Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??

goldenhoarde

CEO -> Senior Mgmt "Need to save X grand a year"
Senior Mgmt -> Junior Mgmt "need to let someone go"
Junior Mgmt "Hmmmmm whats the easiet way to do this"
Junior Mgmt "New girl you're outta here"
Junior Mgmt pats themselves on the back "that was easy - no redundancy, unfair dismissal etc as they weren't here long enough plus she has those other two trained up, not as good as her but they are cheaper/I get on better with them than her(insert any reason here)"
Junior Mgmt -> Senior Mgmt "Job done Ain't I the best"

livedadream

goldenhoarde wrote: »

CEO -> Senior Mgmt "Need to save X grand a year"
Senior Mgmt -> Junior Mgmt "need to let someone go"
Junior Mgmt "Hmmmmm whats the easiet way to do this"
Junior Mgmt "New girl you're outta here"
Junior Mgmt pats themselves on the back "that was easy - no redundancy, unfair dismissal etc as they weren't here long enough plus she has those other two trained up, not as good as her but they are cheaper/I get on better with them than her(insert any reason here)"
Junior Mgmt -> Senior Mgmt "Job done Ain't I the best"

lets point out in case its not obvious that being pregnant or potentially getting pregnant doesnt have anything to do with what was said above and that makes the most sense to me.

RainyDay

goldenhoarde wrote: »

CEO -> Senior Mgmt "Need to save X grand a year"
Senior Mgmt -> Junior Mgmt "need to let someone go"
Junior Mgmt "Hmmmmm whats the easiet way to do this"
Junior Mgmt "New girl you're outta here"
Junior Mgmt pats themselves on the back "that was easy - no redundancy, unfair dismissal etc as they weren't here long enough plus she has those other two trained up, not as good as her but they are cheaper/I get on better with them than her(insert any reason here)"
Junior Mgmt -> Senior Mgmt "Job done Ain't I the best"

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

livedadream

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

maybe she was winding people up and thats the reason they told her instead of listen your winding mary up and shes been here longer so instead of having you here we're going to keep the newbies and get rid of you.

there are a 100 reasons she didnt pass her probation thats why probationary periods exist so if the employments not working out both can split without fear or retribution.

the OP is upset obviously, but there no need for a wild goose chase as to why...
encouraging her to take legal action or contact a solicitor isnt helping anyone.

RainyDay

livedadream wrote: »

maybe she was winding people up and thats the reason they told her instead of listen your winding mary up and shes been here longer so instead of having you here we're going to keep the newbies and get rid of you.

You might be right, but if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If she's not doing what's required, they should give her a clear message about what needs to change.

Mrs OBumble

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

Easily enough: lost a big customer, didn't make projected sales for the 2 months, company owner decided he wants bigger drawings this year so he can swan off overseas / buy a bigger boat. Etc.

2 months is 1/6th of a year. A week can be a long time in business.

RainyDay

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Easily enough: lost a big customer, didn't make projected sales for the 2 months, company owner decided he wants bigger drawings this year so he can swan off overseas / buy a bigger boat. Etc.

2 months is 1/6th of a year. A week can be a long time in business.

Again, you might be right, and again if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If you take on an employee, it is a serious commitment, and shouldn't be done lightly. She may well (though it is not clear) have given up another job for this one. It would be really bad form to let an employee go on a whim in circumstances like that.

Bandana boy

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

A budgeted expense was under called
A customer was lost
A raw material that is integral has become more expensive
A competitor has under cut them and they need to respond

I could go on all day

And this might have been in the works for more than two months , but the decision to act might have just been made.

they might have being trying to trade their way out of difficulty's .
I have seen this a lot
Company has problem hires sales people to trade their way out
Short term does not work and they change tack and fire sales people and hire accountants to reduce the cost base.


I am reminded of the saying , if you hear hooves expect Horses not Zebras
Jumping to discrimination on a pregnancy shes does not have is expecting Giraffes.

uck51js9zml2yt

RainyDay wrote: »

Again, you might be right, and again if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If you take on an employee, it is a serious commitment, and shouldn't be done lightly. She may well (though it is not clear) have given up another job for this one. It would be really bad form to let an employee go on a whim in circumstances like that.

You really don't have much of an understanding of how business works.
Its very easy for a big customer to cancel or a new contract not to materialise or material prices to increase. Not s sign of bad management just part of being in business.

You're the one smelling something but so far haven't said what that was and then castigating everyone who says what happens in the real world.
As I said we don't actually know "why" and all we have is one side of the story. Being under probation doesn't require any reason for dismissal.

RainyDay

Yareli Shy Stockiness wrote: »

You really don't have much of an understanding of how business works.
Its very easy for a big customer to cancel or a new contract not to materialise or material prices to increase. Not s sign of bad management just part of being in business.

You're the one smelling something but so far haven't said what that was and then castigating everyone who says what happens in the real world.
As I said we don't actually know "why" and all we have is one side of the story. Being under probation doesn't require any reason for dismissal.

Bandana boy wrote: »

A budgeted expense was under called
A customer was lost
A raw material that is integral has become more expensive
A competitor has under cut them and they need to respond

I could go on all day

And this might have been in the works for more than two months , but the decision to act might have just been made.

they might have being trying to trade their way out of difficulty's .
I have seen this a lot
Company has problem hires sales people to trade their way out
Short term does not work and they change tack and fire sales people and hire accountants to reduce the cost base.


I am reminded of the saying , if you hear hooves expect Horses not Zebras
Jumping to discrimination on a pregnancy shes does not have is expecting Giraffes.

SO they should have told that at interview, right? We really haven't got a clue whether we'll have a job for you in a month or two month's time, so you decide from there if you'd like to leave your current job and come and work for us?

meeeeh

RainyDay wrote: »

SO they should have told that at interview, right? We really haven't got a clue whether we'll have a job for you in a month or two month's time, so you decide from there if you'd like to leave your current job and come and work for us?

Being a crap manager really doesn't matter a bit neither does the reason why they fired her. The reasons could be completely bonkers or could be valid but considering op Isn't pregnant it is hard to claim it was discrimination. The fact she is a woman at a certain stage in life could count against her. Either because they didn't want her enough to also deal with possible maternity or they didn't like her enough to keep her any longer because pregnancy would limit their ability to let her go. However this is all speculation and I don't think anything could be proven.

BTW we had an ex employees mother asking why her son got very basic reference. She was in complete shock when she was told that we didn't want to lie on the reference. Two people can have completely different perception about ones abilities and suitability. It is not necessary that the manager's is right but up to a year there is no justification needed for their decision.

Dial Hard

livedadream wrote:

like i said 'in real life'

boards.ie is no where near to real life, people can say whatever they want here with no repercussions.

posters saying that in boards doesnt mean they do it in real life, no one is that stupid or misguided.

And in real life I used to take off my wedding ring in interviews because, like it or not, it *is* a factor.

Unfair? Yes? Annoying? Yes. But unless an employer is stupid enough to tell a female candidate that that's why they weren't hired, almost impossible to prove.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

You might be right, but if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If she's not doing what's required, they should give her a clear message about what needs to change.

No, business run on all different levels and it is often on a need-to know basis until a decision is made and cascaded downwards in an organisation. It is not unusual for lower level managers to be unaware of strategic decisions and make tactical decision that are not in alignment that need to be corrected once the strategy is rolled out officially.

The decision to reduce a workforce or change direction in a business is one that needs to be communicated effectively and definitively. It would be bed practice to let every people manager in the business know months in advance as it can impact productivity and morale.

I have been involved in decisions where sections of a company have been let go and the planning lasted months, it was very hard to work with those people for that time knowing that they were for the chop. So it is often vital to restrict information when strategic decisions are being made.

Manager = Evil, Employees =Good, is not a valid generalization.

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

No, business run on all different levels and it is often on a need-to know basis until a decision is made and cascaded downwards in an organisation. It is not unusual for lower level managers to be unaware of strategic decisions and make tactical decision that are not in alignment that need to be corrected once the strategy is rolled out officially.

The decision to reduce a workforce or change direction in a business is one that needs to be communicated effectively and definitively. It would be bed practice to let every people manager in the business know months in advance as it can impact productivity and morale.

I have been involved in decisions where sections of a company have been let go and the planning lasted months, it was very hard to work with those people for that time knowing that they were for the chop. So it is often vital to restrict information when strategic decisions are being made.

Manager = Evil, Employees =Good, is not a valid generalization.

Strangely enough, I'm aware that businesses run at all levels, and not everyone knows what's going on at all levels. And I'm aware that Manager=Evil, Employees = Good is not a great approach.

However, if you think that productivity and morale isn't going to be affected when employees see their peers giving up a job to take up a new position, and then being dumped after two months when someone up above has worked out their 'strategy', you are deluding yourself. If that is what happened in this case (and I appreciate that we don't have all the information here yet), it will be very damaging to the remaining employees if they see someone being treated badly and unfairly.

There are many ways and means to handle situations like this while continuing to maintain confidentiality. But recruiting someone, and then letting them go after two months for no good reason is not a good practice and will be very damaging to the reputation of the organisation and the morale and loyalty of the remaining employees.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

Strangely enough, I'm aware that businesses run at all levels, and not everyone knows what's going on at all levels. And I'm aware that Manager=Evil, Employees = Good is not a great approach.

However, if you think that productivity and morale isn't going to be affected when employees see their peers giving up a job to take up a new position, and then being dumped after two months when someone up above has worked out their 'strategy', you are deluding yourself. If that is what happened in this case (and I appreciate that we don't have all the information here yet), it will be very damaging to the remaining employees if they see someone being treated badly and unfairly.

There are many ways and means to handle situations like this while continuing to maintain confidentiality. But recruiting someone, and then letting them go after two months for no good reason is not a good practice and will be very damaging to the reputation of the organisation and the morale and loyalty of the remaining employees.

I agree that letting someone go after a short period is not desirable, it can have a significant negative impact on the person being let-go.

But in the case where the person is not effective or fitting in it is best to do so in a timely manner. This can be as a result of a poor hiring decision by the manager or poor performance by the employee. And you are absolutely correct that every dismissal, whether it be after 2 weeks or 2 decades impacts staff morale. But if there is a problem with a hiring decision, not dealing with issues causes more worse problems in the long run and dealing with things quickly is the best option.

I also agree we don't have much information and are just filling in the blanks. Strategy / Business needs is just one potential reason for the problem here. At the end of the day, even in good businesses this sort of things can happen when the stars align incorrectly.

I remember a case in a company I once worked for where a lady was taken on for Maternity cover as an employee had decided to take a year sabbatical following on from her maternity leave. The new employee was great, but the lady on maternity leave had to come back when her husband lost his job. The new employee was let go with the appropriate notice. From her perspective, I am sure that the company looked bad, but it was just unfortunate.

Changing jobs always carries some risk of not making it through the probation period, some companies let the probation period run its course with good support for the new employee to get up to speed before terminating the relationship, other act much more quickly and terminate as soon as there is an issue.

Maybe it was not going to be a good place to work and she dodged the bullet, who knows.

gozunda

OP - Go get some professional advice on this issue - things tend to get polarised round here very easily.

The 'reason' given does appear somewhat dodgy imo.

Best of luck.

Stheno

livedadream wrote: »

like i said 'in real life'

boards.ie is no where near to real life, people can say whatever they want here with no repercussions.

posters saying that in boards doesnt mean they do it in real life, no one is that stupid or misguided.

It's not yet ten years ago that I went to an interrview and the first question I was asked was, "you're married, obviously have children ( no idea how they thought this), how do you manage to commit to a role given your responsibility in other areas?"

I politely responded that I had no children and when later contacted by their head of HR to offer me the job, declined it on the basis of the interviers attitude

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

But in the case where the person is not effective or fitting in it is best to do so in a timely manner. This can be as a result of a poor hiring decision by the manager or poor performance by the employee. And you are absolutely correct that every dismissal, whether it be after 2 weeks or 2 decades impacts staff morale. But if there is a problem with a hiring decision, not dealing with issues causes more worse problems in the long run and dealing with things quickly is the best option.

Fully agree - but 'dealing with the problem' doesn't mean firing them, not initially at least. If they have a problem with the employee, they should absolutely talk to the employee first, and let them know what is expected of them, and give them a chance to meet the requirements.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

Fully agree - but 'dealing with the problem' doesn't mean firing them, not initially at least. If they have a problem with the employee, they should absolutely talk to the employee first, and let them know what is expected of them, and give them a chance to meet the requirements.

Which is what I said in my mail.

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Changing jobs always carries some risk of not making it through the probation period, some companies let the probation period run its course with good support for the new employee to get up to speed before terminating the relationship, others act much more quickly and terminate as soon as there is an issue.

There are some issues that can be corrected and other that cannot.

There are companies that work to develop new employees, others that do not.

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Which is what I said in my mail.



There are some issues that can be corrected and other that cannot.

There are companies that work to develop new employees, others that do not.

I note carefully what you said and what you didn't say.

You didn't say that "When there is a problem with the employee during probation, any employer with half a sense of decency and fairness will communicate the issue to the employee and give them the opportunity to fix it".

I'm not looking for training courses and hugs and kisses or other development. Just a simple direct communication on what is expected and what is the gap.

There are no issues that can be corrected without communicating those issues.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

I note carefully what you said and what you didn't say.

You didn't say that "When there is a problem with the employee during probation, any employer with half a sense of decency and fairness will communicate the issue to the employee and give them the opportunity to fix it".

You are reading implications into what I did not say? Fair enough. But there is no hidden meaning in what I did not say, I just abbreviated my response too much I guess, I agree with what you say, it is basic common sense there are many issues that can be corrected with simple feedback. In fact I cannot remember ever hiring anybody that did not need some form of feedback during probation and in most cases at regular intervals afterwards, in particular post-promotion.

RainyDay wrote: »

There are no issues that can be corrected without communicating those issues.

That is certainly true, but is is equally true that there are issues that cannot be corrected with any amount of communication.

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

You are reading implications into what I did not say? Fair enough. But there is no hidden meaning in what I did not say, I just abbreviated my response too much I guess, I agree with what you say, it is basic common sense there are many issues that can be corrected with simple feedback. In fact I cannot remember ever hiring anybody that did not need some form of feedback during probation and in most cases at regular intervals afterwards, in particular post-promotion.




That is certainly true, but is is equally true that there are issues that cannot be corrected with any amount of communication.

Fair enough, I stand corrected and thanks for the clarification.