I’ve spent time on this blog both defending and mocking human resources (mostly deservedly though I may have been at times too harsh or too lenient).
If you’re looking for a defense of HR, today is not going to be your day.
Before you drop that letter in the mailbox, you better be okay with it
Something caught my eye on the front page of Reddit today. It is the story of a guy who was “double fired” (comments are not safe for work). The image of the offending letter and his response (which is safe for work) confirmed what I had feared when I read the headline: HR screwed up. Better yet, this was a Portland company so it immediately grabbed my interest.
A Short Interpretation Of Events
Based on the letter and the reading of the comments left by the original poster, here’s what likely took place:
He was fired on March 31st for not being a good fit for the position. It happens. Things aren’t working out, people are clashing in the workplace, managers want to get bailed out or employees are forcing the issue. Is that ideal? No. I would hope to sniff out a fit issue earlier than over two years into the employment relationship but perhaps it cropped up recently.
Two weeks after the initial termination, they send out this gem of a letter writing that if they weren’t already in the process of firing him for being a bad fit, they would have done it for bringing a pocket knife to work.
What triggered that letter? It could have been a manager mentioning something. Or maybe HR had found out about it earlier but just hadn’t responded until now.
My hunch (and it is only a hunch)? They got the claim information from when he filed for unemployment and realized he would likely be receiving benefits. Based on the timing of when Oregon sends those out to employers, that would be about the right timeframe. Of course, when you fire someone for bad fit, they can still receive unemployment. But if a person violates a company policy, no need to pay anything. So out comes this clumsy letter that has now been exposed to the internet at large. That situation, by the way, is giving them the most benefit of doubt too.
Issues At Play
There are a couple of issues that immediately popped into my head:
What purpose does the letter serve? – I don’t think this would change the ruling in an unemployment case at all. It is obvious what the final incident was that caused the discharge. And that incident would be eligible for unemployment. So if it isn’t for unemployment avoidance purposes, I have a hard time understanding what purpose this would serve.
Is a pocket knife even a weapon? – I don’t think it is but even if it were marginally considered one, could you imagine working for a place that would fire you immediately for bringing it to work? Well, I’m sure someone could imagine it but it is a pretty unrealistic standard. Certainly a pocket knife is different than a gun, brass knuckles or a flamethrower.
Is this a common occurrence elsewhere? – I could never imagine (nor have I ever) writing a letter quite like this post-termination. I’ve asked for property back. I’ve completed other forms when legally required to do so. I’ve never written a “if you hadn’t been fired for that, you certainly would have been fired for this.”
Who initiated this embarrassing letter? – Is this coming from a higher up person as an edict or is it coming from the director of HR? If my hunch is correct, I’d guess the director and let’s hope it was just an individual lapse of judgment rather than a company wide issue.
Save Yourself Some Headaches
The most maddening thing has to be that all of this could have been prevented pretty easily:
- Don’t send unnecessary letters to post-terminated employees – It seems simple, right? Obviously not. What was once a quiet termination is now a nice public mess thanks to one ill-advised letter to someone who has little to lose.
- Don’t try to get out of unemployment this way – I am having a hard time reading this as anything other than that. I can tell you with a pretty high certainty that a letter under these circumstances would do nothing to help your case. You didn’t fire the person for bringing a pocket knife to work. End of story.
- Can you say severance agreement (with a broad confidentiality statement)? – Because these folks obviously didn’t. You are cutting ties to this person, you probably won’t act as a recommendation for him and you didn’t get his signature on a page saying that he wouldn’t disclose the dumb things you did during the termination process?
- And if you refuse to do any of that… – At least make the premise of your letter make sense in case it does go public like this one. As it stands right now, a clear, well written letter would have reflected much better, even if you’re ultimately wrong in your judgment on the situation.
What are your thoughts on this? Have you ever seen anything like this? Any alternate explanations?
April 30, 2010 at 5:24 am
This is why I hate HR or at least the HR practioners that do stupid stuff like this. We (as a profession) need to do a better job of training ourselves how not to look like idiots for doing crap like this. Add that to the list of what we need to learn.
Pingback: Tweets that mention And We Wonder Why HR Gets A Bad Rap? | Rehaul by Lance Haun -- Topsy.com
April 30, 2010 at 6:52 am
Sounds like someone is attempting to establish grounds to challenge unemployment benefits.
April 30, 2010 at 7:31 am
Well that was just damn stupid. The field of HR does not need to be hated for this however, this is just a stupid decision, and many people make stupid decisions.
Sheryl, and the President of the company, David Porter, need to do some serious damage control on this one.
April 30, 2010 at 7:59 am
I always think that you are better off allowing them to receive unemployment. This way you don’t open yourself up for any lawsuits in the future and they go quietly into the good night. Of course I wouldn’t allow unemployment if there was a reason, but if you are terming an employee because your reason was that they weren’t a good fit for the position, then let them do unemployment. That is a loose reason at best and it wasn’t like they were addressing his performance issues anyways. If they did, then they would have termed him for cause.
April 30, 2010 at 8:13 am
Wow. I would love to see what’s going on inside the walls of HR at Pacific Interpreters now!
April 30, 2010 at 8:19 am
Ugh. That’s about as profound as I can get about this…
April 30, 2010 at 10:46 am
Sad! Reminds me of that Demotivation poster about how some people’s purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others. I think the accompanying photo was of the Titanic.
April 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm
One company’s bad fit is another man’s wrongful termination lawsuit. I think the Company was trying to prevent a lawsuit and hoped that if it had a better reason for termination then the one it used, the case would go away. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Courts grant do-overs.
Pingback: Tweets that mention And We Wonder Why HR Gets A Bad Rap? | Rehaul by Lance Haun -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Tweets that mention And We Wonder Why HR Gets A Bad Rap? | Rehaul by Lance Haun -- Topsy.com
May 2, 2010 at 7:08 am
I have always believed the purpose of any department, including HR, is to help with the Company’s bottom line. HR just does it differently than say sales or service. With that in mind, this HR person failed in her responsibilities. I would seriously reconsider working for an organization that appears vindictive to its employees. Why would anyone work in an environment that has no respect for the dignity and well being of an employee or former employee. Current employees must also be wondering if they will be treated the same way. In addition, what does this do to the reputation of the Company to its clients. I would hesitiate to do business with an organization that treats its employees that way.
So, good old HR, in one bonehead move will likely have cost the Company money from employee morale, employee attraction and customer loyalty. I wonder who really isn’t a good fit?
Pingback: The Recruiters Lounge » The Week In Recruiting (Reading the blogs, so you don’t have to…)
May 3, 2010 at 11:15 am
I would venture to guess that these two peices of communication were not sequential. Meaning-there must have been a reason for the ‘pocket knife’ letter–it would not just come out of the blue.
Employers do not decide who gets or who does not get unemployment benefits. We give the State the reasons for termination, they decide if it was wilfull and substantial enough to deny benefits. In today’s market, people are recieving benefits for involuntary terminations more than they have in the past as it is one of the last avenues to have at least some income coming in. Bringing a pocketknife to work, not taking out of your pocket during the day even to show someone, probably would not be seen as a willful act of misconduct meant to do harm to the company or employees and probably would have received benefits anyway.
I do agree, let the term reason be. No need to elaborate. No need to add to it. If it was not sufficient to terminate the employment before, it is not now.
There are a few exceptions, but they typically involve wrongful termination and are used to stop any continuing claims for monetary damages. For example, if the company learned he was a convicted sex offender and the job was working with chilren–but this was learned after the termination for fit–that would be a situation to use ‘if we didn’t term for x, we would have for y, so no, we will not rehire you, and your claim for damages ends as of the date of the learned conviction.”
May 3, 2010 at 11:49 am
The thought that the HR Director sealed the envelop and mailed that letter makes me shudder. Wow – for a moment I was speechless. On the other hand, I thought his response was on the money: a topic entirely irrelevant and not worth the paper it was printed on. Hilarious and a point well made.
May 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
I just don’t get it, I really don’t get it.
I agree, the only plausible explanation is they were trying to avoid paying unemployment. But seriously, it’s not that big of a deal, and if you are that worried about paying unemployment benefits you shoudl have thoght about cause long before you actually fired the guy.
And anyone that calls them self an HR Professional would never do this.
By the way, can we talk about the awesome letter he wrote back. It was pretty weird but i gotta say, I loved it.
May 4, 2010 at 9:14 am
I could say a lot about this, but I think the following sums it up well enough.
Epic fail, HR.
May 4, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Every industry has people who make mistakes. I don’t believe this one situation can be generalized for all HR Professionals. However, given the current times I am sure more companies are finding loops holes to save money to survive? From another perspective sometimes HR is put in a position from President to complete such action and/or jeopardizes their job? What can be done to legally protect yourself and what strategies we can use to navigate other corporate drama! The follow up letter was a good laugh!
Pingback: SmartBlog on Workforce » This week’s most clicked
May 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
I have to agree with Greg (No relation) above. I’m not surprised or shocked at all. That is an all too common attitude in HR in my experience. As the Romans used to say, “Never grant power to those that love it too much.”
Too many companies like to proclaim that “Their employees are their most important asset,” “We take care of our employees so they can take care of our customers, etc.” and then pull stunts like the one related above.
I’ve found out the hard way that HR is all about my employers and their interests, not me or my welfare. I’ve been ‘stabbed’ by HR twice in a 30+ year career. As far as I’m concerned, no one at my employer (HR or not) is looking out for me. It’s sad and a bit frightening to have to feel this way, but it’s only common sense after my experiences and that of many others. I don’t feel that I can even trust EAP’s anymore.
Keep your slogans, folks. What you do speaks far louder than what you say.
May 10, 2010 at 3:49 pm
What was the rationale behind sending this ridiculous letter? This should have been something that was noted in his file (prior to termination) if it was a concern.. the HR director showed a very poor lack of judgement in sending this.
It truly made my Monday; it was funny as heck!!
May 12, 2010 at 9:43 am
This incident will go a long way in justifying why employees hate HR. I am one of almost 200 employees recently laid off by the human services and mental health agency of a southern state when this agency decided to close the acute short-term unit of a state hospital. Prior to these layoffs, all part-time staff were laid off in January. The HR director tried to intimidate these employees into signing statements that were resigning, not being separated. Many did refuse. They were also denied unemployment because they never received letters of separation. They were just told to go home and would not be scheduled for more work. The director told these employees that they were owed nothing and should be thankful the state had hired them. When this statement touched off a near riot, the director called the unemployment office and told them to deny any claims because the employees had exhibited violence in the workplace. When the largest state newspaper got wind of what happened and published a story, the HR director was fired and escorted off hospital grounds by security. There has been a lot of speculation on whether she acted on her own or on orders from the agency. When the next round of layoffs happened in April, affected employees were given letters of termination immediately. I won’t say we were treated fairly, but at least we were able to claim our unemployment.
January 26, 2012 at 10:07 am
Ironically, would you believe I was suspended from work subject to an investigation and also disciplinary most likely for having a small swiss army knife on my car keys. I use it for the purpose of opening letters, parcels and cutting string etc, I also regularly use the toothpick on it. I work in a business involved in recruitment, vocational training and apprenticeships. One of our main aims is to put people back into work. A solicitor and the police have both confirmed I am not breaking an civil law and there is nothing in my contract, however I am now looking at losing my very well paid career due to my multi tool knife, oh and this happened today on my birthday, NO JOKE!!!