Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluGill | Hacker News Reader

The more important thing it does though is remove culpability from the employee who doesn't have a job anymore. That person will be looking for a job (we assume, perhaps a few will just retire or something else). The companies they apply at will want to know why they no longer work at Amazon - there is a big difference between "I was sexually harassing my coworkers" (pick a crime, sexual harassment seems to be the big one these days), and "Amazon decided they didn't need my job done any more".

View on HN

That's why "layoff" is the right word to use. It makes it clear that it was Amazon's decision and not through any direct fault of the employee.

Yes. Job loss is what the employee experiences, not the employer.

The owner of the employer company just experienced a vacation in space, renting an entire European country for a wedding, etc.

Some employees are going to experience losing their housing. Losing their health benefits while sick. Children will be moved from their friends/schools. Some will lose their careers as they won't find new related work quick enough and will have to take whatever they can get for their next job.

While the owner vacations in space for fun.

Those are unrelated, the same would happen regardless if it was owned by millions via their pension plans or a few billionaires, both are equally greedy and immediately move their investments for 1% higher returns, the CEO's at these companies are servants to that inhuman level of greed that comes from dissociated masses of people being owners.

And said greed (by both founder and shareholders) produced a company that so enriched them BY BEING FAVORED BY BILLIONS(!) of customers worldwide to provide access to range goods with a convenience, price, and speed experienced only by the wealthy just a few years earlier :).

Ugh, Capitalism.

Yes the wealthy, famous for their love of cheap 'from China to the landfill' goods and life risking fake fuses, counterfeit Calvin Klein underwear, and supplements spiked with hidden drugs or that are just plain toxic.

Ugh capitalism is right.

https://www.cspi.org/article/fda-alert-supplements-amazon-po... https://www.consumerreports.org/health/fda-finds-hidden-drug... https://kagi.com/search?q=amazon+fake+fuses

I am confuse. I don't know how much Amazon cares about what's sold on their site (probably more than eBay?), but they have most liberal return policy on the internet, and from the one seller I've personally met, they're hard on vendors.

Bad products and services exists in all markets, choice is the cure.

Is it Amazon branded products your upset with? I guess don't buy them? I genuinely do not understand your argument.

Funny, every company prior to around 2010 the owners felt the pain of the employees and were seen as at least partially human. Sure post 2010 an anti-societal cohesion element of 'maximum extraction now' has taken over the ownership and political classes trying to speedrun societal breakdown/collapse, but that was not the norm or acceptable (you would have even be ostracized from the ownership/capital class) for all of my life prior to 2010.

No employer is going to discuss reasons for a termination. Too much potential liability.

Most all will answer whether or not it was "with cause" if someone calls them up, though? Specifically because they have to if the caller is about unemployment, no?

I'm not in HR but as I understand it most companies will not say anything other than confirming dates of employment.

They won't confirm if the termination was the choice of the employee or the company? Doesn't that have implications for unemployment benefits?

Most employers won't confirm the reason for termination with random callers who are verifying employment history.

Unemployment insurance is a bit different. When a former employee files for unemployment benefits then the state will notify the last employer, and that employer can dispute the claim if the termination was for cause. In practice many employers don't dispute unemployment claims even for employees whom they terminated for performance reasons because it's not worth the hassle.

Makes sense.

The rate that employers pay for unemployment insurance is tied to the number of claims. While they wouldn't dispute in bulk for layoffs, it is worth the hassle when it's for cause.

If your talking about employment verification, no they don't say why. Just confirm dates of employment.

If you get fired you can lie about it. No one can find out.

I confess this surprises me. I didn't think they had to give specific details, but I thought they had to at least confirm whose decision it was for the termination.

In most cases when a company wants to fire someone they will first pull them into an office and tell them they are allowed to submit their resignation right now. If this happens it is normally best for you to accept that offer as then they will say you left in good standing. At least this way you can find a new job.

There is the possible exception that you already have enough evidence that you were going to sue them anyway, then you can take that you were fired to your lawyer (you should already have a lawyer and gotten their advice on the situation). However I don't think this has ever been the case for anyone.

The other exception is when the police are there and will arrest you as part of firing you. I'm not aware of this happening, but it seems like it probably has at some point (like once per decade across all jobs in the world)

I'm fine with the idea that they won't share specifically that they fired someone for a specific reason. The surprising part, to me, is that they can't share if it was company's decision to end the relationship. My understanding was that if you just up and quit, then you don't qualify for unemployment benefits.

And I hasten to add that I'm fine being wrong on this point. Surprise can last a bit, though. :D

What they tell unemployment can be different from random "companies". Large companies have a policy of only given dates worked and "left in good standing" (or rarely not - but not is something they can be sued for and so rarely given because best case it will cost them half a million in lawyers fees if they win in court)

Makes perfect sense.

No, don’t resign instead of getting terminated. The reason they offer that is gets them off the hook for unemployment and makes any lawsuit harder. It’s 100% upside to company.

No one is going to know you got fired, if they call the company, it’s just dates and title, probably say in good standing.

It’s in old company best interest for you to get a new job because jobless people start talking to lawyers when they get desperate.

> makes any lawsuit harder. It’s 100% upside to company.

That is why they do it. However you still should accept the offer unless you are going to sue them which most are not. Just find a new job and move on. Try to do better.

> No one is going to know you got fired, if they call the company, it’s just dates and title, probably say in good standing.

The good standing is not something you want to risk. They have the ability to say not in good standing and might even have the obligation to say that to some people (depending on local laws, but if it wasn't in good standing it is at least unethical to say it was). By resigning first everyone agrees that it was in good standing and you all move on (even though you are clearly cutting the line).

Again, this assumes that like most people you won't be suing. Likely you know you screwed up (though perhaps you don't agree it is bad enough to be fired). For most it just isn't worth trying to fight it out. If you are an exception than by all means refuse - but be prepared for the consequences.

Companies rarely answer "Eligible for rehire" or "Departed in Good Standing" because that's lawsuit bait, at least in the United States. Companies don't answer questions about your employment because companies have gotten sued and lost unless they have clear evidence.

Worrying about company asking "Good standing" is like when Elementary Teacher talking about your permanent record. It does not exist.

I should find it more amusing than I do that I largely still fall for stuff like the permanent record idea. I definitely fell for it, though.

>No, don’t resign instead of getting terminated. The reason they offer that is gets them off the hook for unemployment and makes any lawsuit harder. It’s 100% upside to company.

Depends on whether they're offering something, otherwise yeah it's worse for you unless you suspect they have evidence of you embezzling company funds or something.

Companies don't have to answer any questions about your employment, they are just nice about it.

Whose decision could reveal something about employee and if employee thinks it's bullshit, that's defamation lawsuit possibility. I even know companies who bosses talk good about people they have fired because having ex-employee stew is not good. Get them a new job and move on.

When employers do a reference check, the reference has a choice of:

1) Sticking to the legally safe answer of only confirming dates

2) Confirm dates and share a few anecdotes about how the person was good to work with

If a previous employer chooses only to confirm dates, and refuses to answer any other questions, it's often a way of signaling something bad went down but you can't talk about it.

That doesn't mean the hiring manager can't go through informal backchannels to find out.

Ehh I got fired once, the new hiring manager would have to know the manager I reported to be able to find out. I actually had a different manager at the same company ask me if I was interested in coming back becasue he didn't know a different manager fired me.

You need to be memorable enough too.

Backchanel is not really a real concern unless you did something really fucked up.

Otherwise who do you think knows?

It depends. If you're in a niche industry/specialization then people might know each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com