This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
I've been a manager for over 20 years and when it comes time to let an employee go for performance issues it is literally a 4-6 month process, with tons of documentation along the way, hypothetically giving the employee a chance to improve their performance, but everyone involved in the process (other than the employee) knows that its predetermined that they won't be working for the company at the end of the process. Actually I think most employees do think it's futile at that point and know they are going to be out the door soon.
If employees work at-will, why can't I just bring them into my office and let them know their services are no longer needed?
I realize the concern from the company side is that the reason for letting the person go can't be illegal, and the HR rep has to look across the board to see if there aren't any patterns that could arise if allthe parties aren't away. But if that is established early and easily (which it is ALL the time with HR involved), then why not cut through the chase and bring the employee into the office and let them go.
My partner owns his own business and he definitely doesn't go through any process at all other than letting the person know they are no longer needed. In his business these are mostly lower paying jobs. If they don't cut it, he cuts them.
I know the reason for stringing the employee along is to give them the illusion that they can turn their performance around, but everyone, including HR, knows that won't be the case and early in the process all people involved know that nothing the employee does will keep them in their job.
I work for a Fortune 100 company (large insurance company), so we have deep pockets. And again, I get the concern that employees might sue, but if truly at-will, why can't they be let go at-will if the legal issues have already been addressed up front. At a minimum if they are not in a 'protected class' then what is the point in stringing them along?
And this isn't just my current company. I have seen this with every company (5-6) over 30 years I have worked for.
Locs - AZ, CO, MN, and TX over the years.
Summary: What is the point of having at-will employment laws if you can't let employees go at-will
Post Details
- Posted
- 4 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/AskHR/comme...