steve Jones - Editor (7/21/2010)
Until Red Gate, I had always worked at "at will" employment places. Still didn't prevent HR from being scared to terminate people.Really? I find that "at will" employment agreements makes it much easier for HR to terminate people for any or no reason without a worry about being sued. I have seen it alot in the past, at least down here in Florida anyway. 😀
Many state and federal laws override whatever is in the employment agreement, so HR still has to be careful about how they go about letting people go.
July 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm
CA, VA, CO, all have at-will employment. Always been hard to let people go in my companies.
July 21, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (7/21/2010)
TravisDBA (7/21/2010)
Steve Jones - Editor (7/21/2010)
Until Red Gate, I had always worked at "at will" employment places. Still didn't prevent HR from being scared to terminate people.Really? I find that "at will" employment agreements makes it much easier for HR to terminate people for any or no reason without a worry about being sued. I have seen it alot in the past, at least down here in Florida anyway. 😀
Many state and federal laws override whatever is in the employment agreement, so HR still has to be careful about how they go about letting people go.
Not so in Florida, I have seen many people let go without notice for no reason at all. All they have to is just say they are streamlining operations, whether they are or not. They can use any excuse available to them.
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 21, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Companies still need to be careful. Say you are streamlining operations, but the only people let go are all (or most) are over 40, the company could see itself sued for age discrimination.
This is one of the reasons companies want documentation before firing people.
July 21, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I think I would like it better if people could get let go without so much documentation. It would still have to be for non-discriminatory reasons, but shouldn't require a lot of documentation ahead of time.
July 21, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Seeing it more, companies want to CYA as much as the employees do.
My problem is that they can turn anything into a reason, such as "A pattern of absences" even if it is reasonable to have missed work (unsafe road conditions - blizzard conditions, illness - like a migraine attack that is debilitating, etc).
July 21, 2010 at 3:46 pm
My problem is that they can turn anything into a reason, such as "A pattern of absences" even if it is reasonable to have missed work (unsafe road conditions - blizzard conditions, illness - like a migraine attack that is debilitating, etc).
My point exactly, if they need a reason, even if they don't have one, they can manufacture one to cover themselves. I have seen this many times down here in Florida. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 21, 2010 at 5:13 pm
stephen k. gartrell (7/21/2010)
James Stover (7/21/2010) But I take your point and it convinces me even further that a business should operate with as few employees as possible. You can have people, just not employees. This way, you compete on your value (cost, expertise, capability) without the organizational baggage getting in the way. This is my ideal anyway.
Ahhh...totally outsourced...effectively, you will be asking your customers to entrust themselves to a temp agency. It should be an interesting experiment.
We are all temps. The past few years has really brought that into sharp focus. This is the present and future of work. Get used to it.
James Stover, McDBA
July 21, 2010 at 5:18 pm
James Stover (7/21/2010)We are all temps. The past few years has really brought that into sharp focus. This is the present and future of work. Get used to it.
Have you ever noticed that the ones who are recorded as the heroes of history - or the ones who end up at the top of their chosen professions - are the ones who didn't make a habit of surrendering?
July 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm
stephen k. gartrell (7/21/2010)
James Stover (7/21/2010)We are all temps. The past few years has really brought that into sharp focus. This is the present and future of work. Get used to it.
Have you ever noticed that the ones who are recorded as the heroes of history - or the ones who end up at the top of their chosen professions - are the ones who didn't make a habit of surrendering?
By all means, be a hero and fight the good fight. I personally don't think fighting the corporate machine in this respect is worth it, but to each his own. Good luck.
James Stover, McDBA
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 62 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply