harsh termination process after a competitors job offer
- Thread starter Hasslehoff
- Start date
"If surveillance or monitoring of communications use is to be carried out, the reasons and purposes for which this will be undertaken must be made clear to employees."
Bit of a carte blanche IMO.
Suppose the issue is who own the data. If it resides on a company server, the company owns it.
No test cases yet, and has company made their security policies clear to employees ...
As for company server, can you definitely prove the user put data there, Digital Forensics can be a black art ...
Don,t want to take this issue too far away from original subject, but an interesting discussion.
M
marvindiodes
Guest
I was forced to resigned once over a dispute over job roles (when company taken over) A ladder climbing over zealous, newbie manager was trying to force me to take on about 50% more work load with no increase in salary or conditions.
I tought i was better to resign then be fired. The second I said id resign rent a cop was called and i was walked out. How ever they refused to pay me my holiday pay and other bits n pieces. They failed to relises I had all the passwords for all the mail and file servers and eveything else in my head. I had also begun porting the mail over from CC mail to outlook. A week later the called looking for it. I asked about my money they said no... I said i was having memory problems from the stress of it all. They didnt budge.. In the end it cost them about 100K (UK) not to mention penalties for not delivering service to thier clients, to fix the problem and 6 weeks. My holiday pay and other monies were about 2 grand.
So sometimes it pay to be gental and nice. Act in haste repent at lesuire. The Newbie manager certainly had to she was fired 3 months later.
I tought i was better to resign then be fired. The second I said id resign rent a cop was called and i was walked out. How ever they refused to pay me my holiday pay and other bits n pieces. They failed to relises I had all the passwords for all the mail and file servers and eveything else in my head. I had also begun porting the mail over from CC mail to outlook. A week later the called looking for it. I asked about my money they said no... I said i was having memory problems from the stress of it all. They didnt budge.. In the end it cost them about 100K (UK) not to mention penalties for not delivering service to thier clients, to fix the problem and 6 weeks. My holiday pay and other monies were about 2 grand.
So sometimes it pay to be gental and nice. Act in haste repent at lesuire. The Newbie manager certainly had to she was fired 3 months later.
Re: A dog would have faired better
As most people have said, this is standard practice in a lot of companies. However, it's another case of people in power in companies adminstering 'company policy' without a thought about what is fair or what is really necessary.
If anyone really wanted to do damage to a company, or share information with their new employer, is it not fairly clear they would do all they had to do BEFORE they announced their resignation. The nonsense of immediately walking someone to the door is really a lot of show and bluster and a vaccuous attempt to 'protect the company'. Without due reason to believe the person is wilfully about to inflict damage on the company it is totally heavy-handed to talk to someone who has served the company well (perhaps for many years) in the manner of 'clear your desk within 15 minutes', much less get security to walk that same person to the door. A more human and thoughtful response might be to say they had to leave by the end of the day and give them time to say goodbye to their colleagues. The 'march to the door' could well achieve the reverse of what intended, by antagonising the person leaving and increasing the chances they act to damage the company with knowledge they already have.
If anything it shows that service/commitment to any company doesn't really count for anything and you will more often than not be treated like a piece of nothing by managers slaved to 'company policy' the minute you cut your ties.
As most people have said, this is standard practice in a lot of companies. However, it's another case of people in power in companies adminstering 'company policy' without a thought about what is fair or what is really necessary.
If anyone really wanted to do damage to a company, or share information with their new employer, is it not fairly clear they would do all they had to do BEFORE they announced their resignation. The nonsense of immediately walking someone to the door is really a lot of show and bluster and a vaccuous attempt to 'protect the company'. Without due reason to believe the person is wilfully about to inflict damage on the company it is totally heavy-handed to talk to someone who has served the company well (perhaps for many years) in the manner of 'clear your desk within 15 minutes', much less get security to walk that same person to the door. A more human and thoughtful response might be to say they had to leave by the end of the day and give them time to say goodbye to their colleagues. The 'march to the door' could well achieve the reverse of what intended, by antagonising the person leaving and increasing the chances they act to damage the company with knowledge they already have.
If anything it shows that service/commitment to any company doesn't really count for anything and you will more often than not be treated like a piece of nothing by managers slaved to 'company policy' the minute you cut your ties.
newirishman
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,137
If I get a good offer from a competitor and it is closely matched by the company I work for I wouldn't leave. Not knowing what "closely" means here but changing company for the sake of a few bucks? Not sure.
That might also explain the companies reaction - they are told being at risk loosing an employee and forced to raise their offer, and when it is rejected (despite being close) they are being told they loose the employee to a competitor - I would personally walk the employe out.
That might also explain the companies reaction - they are told being at risk loosing an employee and forced to raise their offer, and when it is rejected (despite being close) they are being told they loose the employee to a competitor - I would personally walk the employe out.
I worked for a company in the US (bank) who sent a member from HR down at 3.15pm to ask a girl up for a meeting at 3.30pm. When she left another HR person came down, cleared out her desk and I never heard or saw from her again.
It was probably all done for similar reasons outlined by other posters but I thought it was scandalous - this girl wasn't particularly bright but she was an absolute pet and worked harder than anyone in there. They even had to force her to take her vacation days. Anyway, I left soon after as I didn't want to work for a company that treated people like that.
It was probably all done for similar reasons outlined by other posters but I thought it was scandalous - this girl wasn't particularly bright but she was an absolute pet and worked harder than anyone in there. They even had to force her to take her vacation days. Anyway, I left soon after as I didn't want to work for a company that treated people like that.
I used to work for a company that did the same thing on occasion. The act was know as 'Black Ops'
Generally the person was handing in their notice and went back to their desk to find their password no longer worked.American company too. Paranoid feckers.
I think that the high handed escorted off the premises procedure has nothing to do with security and more to do with the employer wanting to make a statement to the remaining employees.
It serves to give the remaining employees the impression that:
1. the employee who has resigned is being kicked out of the company rather than is taking up a better position in another company.
2. The impression that leaving the company is a bad thing.
While the resigning persons immediate colleagues will know why they are leaving, everyone else will not and will assume that they are being dismissed. I remember it happening to a close friend of mine (we'll call him "Joe Bloggs") - we both once worked for the same company. For weeks afterwards people were asking me why Joe Bloggs was fired and I got the impression that many didnt believe me when I said, that he actually resigned to take up a better job with another company.
It serves to give the remaining employees the impression that:
1. the employee who has resigned is being kicked out of the company rather than is taking up a better position in another company.
2. The impression that leaving the company is a bad thing.
While the resigning persons immediate colleagues will know why they are leaving, everyone else will not and will assume that they are being dismissed. I remember it happening to a close friend of mine (we'll call him "Joe Bloggs") - we both once worked for the same company. For weeks afterwards people were asking me why Joe Bloggs was fired and I got the impression that many didnt believe me when I said, that he actually resigned to take up a better job with another company.
Well, it worked with me because I quit a few weeks later. I don't know if that was what they wanted or not?!
FredBloggs
Registered User
- Messages
- 504
Not saying its what happened there but its common behaviour for people who are missapropriating money not to take holidays. When I started work there was a kindly old guy working there who everyone thought was really nice. He would always be an absolute gentleman, never gossiped and was always very nice to wives, girlfreinds, boyfreinds who rang or dropped by. The bosses wife adored him. He was held up as an example to us younger guys - it was pointed out that he was so dilligent he hadn't taken a day off in years. Then just a few months before he was due to retire he was in a minor accident and admitted to hospital. When he was away it was discovered that he had been systematically stealing money for years (teaming and lading I think its called). No one was ever sure exactly how much he'd taken but it was tens of thousands (at least).
Because of his age it was decided not to pursue him through the courts but we never saw him again.
Lol, I know someone who did the same thing. He told management he was going to a competitor when he was actually going to travel for a few months
Asked to leave immediately and a full months pay, score!
For the post above, in financial services it's a legal requirment to take 2 weeks holidays together every year. It's not enforced but it's there all the same
Really? Under what legislation?
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
You would have to wonder about the morality (not to mention karma) issues attaching to causing so much damage to one's ex-employer.
Agree that Karma has a funny way of biting you on the backside when least expected.
However, you would also have to look at the stupidity of a company not to look at the overall picture. By failing to pay someone what they were entitled to, they shot themselves in the foot and it cost them much more.
That is unless it was the persons intention to do this anyway, which is not really what I took from their post.
Do people really believe in such superstitious rubbish?
R
rmelly
Guest
Partially agree - not having the passwords of the systems plus disaster recovery precedures etc stored centrally (and securely) is poor practice, and reflects poorly on the poster (on that basis alone I wouldn't hire him - what happens if he gets run over by a bus?), beyond that though he isn't responsible.
Extent of how responsible depends on how senior he was - it he had an IT manager or similar, the manager should have demanded this. If he was the manager...
Taking 2 consecutive weeks holiday is mentioned in the working time act - but can be varied by agreement. Doesnt specifically say that its for financial reasons, but there are both H&S (people who dont take proper holidays are more likely to suffer health problems) and financial reasons for it being there.
From the Act:
I worked in Finance a a good few yeasr ago and we all had to take 2 clear weeks off - this was made clear to you when you starte.
It was a control mechanism as a lot of fraud was comitted by people who only took short breaks as their system would break down.
It was a control mechanism as a lot of fraud was comitted by people who only took short breaks as their system would break down.
I can understand if there is a company policy on this but I was curious about the assertion that there was some law governing this. The post above suggests that there is none.