I get that no one likes to be fired, especially if they feel that they were let go unfairly, but this seems like it will result in missing out on other job opportunities afterwards. If I was a hiring manager and saw a video like this from a prospective employee I would just throw their application straight in the garbage. If they will post this then who knows what kind of private company details they will post about if I were to hire them
I hope that these videos encourage others to leave, get their bag, or not apply to companies that employ shady at best firing policies. If I saw a person standing up for themselves in a place where corporate culture squashes out hope and individuality, I’d be more likely to hire them if my corporate culture actually matched the vibe of the person recording themselves getting fired.
Yeah, name and shame companies firing people for nothing or to pad quarterly profits. Not everyone can afford to be choosey in their employer but for those that can I hope stuff like this starves those companies of talent.
Firing someone after telling them they need to improve their work performance and giving them a chance to do so?
The thing is, there’s a difference between being let go as part of a mass layoff and being fired for cause. I’ve seen several of these videos where the employer is telling people they’re being fired for low performance, but they were also firing a large number of other people at the same time, and they hadn’t been employed long enough for “low performance” to be a realistic claim. In some cases, being fired for cause means you don’t get access to unemployment benefits. If they’re actually part of a mass layoff they should be entitled to those benefits. But the company doesn’t want to admit that they regularly lay people off, so instead they list the dismissals as firings for cause.
I feel like getting fired or laid off is like being broken up with, along with the emotions attached. It is bullshit that a company can fire for cause a significant part of their workforce to prevent them from getting a severance or unemployment, but there isn’t a good system to choose who to lay off.
I hear you. I think this is one of those things that becomes effective when most of your candidates are likely to have posted something like this at some point. Kind of like participation in a strike (or any union activity) only becomes useful when most other employees are also participating.
The problem is half the time they are being laid off, but the company frames it as a firing so they can save money. Getting fired by your previous employer will destroy your job prospects far more directly than some video on social media that only a few percent of recruiters will ever even be aware of. It makes sense to take a unified stand against such a bullshit practice.
If they are in some way dodging contracted benefits like severance, are in any way defaming the employee, or are trying to prevent unemployment claims, it is going to be illegal to invent cause. People really misunderstand “at will” and think it means that an employer can fire you for any reason at all. It doesn’t. It means they can fire you for no reason at all. They cannot fire you for a protected, illegal, or fake reason, and they still are going to have to honor your contract, make good on the unemployment, et cetera.
There really isn’t any difference between a “no cause”/at will termination and a layoff. Maybe some fine technical points, but for the layman it’s the same thing.
And in many states what a previous employer can say to a future employer as part of a reference check is limited – in Cali, for example, any “malicious” statements can get you in a lot of trouble. If you suspect a previous employer might be doing this, talk to a labor lawyer.
Recording and trying to go viral with these exit interviews is the wrong response if you feel you are being wronged. Sure, record it (if it is legal to do so), but definitely do not upload anything until you have talked to a labor attorney.
The interview that set this trend off literally exposed them creating fake metrics to mass-fire employees that they utterly failed at explaining in any coherent way. I think you underestimate how willing companies are to skirt labor laws based on risk/reward analysis of their potential liabilities in the off chance that they get taken to court. Social media levels the playing field and changes that risk/reward calculation.
I didn’t make any statements about whether this employer had behaved illegally, so I am not estimating anything, over or under.
I am saying that victims should first talk to labor attorneys because there is a lot more you can do. The playing field is flatter than you think. Taking this to battle-by-media should not be the first response or starting point, it should be pretty far towards the end of the war.
If I was a hiring manager and saw a video like this from a prospective employee I would just throw their application straight in the garbage.
You probably wouldn’t be a hiring manager very long with that attitude. I don’t get the appeal either, but I don’t do tiktok so. Just from the linked piece, it sounds like it’s becoming increasingly common.
Quite a leap to posting private company details online. Where are those stored by the way? Office 365? SharePoint? The cloud?..
If I was a hiring manager, I wouldn’t be looking at people’s social media because I only care what their expected compensation, experience, and/or education is. Everything else past their CV is irrelevant unless they need a security clearance or will be working in a sensitive environment.
Good soft skills are also pretty important for a new hire. You often want someone that can be a good communicator, can get lots of different people aligned on an initiative, and can handle conflict in a constructive way.
A lot of employers peak at social media for clues about this stuff. If someone is a jerk online, they might also be a jerk in the office once they get comfortable.
Absolutely this! I work in tech and it’s shocking how much casual racism and sexism gets tossed around. It is super hard to build a cohesive team when one of the men won’t let a woman coworker speak because he doesn’t like their use of the word “we” when describing their team.
Dumb tic-tok trends and stupid dance videos are not what employers are looking for.
Sounds like a problem for a manager or supervisor to coach or mentor. If they don’t work out despite their qualifications, they don’t work out despite their qualifications.
I would. I want to hire someone I could have lunch with, communicate without awkwardness, and be able to appropriately empathize with whatever their situation is.
That being said, posting their firing would get them bonus points from me. I love people that stand up for themselves, have an opinion, and aren’t afraid to be wrong.
But you can’t choose what people search about you before hiring you.
On the other hand, I think the people doing this are aware of the risk they’re taking most of the time. They know people will search their names and see what comes up before hiring them.
You understand that they can find your social media regardless, right?
If you have it and publicly post, it’s not private and they can and should consider your public behavior as part of the process of deciding whether to hire you.
It’s also considered a red flag to have no online presence, so be careful how far down that road you go if you’re trying to work at companies that would be looking you up to begin with.
Your average HR lackey isn’t going to go full 4chan stalker into you. Doubly so if you also have accounts tied to your name that you very occasionally post very, very mundane things on. They’re not going to go looking deeper when they find your Facebook and see you’re just wishing gamgam a happy birthday
So… they google your name, and said that specifically for a marketing role they want to see if you’re good at selling yourself through your social media profile.
Obviously they google my name. My point is they’re not going to go through and try to connect username after username after username to find forum posts from 2009 or some shit.
It’s commonly known now though that most employers will look through anything you’ve posted publicly online these days though. Regardless of what you put on your resume there’s nothing stopping them from doing a Google search for your name. In this case where the post has now garnered attention on news sites an employer wouldn’t even have to go into her social media, since this is just up on multiple news sites forever now
If a company is firing you, fuck their “private company details.” You should have zero loyalty or obligation to an entity that’s potentially going to make you go hungry/homeless. Criminal disclosures will be covered by law already, so all you’re doing is slurping up the boot juice and perpetuating the culture of silence that allows companies and capital owners to pit workers against one another
I never said anything about protecting the company that fired you. I have no idea where you got that. My point was that if you do something that proves to potential employers that you’re going to cry on social media every time your unhappy about anything, it means they’re going to be much less likely to hire you
I get both sides of the argument here. I think we need to have this big reaction because companies have held so much power over employees for so long - I’ll avoid ranting about worker-owned cooperatives here - but the past few years I’ve surprised myself by moving into a bit of a “slippery slope” camp with these things. Not to say it shouldn’t happen, but that we need to be prepared for the follow-up.
Hopefully related example, in education: There were some really big push backs recently where I am over bad treatment of the students in highschool, all legit. The school board ignored it for a long time, it got bad, they finally took it seriously. Then they overcorrected and stopped believing teachers at all and started jumping straight to firing at almost any complaint. Then students started weaponizing complaints, and now teachers are getting fired for trying to enforce deadlines and for giving low marks because students are complaining about how deadlines, grades, and meeting grading requirements are detrimental to mental health and well-being, and now there are a bunch of these students from this board in my university classes failing hard and filing complaints about courses being too difficult and other things despite them having glowing reviews just a few years prior.
I guess what I’m getting at: I think it’s fair for someone to choose not to hire people like this because it’s possible that the people willing to stand up and make an important fuss over these things might not know where the line stands between a worthwhile complaint and a non-worthwhile one, and might make a company look badexternally even though it’s doing good internally, just not to someone new to the workforce’s expectations.
I also think it’s fair to go the opposite direction, because ultimately we need major change in the way companies/everything are structured that lead to these nasty layoffs and poor conditions and if someone does raise issues where there aren’t, hopefully we are prepared enough and in the right enough to take it seriously, but weather it and act in everyone’s best interests.
I’m a hiring manager. I have trouble even imagining the kind of person that would just throw a lead into the trash because of a recording of them getting fired. Who does that? What do you possibly have to gain by doing that? Because you have a lot to lose, especially if that candidate got far enough in the process for you to be researching their background. Nobody gets that far unless they are a very good fit.
I get that no one likes to be fired, especially if they feel that they were let go unfairly, but this seems like it will result in missing out on other job opportunities afterwards. If I was a hiring manager and saw a video like this from a prospective employee I would just throw their application straight in the garbage. If they will post this then who knows what kind of private company details they will post about if I were to hire them
I hope that these videos encourage others to leave, get their bag, or not apply to companies that employ shady at best firing policies. If I saw a person standing up for themselves in a place where corporate culture squashes out hope and individuality, I’d be more likely to hire them if my corporate culture actually matched the vibe of the person recording themselves getting fired.
Yeah, name and shame companies firing people for nothing or to pad quarterly profits. Not everyone can afford to be choosey in their employer but for those that can I hope stuff like this starves those companies of talent.
What isn’t a shady firing practice?
Firing someone after telling them they need to improve their work performance and giving them a chance to do so?
The thing is, there’s a difference between being let go as part of a mass layoff and being fired for cause. I’ve seen several of these videos where the employer is telling people they’re being fired for low performance, but they were also firing a large number of other people at the same time, and they hadn’t been employed long enough for “low performance” to be a realistic claim. In some cases, being fired for cause means you don’t get access to unemployment benefits. If they’re actually part of a mass layoff they should be entitled to those benefits. But the company doesn’t want to admit that they regularly lay people off, so instead they list the dismissals as firings for cause.
I feel like getting fired or laid off is like being broken up with, along with the emotions attached. It is bullshit that a company can fire for cause a significant part of their workforce to prevent them from getting a severance or unemployment, but there isn’t a good system to choose who to lay off.
I hear you. I think this is one of those things that becomes effective when most of your candidates are likely to have posted something like this at some point. Kind of like participation in a strike (or any union activity) only becomes useful when most other employees are also participating.
The problem is half the time they are being laid off, but the company frames it as a firing so they can save money. Getting fired by your previous employer will destroy your job prospects far more directly than some video on social media that only a few percent of recruiters will ever even be aware of. It makes sense to take a unified stand against such a bullshit practice.
If they are in some way dodging contracted benefits like severance, are in any way defaming the employee, or are trying to prevent unemployment claims, it is going to be illegal to invent cause. People really misunderstand “at will” and think it means that an employer can fire you for any reason at all. It doesn’t. It means they can fire you for no reason at all. They cannot fire you for a protected, illegal, or fake reason, and they still are going to have to honor your contract, make good on the unemployment, et cetera.
There really isn’t any difference between a “no cause”/at will termination and a layoff. Maybe some fine technical points, but for the layman it’s the same thing.
And in many states what a previous employer can say to a future employer as part of a reference check is limited – in Cali, for example, any “malicious” statements can get you in a lot of trouble. If you suspect a previous employer might be doing this, talk to a labor lawyer.
Recording and trying to go viral with these exit interviews is the wrong response if you feel you are being wronged. Sure, record it (if it is legal to do so), but definitely do not upload anything until you have talked to a labor attorney.
The interview that set this trend off literally exposed them creating fake metrics to mass-fire employees that they utterly failed at explaining in any coherent way. I think you underestimate how willing companies are to skirt labor laws based on risk/reward analysis of their potential liabilities in the off chance that they get taken to court. Social media levels the playing field and changes that risk/reward calculation.
I didn’t make any statements about whether this employer had behaved illegally, so I am not estimating anything, over or under.
I am saying that victims should first talk to labor attorneys because there is a lot more you can do. The playing field is flatter than you think. Taking this to battle-by-media should not be the first response or starting point, it should be pretty far towards the end of the war.
You probably wouldn’t be a hiring manager very long with that attitude. I don’t get the appeal either, but I don’t do tiktok so. Just from the linked piece, it sounds like it’s becoming increasingly common.
Quite a leap to posting private company details online. Where are those stored by the way? Office 365? SharePoint? The cloud?..
If I was a hiring manager, I wouldn’t be looking at people’s social media because I only care what their expected compensation, experience, and/or education is. Everything else past their CV is irrelevant unless they need a security clearance or will be working in a sensitive environment.
Good soft skills are also pretty important for a new hire. You often want someone that can be a good communicator, can get lots of different people aligned on an initiative, and can handle conflict in a constructive way.
A lot of employers peak at social media for clues about this stuff. If someone is a jerk online, they might also be a jerk in the office once they get comfortable.
Absolutely this! I work in tech and it’s shocking how much casual racism and sexism gets tossed around. It is super hard to build a cohesive team when one of the men won’t let a woman coworker speak because he doesn’t like their use of the word “we” when describing their team.
Dumb tic-tok trends and stupid dance videos are not what employers are looking for.
Sounds like a problem for a manager or supervisor to coach or mentor. If they don’t work out despite their qualifications, they don’t work out despite their qualifications.
I would. I want to hire someone I could have lunch with, communicate without awkwardness, and be able to appropriately empathize with whatever their situation is.
That being said, posting their firing would get them bonus points from me. I love people that stand up for themselves, have an opinion, and aren’t afraid to be wrong.
deleted by creator
But you can’t choose what people search about you before hiring you.
On the other hand, I think the people doing this are aware of the risk they’re taking most of the time. They know people will search their names and see what comes up before hiring them.
deleted by creator
When did this become about you?
deleted by creator
Please point out where “people” said that. I certainly didn’t:
I see you all over the place and I gotta ask : did you have to work on being pedantic or does it come naturally to you?
You understand that they can find your social media regardless, right?
If you have it and publicly post, it’s not private and they can and should consider your public behavior as part of the process of deciding whether to hire you.
deleted by creator
This is literally a response to the fact that people putting things on social media is going to make it much harder for them to get a desirable job.
That’s the entire purpose of the post you were somehow disagreeing with.
Employers, especially for white collar gigs, often Google the folks they are hiring.
deleted by creator
That’s rarely possible anymore.
I guess me and most of the people I know are rare
Yes. Yes you are.
It’s also considered a red flag to have no online presence, so be careful how far down that road you go if you’re trying to work at companies that would be looking you up to begin with.
Your average HR lackey isn’t going to go full 4chan stalker into you. Doubly so if you also have accounts tied to your name that you very occasionally post very, very mundane things on. They’re not going to go looking deeper when they find your Facebook and see you’re just wishing gamgam a happy birthday
Actual HR people seem to disagree with you-
https://blog.photofeeler.com/what-hr-recruiters-look-for-googling-job-candidates/
So… they google your name, and said that specifically for a marketing role they want to see if you’re good at selling yourself through your social media profile.
Obviously they google my name. My point is they’re not going to go through and try to connect username after username after username to find forum posts from 2009 or some shit.
Just one example-
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tiktok-job-rejection-hr-email-b2230208.html
It’s commonly known now though that most employers will look through anything you’ve posted publicly online these days though. Regardless of what you put on your resume there’s nothing stopping them from doing a Google search for your name. In this case where the post has now garnered attention on news sites an employer wouldn’t even have to go into her social media, since this is just up on multiple news sites forever now
deleted by creator
If a company is firing you, fuck their “private company details.” You should have zero loyalty or obligation to an entity that’s potentially going to make you go hungry/homeless. Criminal disclosures will be covered by law already, so all you’re doing is slurping up the boot juice and perpetuating the culture of silence that allows companies and capital owners to pit workers against one another
I never said anything about protecting the company that fired you. I have no idea where you got that. My point was that if you do something that proves to potential employers that you’re going to cry on social media every time your unhappy about anything, it means they’re going to be much less likely to hire you
Sounds like it is a good tactic for them to dodge future shitty employers
I get both sides of the argument here. I think we need to have this big reaction because companies have held so much power over employees for so long - I’ll avoid ranting about worker-owned cooperatives here - but the past few years I’ve surprised myself by moving into a bit of a “slippery slope” camp with these things. Not to say it shouldn’t happen, but that we need to be prepared for the follow-up.
Hopefully related example, in education: There were some really big push backs recently where I am over bad treatment of the students in highschool, all legit. The school board ignored it for a long time, it got bad, they finally took it seriously. Then they overcorrected and stopped believing teachers at all and started jumping straight to firing at almost any complaint. Then students started weaponizing complaints, and now teachers are getting fired for trying to enforce deadlines and for giving low marks because students are complaining about how deadlines, grades, and meeting grading requirements are detrimental to mental health and well-being, and now there are a bunch of these students from this board in my university classes failing hard and filing complaints about courses being too difficult and other things despite them having glowing reviews just a few years prior.
I guess what I’m getting at: I think it’s fair for someone to choose not to hire people like this because it’s possible that the people willing to stand up and make an important fuss over these things might not know where the line stands between a worthwhile complaint and a non-worthwhile one, and might make a company look badexternally even though it’s doing good internally, just not to someone new to the workforce’s expectations.
I also think it’s fair to go the opposite direction, because ultimately we need major change in the way companies/everything are structured that lead to these nasty layoffs and poor conditions and if someone does raise issues where there aren’t, hopefully we are prepared enough and in the right enough to take it seriously, but weather it and act in everyone’s best interests.
Of course you would as you wouldn’t want to hire someone that stands up for themselves. Seems you’d just want to hire punching bags aye.
I’m a hiring manager. I have trouble even imagining the kind of person that would just throw a lead into the trash because of a recording of them getting fired. Who does that? What do you possibly have to gain by doing that? Because you have a lot to lose, especially if that candidate got far enough in the process for you to be researching their background. Nobody gets that far unless they are a very good fit.
Not because they recorded it, though that’s bad, but because they did something idiotic to follow a trend. I don’t need that energy on my team.
So, a demi-god in rl then.
No, I avoid management like the plague these days