Fired or laid off
- Thread starter std
- Start date
It is not exatcly
My question is what will happen if the company fires you (not lay off)? I make a difference
between lay off and fire. When a company lays someone off, it is not his fault.
When a company fires someone it is his fault. Is it the same
from post-GC point of view? Can the sponsoring company revoke the GC if it fires you?
My question is what will happen if the company fires you (not lay off)? I make a difference
between lay off and fire. When a company lays someone off, it is not his fault.
When a company fires someone it is his fault. Is it the same
from post-GC point of view? Can the sponsoring company revoke the GC if it fires you?
AmericanWannabe
Registered Users (C)
No Title
Baed upon my personal experiences, new employers
can not necessarily find out why you are fired.
References do not even bad mouth you.
In fact, I see fired people are climbing
in their career better than good performenced
guys because they always managed to get better
position after being fired while good guys
stay at their position forever
Baed upon my personal experiences, new employers
can not necessarily find out why you are fired.
References do not even bad mouth you.
In fact, I see fired people are climbing
in their career better than good performenced
guys because they always managed to get better
position after being fired while good guys
stay at their position forever
references
Since the original question has been answered and we are now discussing references, I figured that the following article may be of interest to you... enjoy!
A Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations - Robert J. Thornton
Letters of recommendation are becoming increasingly unreliable as a means of evaluating candidates for academic employment. The chief reason is that the contents are no longer strictly confidential. In all but the rarest of cases a letter is apt to be favorable, even when the writer knows the candidate is mediocre or unqualified. This is because the writer fears that the candidate may later exercise his legal right to read the letter, and perhaps even sue if the contents are not to his liking.
While abolishing the practice of requiring letters of recommendation may at first seem like a good idea, there is really no better way to get reliable information about a candidate\'s qualifications than to ask people who have had close contact with him or her. What is needed is a means by which the letter writer can convey unfavorable information in a way that the candidate cannot perceive as such.
To this end I have developed the Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous
Recommendations, or LIAR. Here are a few samples:
(1) To describe a candidate who is woefully inept: "I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever."
(2) To describe a candidate who is not particularly industrious: "In my opinion you would be very fortunate to get this person to work for you."
(3) To describe a candidate with lackluster credentials: "All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate or recommend him too highly."
(4) To describe an ex-employee who had difficulty getting along with his co-workers: "I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague of mine."
(5) To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the job would be better left unfilled: "I can assure you that no person would be better for the job."
(6) To describe a job applicant who is not worth further consideration: "I would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an offer of employment."
Any of the above may be used to offer a negative opinion of the personal qualities, work habits, or motivation of the candidate while allowing the candidate to believe that it is high praise. In any case the phrases are virtually litigation-proof.
Since the original question has been answered and we are now discussing references, I figured that the following article may be of interest to you... enjoy!
A Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations - Robert J. Thornton
Letters of recommendation are becoming increasingly unreliable as a means of evaluating candidates for academic employment. The chief reason is that the contents are no longer strictly confidential. In all but the rarest of cases a letter is apt to be favorable, even when the writer knows the candidate is mediocre or unqualified. This is because the writer fears that the candidate may later exercise his legal right to read the letter, and perhaps even sue if the contents are not to his liking.
While abolishing the practice of requiring letters of recommendation may at first seem like a good idea, there is really no better way to get reliable information about a candidate\'s qualifications than to ask people who have had close contact with him or her. What is needed is a means by which the letter writer can convey unfavorable information in a way that the candidate cannot perceive as such.
To this end I have developed the Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous
Recommendations, or LIAR. Here are a few samples:
(1) To describe a candidate who is woefully inept: "I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever."
(2) To describe a candidate who is not particularly industrious: "In my opinion you would be very fortunate to get this person to work for you."
(3) To describe a candidate with lackluster credentials: "All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate or recommend him too highly."
(4) To describe an ex-employee who had difficulty getting along with his co-workers: "I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague of mine."
(5) To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the job would be better left unfilled: "I can assure you that no person would be better for the job."
(6) To describe a job applicant who is not worth further consideration: "I would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an offer of employment."
Any of the above may be used to offer a negative opinion of the personal qualities, work habits, or motivation of the candidate while allowing the candidate to believe that it is high praise. In any case the phrases are virtually litigation-proof.
Two sides of the coin or two ends of the stick?
The coin always has two sides. How about references that the employees give to their ex-boss or ex-company? Have you heard something like that? If the new company could ask for references, contact my ex-boss, check my background and civil records, I should be able to do the same. They want to know who will work for them and I want to know who I will work for. It that fair? So, if they say that they need references, I will say "okay, no problem" - I need references from your ex-employees and current customers.
The coin always has two sides. How about references that the employees give to their ex-boss or ex-company? Have you heard something like that? If the new company could ask for references, contact my ex-boss, check my background and civil records, I should be able to do the same. They want to know who will work for them and I want to know who I will work for. It that fair? So, if they say that they need references, I will say "okay, no problem" - I need references from your ex-employees and current customers.
born_to_win
Registered Users (C)
Checking references is a piece of crap
I had a peer/friend who worked with me in same project. He was fired after 4 weeks. he was asked references, when he was looking for jobs. I gave very good references and later he got job.
So, i am sure that, if i gave a bad reference he will never get job. But my question is why you need references? People do make mistakes and they can work hard.
I had a peer/friend who worked with me in same project. He was fired after 4 weeks. he was asked references, when he was looking for jobs. I gave very good references and later he got job.
So, i am sure that, if i gave a bad reference he will never get job. But my question is why you need references? People do make mistakes and they can work hard.
This sounds nasty
So, it seems that an ex-employer could bad mouth your profecional qualities on the phone
(say because you have stolen his girlfriend) and you could do nothing? Nobody, will be able
to prove that he lies since it will be confidential phone call between your ex- and new boss.
So, it seems that an ex-employer could bad mouth your profecional qualities on the phone
(say because you have stolen his girlfriend) and you could do nothing? Nobody, will be able
to prove that he lies since it will be confidential phone call between your ex- and new boss.
No Title
Of course this discussion has nothing to do with the GC. It all boils down to that you have to be a good professional as much as possible whenever possible. I am not saying that you should take abuse for years nor that you should lie in other people\'s face about your opinion of them just to make sure that they will not screw you. As in all things there is a fine line one has to walk.
The problem with the GC is that it tips the balance. Most people will be more servile and take abuse for the duration of the processing and then there is a backslash. I am amazed to see how people are looking at quiting their employer on the day of their Green Card approval. That\'s lots of negative energy that reflects back on them selves one way or another. Nowadays your work history is scrutinized very closely.
Also bear in mind that recommendations are just one of the factor in the interview process. You have to minimize your dependency on subjective references by emphasizing other tangible aspects that can be verified: education, projects you have worked on, publications if any. If your work did not produce yet tangible results that can be verified then you are in trouble. You should try to focus on these things by switching projects, publishing papers or a web site, going to school. If you cannot come up with objective facts, why do you blame the employer for relying on subjective ones?
Just my thoughts.
Of course this discussion has nothing to do with the GC. It all boils down to that you have to be a good professional as much as possible whenever possible. I am not saying that you should take abuse for years nor that you should lie in other people\'s face about your opinion of them just to make sure that they will not screw you. As in all things there is a fine line one has to walk.
The problem with the GC is that it tips the balance. Most people will be more servile and take abuse for the duration of the processing and then there is a backslash. I am amazed to see how people are looking at quiting their employer on the day of their Green Card approval. That\'s lots of negative energy that reflects back on them selves one way or another. Nowadays your work history is scrutinized very closely.
Also bear in mind that recommendations are just one of the factor in the interview process. You have to minimize your dependency on subjective references by emphasizing other tangible aspects that can be verified: education, projects you have worked on, publications if any. If your work did not produce yet tangible results that can be verified then you are in trouble. You should try to focus on these things by switching projects, publishing papers or a web site, going to school. If you cannot come up with objective facts, why do you blame the employer for relying on subjective ones?
Just my thoughts.
AmericanWannabe
Registered Users (C)
No Title
Well, I see a lot of you post a lot during worktime.
What if we get fired for spedning too much time
on the internet on non-work-related stuff?
Will any potential new employer be scared off
from hiring us?
During good times a few years ago, I often hear
people brag like this:"Which idiots nowadays
want to work in a company that bans teh private
use of the internet such as trading stock?". With
the present recession going on, no job seekers would
be that picky.
Well, I see a lot of you post a lot during worktime.
What if we get fired for spedning too much time
on the internet on non-work-related stuff?
Will any potential new employer be scared off
from hiring us?
During good times a few years ago, I often hear
people brag like this:"Which idiots nowadays
want to work in a company that bans teh private
use of the internet such as trading stock?". With
the present recession going on, no job seekers would
be that picky.