Just got fired

Mango Joe

On the topic of Employee expendability with no Employer moral compass - I used to work in a Call Centre.... I was there for long enough to observe a few things:

1. A high natural turnover of Employees - Its very often low paid, uninspiring work - People get out ASAP.
2. They will dispose of anyone they see as being remotely flaky ASAP rather than wasting any further wages and man-hours in training them up.
3. There will always be a new and equally expendable person populating that desk a few days later.
4. Existing management will originally be outside hires and new managers will be recruited from outside the building - No chance they'd recognise local talent.
5. Anyone going above and beyond in this type of setup, offering to work Christmas, New Years, evenings, Saturdays.... These people will be cynically exploited, bled dry and later ejected if it happens to suit the business.

Naos

beauf wrote: »

Nothing to do with sick policy.

They were told that didn't follow the correct procedure for notifying them of being out. But they were never informed of what this was.

??

The OP is an adult. If you call in sick while on probation (or any time) and are unaware of what the correct procedure is, then you simply ask when you come in the next day.

M5

Its highly possible the OP was fed the line about sick days as its a lot easier to back up with data than performance issues.

If it is the case, and there were no performance issues or interpersonal issues, it is an odd way to treat your staff.

LillySV

beauf wrote: »

The issue was not given as the sick days. It was didn't follow proper procedures.

Certified sick isn't always required depending on company policy.

There's little he could do in the future? Why not?

Little who could do what in the future ? I never said anything about future ? I said “there was little he could do” in regard to the options the manager had to take... risk having someone for years that is constantly sick and a drain to the company... or take action now while still possible.. which is what he/she did

mouthful

Mango Joe wrote: »

On the topic of Employee expendability with no Employer moral compass - I used to work in a Call Centre.... I was there for long enough to observe a few things:

1. A high natural turnover of Employees - Its very often low paid, uninspiring work - People get out ASAP.
2. They will dispose of anyone they see as being remotely flaky ASAP rather than wasting any further wages and man-hours in training them up.
3. There will always be a new and equally expendable person populating that desk a few days later.
4. Existing management will originally be outside hires and new managers will be recruited from outside the building - No chance they'd recognise local talent.
5. Anyone going above and beyond in this type of setup, offering to work Christmas, New Years, evenings, Saturdays.... These people will be cynically exploited, bled dry and later ejected if it happens to suit the business.

Unfortunately toxic employers and disposable wage slaves are not just limited to the call centre industry-

We wage slaves are only an toxic arsehole away from the next promotion or sale of our workplace-

Tippex

OP sorry to hear what you have gone through it is tough as hell I hope you and your family come through the other side.

Just reading this now.
I've been both employee and employer and my reading of it is.
The OP did not receive a contract which in turn does not necessarily mean they were on probation either. (And no probation is not automatic)
They did not receive a written employee handbook outlining company policies and procedures.

The company issued a written letter stating that the OP had not followed procedure but how in gods name can you follow a procedure that you have not been informed about

So how can any company Justify terminating an employee under those circumstances?

OP I would definitely get advice (I would recommend calling Terry Gorry https://employmentrightsireland.com/tag/probation/ btw I have no connection to this person at all but have followed his newsletters for many a year) on this but tbf I would not want to work for an employeer like this one.

beauf

LillySV wrote: »

Little who could do what in the future ? I never said anything about future ? I said “there was little he could do” in regard to the options the manager had to take... risk having someone for years that is constantly sick and a drain to the company... or take action now while still possible.. which is what he/she did

"While still possible" and "risking have someone for years" implies it would be hard to fire someone in the "future" for a gross breach of contract.

beauf

Naos wrote: »

The OP is an adult. If you call in sick while on probation (or any time) and are unaware of what the correct procedure is, then you simply ask when you come in the next day.

Next day is too late they are already in breach.

LillySV

beauf wrote: »

"While still possible" and "risking have someone for years" implies it would be hard to fire someone in the "future" for a gross breach of contract.

Yes alot harder and could result in huge legal fees

beauf

LillySV wrote: »

Yes alot harder and could result in huge legal fees

Only if you don't follow procedure, which is solved by not having any in the first place and/or firing people before they get to that point anyway.

LillySV

beauf wrote: »

Only if you don't follow procedure, which is solved by not having any in the first place and/or firing people before they get to that point anyway.

Well here, I wish him the best of luck into the future but he is going to have to take probation period more serious next time

Lefty Bicek

partyguinness wrote: »

"Oh my car has broken down so I have taken it to the garage

Think about it. The car is broken down. It possibly can't go anywhere. Possibly, the mechanic has other jobs to attend to before he can get to towing your car away. More than likely, the garage is not next door.

So either you have no first-hand experience of the utter, time-consuming ballache that is is a car breakdown, or else you are simply hectoring the OP.

I suggest for starters that rather than spitting bitterly about the decent working conditions of some of your 'friends', that you instead get down off the cross that you have nailed yourself to, and join the 'public service'. It sounds like a perfectly rational choice to anyone with a balanced view of life. Good for them.

Graham

OP has already clarified the car hadn't actually broken down.

partyguinness

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Think about it. The car is broken down. It possibly can't go anywhere. Possibly, the mechanic has other jobs to attend to before he can get to towing your car away. More than likely, the garage is not next door.

So either you have no first-hand experience of the utter, time-consuming ballache that is is a car breakdown, or else you are simply hectoring the OP.

I suggest for starters that rather than spitting bitterly about the decent working conditions of some of your 'friends', that you instead get down off the cross that you have nailed yourself to, and join the 'public service'. It sounds like a perfectly rational choice to anyone with a balanced view of life. Good for them.

That was not my point as well you should know but hey mispresent and spit all the bile you want. Clearly you have had a nerve touched. At the end of the day it makes no odds to me- I am not the poster who was sacked where in the first instance she lied to her employer and then her car broke down and made no effort to make it in. Poor excuses and no wonder she was not kept on- she did herself no favours. There is also a remarkable degree of naivety on the OP's part. As myself and other posters have pointed out it's the reality and no real surprise.

Lefty Bicek

Graham wrote: »

OP has already clarified the car hadn't actually broken down.

Oh, I know.

What I object to is the general sanctimonious tone of the post I was referring to.

I mean, if a genuine car break-down were actually to occur, there's no reason to believe that the attitude would be any less hectoring, judgemental and simply uninformed.

partyguinness

Graham wrote: »

OP has already clarified the car hadn't actually broken down.

OP said in the original post that she had "car issues". Reasonable to conclude that her car was not able to get her to work. Whether it had broken down or just had "issues" it matters nought as the result is the same.

Apologies but where was it clarified by the OP that it had not broken down as I cannot find the post.

Lefty Bicek

partyguinness wrote: »

That was not my point as well you should know but hey mispresent and spit all the bile you want. Clearly you have had a nerve touched. At the end of the day it makes no odds to me- I am not the poster who was sacked where in the first instance she lied to her employer and then her car broke down and made no effort to make it in. Poor excuses and no wonder she was not kept on- she did herself no favours. There is also a remarkable degree of naivety on the OP's part. As myself and other posters have pointed out it's the reality and no real surprise.

You kicked a person when they are down with your silly lecturing.

And you doubled-down with totally irrelevant hobby-horse bitch about the good fortune of people who have what you do not, but which you envy, and which you consider a luxury... decent working conditions.

But for all that you are so much more worldly-wise than the OP, really, what good has it done you ?

Bloody hell I would love to work just 40 hours a week. Luxury.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112184810&postcount=138

Those are your words, so I'm not 'mispresenting' you at all.

Get a life.

michellie

Sorry to hear of the trouble with your daughter Op, I hope things are better now. Very difficult thing to go through and now this on top of it.

In most places you could get a force Majeure day off for this kind of circumstance, I used one, myself last year and did have to put it in writing to HR about why I needed that day off.

I thought legally everyone is to be given a contract and if you're not given one, within a certain amount of time, then you're entitled to be made permanent (from experience - a colleague of mine obtained one this way) I stand to be corrected on this though

partyguinness

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

You kicked a person when they are down with your silly lecturing.

And you doubled-down with totally irrelevant hobby-horse bitch about the good fortune of people who have what you do not, but which you envy, and which you consider a luxury... decent working conditions.

But for all that you are so much more worldly-wise than the OP, really, what good has it done you ?



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112184810&postcount=138

Those are your words, so I'm not 'mispresenting' you at all.

Get a life.

Yes, you did misrepresent me. You blatantly took a small excerpt from my post referencing the car issues and completely altered the point to launch into an indignant rant to sooth your wounded sense of righteousness.

To show how you did not misrepresent me you rather hilariously followed this up by posting a link to a completely separate post making a separate point which has nothing to do with or even reference my subsequent post which you originally quoted vis a vis the car issues.

Put simple if that is hurting your head, what you did was link two unrelated points in two separate posts to show that you have not misrepresented me. In modern parlance- ‘Fail’.

Now, are you going make an actual contribution to the overall theme of the thread (you have yet to make any sort of contribution) or will you just keep obsessing over my previous posts?

Judging by the rather juvenile and tiresome ‘Get a life’ quip I am guessing that originality is not your strong point (neither is debating for that matter). Reactive rather than proactive. Disagree me if you want I have no problem with that but at least do yourself a favour and do it properly.

robtri

mouthful wrote: »

When in doubt go to the act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/10/section/14/enacted/en/html#sec14

Section 14.4 for ease of reference

please read section 2 exclusion also from the act, specifically excludes people under one year from the act.

(1) This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

(a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him and whose dismissal does not result wholly or mainly from the matters referred to in section 6 (2) (f) of this Act,

debok

Can't believe this thread had 17 pages. I worked in place out on the estate doesn't have the best of reputations. 12 started the day I started and by the end of the second week there was only two of us left. The same company takes on extra people because they like to sack a few to keep the others on there toes. The supervisors seemed to enjoy it.
But in the op case she lied about everything to get off work so no sympathy. A company can't be expected to read your mind to know real reason your off. Your better off being honest no matter what least you can look yourself inirror then.

Wanderer78

debok wrote:

Can't believe this thread had 17 pages. I worked in place out on the estate doesn't have the best of reputations. 12 started the day I started and by the end of the second week there was only two of us left. The same company takes on extra people because they like to sack a few to keep the others on there toes. The supervisors seemed to enjoy it. But in the op case she lied about everything to get off work so no sympathy. A company can't be expected to read your mind to know real reason your off. Your better off being honest no matter what least you can look yourself inirror then.

The disturbing element of this thread is the lack of sympathy, I'd imagine an attempted suicide of one of your kids is a highly distressing experience for a parent, yes the op shouldn't have lied, but I'd also imagine, logic leaves the building under such circumstances. Best of luck op, dreadfully distressing situation for a family

beauf

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The disturbing element of this thread is the lack of sympathy, I'd imagine an attempted suicide of one of your kids is a highly distressing experience for a parent, yes the op shouldn't have lied, but I'd also imagine, logic leaves the building under such circumstances. Best of luck op, dreadfully distressing situation for a family

I agree 100%

Graham

I have huge sympathy for the OP, it must have been a hugely stressful & worrying experience and she absolutely did the right thing concentrating on her family IMO.

It is entirely likely the employer would have shown the same sympathy had they been made aware.

bladespin

Graham wrote: »

I have huge sympathy for the OP, it must have been a hugely stressful & worrying experience and she absolutely did the right thing concentrating on her family IMO.

It is entirely likely the employer would have shown the same sympathy had they been made aware.

100% agree, spoke about optics a while back, being straight up with the employer may have thrown a different light on it completely.

partyguinness

I don't believe the OP started this thread looking for sympathy from internet strangers so that really is not the point here- she was looking for feedback on employment rights etc in relation to be being let go in such an abrupt manner. I am sure if she wants sympathy she can get plenty from her friends and family.

As mentioned, what happened to her daughter is terrible and we can can all sympathise but that is not the point of the thread nor does it help the OP.

She should have told the employer the truth- hindsight is fantastic I know although IMO I believe that she was probably going to be let go anyway. Dust yourself down and on you go.

ToxicPaddy

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Exactly. I hate the total lack of compassion on here.

Your joke reminds me of the time I was mugged on the way to work. I was violently attacked, had my phone stolen, almost got pushed under a moving bus, and arrived at work in a daze, shaking and panicked. The receptionist saw the state of me and told me to go to the guards and then home and that she'd explain to the manager what had happened.

The next day the manager comes over asking what happened the day before. Me stupidly thinking he was concerned about my welfare, told him I'd been the guards and was fine now, that my injuries were not too bad. No, the absolute stain on humanity wanted to know why I hadn't come to tell him in person and had 'let' the receptionist inform him. He was seriously more concerned about a petty procedural issue than the fact that one of his employees had been assaulted on the way to work and was hurt. I couldn't believe it. Put my notice in the same day.

This is why most people say they leave jobs. They dont leave bad companies they leave bad managers.