Firing the only innocent employee

Post Reply New Topic

Same in the UK, and there are procedures which have to followed in the case of dismissal, otherwise it would be considered unfair. Also, if someone's working life is made so difficult that they feel they have no option but to resign, they can claim "constructive dismissal".

It happened to me at one job, many years ago, I was in the situation of the guy that my father fired. What I can't believe is that my own father would do something like that, and have such an NT mentality. On one hand, my father is autistic, and on the other hand he has some extremely NT views and behaviors... Go figure.

That should prove to you even autistic people can be just as bad as "NTs."

Not if the employer was of the "At Will" type. They do not have to give a reason for terminating someone's employment, provided that no outright discrimination (gender, race, religion, et cetera) occured.

(Have we beaten the "At Will" horse to death yet?)

I've had to fire "High Maintenance" people also. These are the type that actually reduce productivity because everyone else has to stop what they're doing and pay attention to them. If I may be allowed to second-guess the dad's actions, I'd say that a more effective course of action would have been to assign the naif to one of the more senior employees (an apprenticeship-like arrangement), or taken the individual under my own tutelage ... and then made him really work for his wage!

What does "At will mean?


Why did people have to stop and pay attention to your high maintenance guys? I didn't get your story.

Fnord, could you give more example(s) of "High Maintenance" people? This is a very new concept to me and I'd like to understand it better...

Even then, people who don't jive with the crew members can be let go up to 3 months in. At 3 months? Then it gets harder but then the employer should have it decided whether or not an employee is a fit or not.

'At Will' employment simply means you can be fired at any time, with or without reason. If your boss doesn't like your hair style, he can fire you, and not give any reason. If your boss doesn't like you, he can fire you for that, and just not give any reason. In fact, employers often avoid giving reason, because that makes it easier to file litigation against them.

Although, if you can show you were contributing more productivity than your coworkers, you've got a pretty good stance from which to argue a discrimination lawsuit. The main thing is being able to prove from subpoenas of corporate files that you were in fact the more productive in the lot of them.

Just a few...

Emosaurus: A person for whom everything becomes an emotional issue. They must be catered to and treated delicately, else they will explode into a storm of tears and/or profanity. They always seem to be on the verge of a meltdown, and co-workers tend to avoid them - which causes the Emosaurus to believe that everyone hates them and wishes they were dead.

Legal Hound: They know more about labor laws than many business owners, and can cite any number of legal reasons why their rights must be respected and their needs must be met, no matter how obscure those rights and how esoteric their needs may be.

Rule Player: Closely related to the Legal Hound, this person has memorised the Employee Handbook, and lives according to the letter of every rule within. He or she performs no work-related functions at all before starting time, during breaks or lunch, or after quitting time, and will not even answer questions about their work unless it's during working hours. Even then, they will share only the information that is required of them, and not one bit more.

Lookatme Girl: Must be the center of attention always, whether or not she gets any work done. She will even misbehave, just so that people will notice her. She regales everyone within earshot of her wild weekends, and has an opinion on everything and everyone. If someone is not paying attention to her, she will likely have an "accident" that creates confusion or excitement.

Boss Wannabe: This guy is not in charge, but he knows exactly how everyone else should be doing their jobs. His ideas are always the best (in his mind) and no one else can convince him otherwise. He makes decisions for others, and even goes so far as to re-write the Employee Handbook, much to the consternation of the Rule Player. While supervisors appreciate his willingness to help keep order, they constantly must "un-fix" everything he has "fixed."

Quiet Expert: This is the person that actually knows how everything works, yet keeps most of his knowledge to himself. He knows exactly which buttons to push in order to get the system back on line, and which person to talk to to get anything done. Otherwise, his co-workers and supervisors ignore him until he takes a long vacation ... or quits.

Mr. Perfect: Never does anything wrong. It's always his crappy tools, his back-stabbing co-workers, the lousy parts, the poor design, the clueless boss, et cetera. No one wants to work with this guy for fear of being blamed for his incompetence. Yet he stays on, usually because there is at least one supervisor that believes (or doesn't greatly doubt) his every excuse.

The Weasel: Imagine a combination of Rule Player, Quiet Expert, and Mr. Perfect, with a lot of sycophantic behavior thrown in. The Weasel is also adept at social back-stabbing. He is two-faced, disloyal, and opportunistic. He also relies on each of his victims believing that they are the only ones who have experienced his methods. It takes a concerted effort of all of his co-workers to expose the Weasel, as he can squeeze through any loophole that comes available.

Last edited by Fnord on 09 Jan 2009, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yup, and it was entirely logical for him to do this. For a given set of priorities and moral assumptions.

Team works together without this person. Team is in shambles with this person.

Options:
1) Live with the shambles
2) Fire the rest of the team
3) Brain transplants for the rest of the team and/or "fix" the single person
4) Fire the single person

*shrug*

As far as the single person being 'innocent', it isn't nearly as clear cut as that. :/

Last edited by DwightF on 09 Jan 2009, 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My father was once fired for being a whistle-blower.

I was once fired and when I asked why, they said they didn't have to tell me. This was the day after I passed a spot inspection with a perfect score.

The problem with "at-will" firings is that somebody could put in enough time in a company to buy a house, only to wonder how to make house payments after an unexpected firing.

When people fire you and don't even tell you why, it must have been an invalid reason so they don't want to tell you or else you will use it in court against them. Cowards.

Why is it that one guy's fault that the other employers were picking on him because he was so naive?

What if my co workers liked gossiping about me and making fun of me behind my back, shall my boss fire me for that just because they spend their day chatting about me and not doing their work or being slow at it because they are so distracted by each other?

I really don't see the point in laws then about firing someone if you can do it for invalid reasons. Some of our laws are hypocritical if they are allowed to do that.

Some companies have to follow strict protocol to fire someone, others do not. Part I think is the size of the organization. I've always worked for small ones, in a professional capacity, and that aways is "at will." If you work for the government, the rules are complicated and strict, and also if you work for a large company.

In the USA, it also depends on state laws. In some there are situations of "implied contracts" where if you accept employment and work for an organization for a certain length of time, they are required to give you a minimum amount of notice and/or severance pay.

In others, you're pretty much at the will of your employer unless you are in a union/unionized situation (which isn't always a great improvement). That's the kind of scenario that gave rise to the creation and spread of unions - to get fair working conditions, standards, hirings, firings, etc.

And if they decide you're no longer as useful or your cost to them is too high - I had a friend who was recently let go after 15 exemplary years with a company and a new person was hired to do her job at a markedly lower, entry-level salary - they can say "thanks, seeya!" as they walk you out the door and take your badge and keys.

And you suddenly have no income (except for whatever your state's unemployment pay is, which can last as little as 3 months, I believe, in some states), no healthcare (yes, you can COBRA or continue making payments to the insurer your company uses (if they have one) on your own, but your jaw will drop when you find out what that costs. It'll be more than your unemployment pay.) and you are up the proverbial creek.

Best to not count on being hired into anywhere and then expecting to retire from that same company after a lifetime of service. That sort of scenario died about 30 years ago....

My dad owns a small business, and when he hires employees, he has to follow the same laws that McDonald's has to follow. He cannot only fire someone for any reason during a probation period. There are also laws regarding the probation of employees. When first hired, probation generaly lasts 3 months, but can last less if the employer wishes. After that, they have to have at least 3 documentations, or have stolen something before they can be fired, and even then, what they are being fired for must be documented. During probation, they can be fired for anything, but it must be documented. None of this we can't tell you BS. Canadian employment laws favour the employee. We also have laws protecting minorities in the workplace, including those with disablities, the government also encourages companies to hire people of different backgrounds than non-disabled whites, including setting a quota for minimum number of people a company of certain size must hire who are a minority group. That is something the general public isn't fully aware of. McDonald's has to have a certain number of minorty people hired in order to gain certain benefits from the government for example. Without those people, they lose out on things. This has made it easier for people including ASDers to get jobs, as long as the employer knows about it during the interview. I would have gotten a very nice job at the university if I would have told the employer during the interview that my AS made the interview more difficult for me, as then I would be looked at differently in a good way.

EDIT: if an ASDer and an NT both apply for the same position and have equal qualifications, and the employer finds out that the one person has an ASD during the interview, in Canada, the person with the ASD will get the job over the NT gaurenteed, unless the employer is a racist abilitist idiot.