Timeline for Is this a "Bad" answer and what should be done with it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:22 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @SteveJessop Well, maybe, maybe not. The poster didn't say, so we can't know... though at least in my experience, hiring and firing power ultimately lies with the manager, rather than HR (even if HR usually gets a veto). When we get right down to it, everyone's making assumptions here, and we have to, because we're never going to have perfect information, so we just have to do the best we can with imperfect information, which almost always means filling in the blanks with assumptions and personal experience. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:19 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @HopelessN00b - Hey, I made an edit on your behalf. I basically added in headings (and an opening sentence on the last paragraph) to make that part stand out. feel free to put all that in your own words. Hope this helps. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:17 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | @HopelessN00b: It's not clear to me that it is the manager's decision. Looks like HR told the manager, "you cannot fire this person unless X". We don't know what X is, but another thing I'd like to see is someone say, "I work in HR. We tell managers to administer a PIP and we don't follow up whether the employee satisfied the conditions in the PIP before signing off on the firing. Low-level managers can do what they like, we're just here to file the paperwork!" | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:16 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @SteveJessop The HR guy doesn't have to be lying - why would the boss tell HR that his plan is to fire the guy, regardless? When I've seen this go down, more often than not, HR is not in on it, but generally, to fire someone these days, you need HR to sign off. Which is the whole purposed of a PIP like this - get HR sign off for employee's future termination. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | Of course there are plenty of people who upvoted you who clearly share your view. That being the case it doesn't really matter whether I'm right to be uncertain about what HR is planning, since the top-voted answer is supposed to be whatever the most people agree with, not what is correct :-) Fundamentally if the OP comes back in 30 days and says "I was fired" then neither of us is proven correct or incorrect. If OP comes back in 30 days and says "I was not fired" then you are certainly incorrect and I'm correct. So your claim at least has the virtue of falsifiability. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | HopelessN00b |
@jmort I believe I did with: So, definitely keep your boss happy and work on "improving" according to the plan he gave you, because this will at least give you a little room to breathe, but outside the hours of 9-5, you should be pounding the pavement hard and procuring a new job (and over your lunch hours, too). Not as prominent as some would like, but as I said, I didn't want to draw focus from what I believe is the most important thing in this situation. The other answers to that question also do a great job of suggesting how to improve, leaving me with no value to add on that topic.
|
|
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:10 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | I'd like to see even one person saying, "I work in HR. I would, if my company decided definitely to fire someone in 30 days time, tell that employee they are required to 'significantly improve in order to avoid further disciplinary action'". That is what the HR guy said/endorsed in the written warning. There's a difference between HR believing someone will fail (and hence a PIP is a path to fire them) vs deciding to fire them whether they improve or not. The manager is clearly hostile but for your answer to be correct the HR guy is also lying. That seems to me plausible but not obvious. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 0:00 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | Hello HopelessN00b, as an exercise, let's just assume none of us know 100% what the answer is but that there's a certain probability of the person getting fired and needing to look for work. Assuming the details in the question suggest this is likely, would it make more sense to do both... dust off the resume yet at the same time try to improve at work? | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 23:44 | history | answered | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |