News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by dghughes on Sunday April 16, 2017 @05:23PM (#14127600)
After 33 years in my trade over 14 years at the most recent place I was let go. Not fired not laid off just quietly let go. I suspect it is due to my age I'm 48 and was told I wasn't being considered since I am " not the right fit".
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by WrtCdEvrydy on Sunday April 16, 2017 @05:46PM (#14127718)
> over 14 years at the most recent place

That's the issue. You made a mistake believing there is such a thing as "loyalty". Move every 2-3 years to get "raises" and fuck everyone else, no company has any loyalty to you.

Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by sramkrishna on Sunday April 16, 2017 @10:22PM (#14128849)
agreed. I was at my last job for 20 years. From here on in, I'll try to not stay so long in one place. But I stayed mostly because I was friends with everyone. I was paid well enough, but work was fun.
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by kafkaesq on Sunday April 16, 2017 @08:44PM (#14128501)
Not fired not laid off just quietly let go.

Very sorry to hear. But it's either one or the other, by definition. And if it doesn't meet the strict legal definition of a "layoff" -- that means you were fired. (No matter whether they called is "separated", or "we're ending your work here" -- it's all the same thing).

Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by fencepost on Sunday April 16, 2017 @08:31PM (#14128444)
Two axes: Voluntary/involuntary and for cause/no cause

Based on the above, you get "resigned before being fired," "quit," "fired," or "laid off/let go." Three of those likely also mean "may not be eligible for unemployment."

Size of the action isn't really relevant except that large actions are generally in the last cell even it they're being used to clear underperforming people.

Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by santaclaus on Sunday April 16, 2017 @06:09PM (#14127830)
> Not fired not laid off just quietly let go.

How does that work, logistically?

Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by dghughes on Monday April 17, 2017 @10:27PM (#14136056)
That's the fun I now have to explain it on my resume and in interviews.

I received severance so I was not fired otherwise no severance. I asked HR "So then I'm laid off?" but was told no it's because I was not the right fit. My job is or was very specific and I live in a small town with elderly sick parents so moving is not an option for me.

All my performance reviews were perfect great comments from my manager and I got along with all the staff. I was struggling to fit my tasks into a workday cut in half to four hours but I had the same duties as I did in an eight hour day. Which used to be done by three people!

Backstory I was officially an employee of the head office but worked in a satellite office but I wasn't an employee of the satellite office. The satellite office said they wanted to hire their own for the job I was doing and the head office said they had no job for me. Poof! Job gone. But the weird part is I was an employee of the satellite office for six years then "moved" to become a head office employee but my desk never moved I was always in the same place, same office, same building.

Then I see my job advertised one week later, I was barred from setting foot on the premises and was also told not to apply since I was "not the right fit", a direct quote from HR.

Sorry for the rant it just spilled out. I'm getting better no more panic attacks and I can breathe better. Onward and upward.

Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by anigbrowl on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:56PM (#14128761)
I think he means there wasn't a bunch of layoffs where a whole department was let go or the company had fallen on hard times and needed to drastically cut the workforce. So the gp was laid off it was personal rather than structural. You could say that technically the person was fired without cause but 'fired' and 'laid off' don't have any legal meaning, an employment lawyer would likely just say the person's employment was terminated without cause.
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by toomuchtodo on Sunday April 16, 2017 @07:22PM (#14128159)
"Your last day will be X."
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by slededit on Sunday April 16, 2017 @07:43PM (#14128253)
Isn't that getting fired?
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by toomuchtodo on Sunday April 16, 2017 @07:48PM (#14128282)
Getting fired usually involves cause being shown.
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by Markoff on Monday April 17, 2017 @08:37AM (#14130495)
he could sign new fixed term contract if they really wanted to avoid laying off
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by sramkrishna on Sunday April 16, 2017 @10:21PM (#14128845)
I'm the same age, and I was let go too. Corporate did a death by database search and got rid of a lot of people. I rather not speculate the reasons.. :)
Re:Older Workers Challenge Firms’ Aggressive Pursuit of the ... by dominotw on Sunday April 16, 2017 @08:06PM (#14128359)
same thing happened last week to one of my coworkers who is in his late 40's . If one is making significantly more money and drawing more benefits than your lowest paid peer then they should be prepared to be let go any moment.