Has your office/company laid people off? PART 6 (New Poll Options!)

[r3ccOs]

Originally posted by killramos
lolwut?

Where did you hear that nonsense.

I don't think he's wrong... if you are laid off because the role no longer exists, you are entitled to the position in the case it again is available...

the premise of "laid off" is intended to indicate no more work for that position rather than performed out or "you cost too much"

getting around this... adjustment to role profiles and calling them something else, and reposting

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by r3ccOs
I don't think he's wrong... if you are laid off because the role no longer exists, you are entitled to the position in the case it again is available...

the premise of "laid off" is intended to indicate no more work for that position rather than performed out or "you cost too much"

getting around this... adjustment to role profiles and calling them something else, and reposting

This is the way I understood it as well.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by sabad66
The company i work for (big producer) has a clause in the severence contract that says you can never work there in the future, either as an employee or contractor.

Does that apply for both termination for cause and for layoff due to lack of work? It seems odd that it would apply to both situations since you were obviously good enough to work there before and if you left on terms not related to performance, why would they not want you back.


As for the Spikers situation, I don't think it's even a loophole. They laid off positions A and B, then positions C and D retired. They can't go out and try to immediately fill A and B; but since C and D were not laid off, they can fill them right away. I think there is a time frame buried in Employment Standards, but can't dig it up now.

[kaput]

.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by FraserB


Does that apply for both termination for cause and for layoff due to lack of work? It seems odd that it would apply to both situations since you were obviously good enough to work there before and if you left on terms not related to performance, why would they not want you back.


As for the Spikers situation, I don't think it's even a loophole. They laid off positions A and B, then positions C and D retired. They can't go out and try to immediately fill A and B; but since C and D were not laid off, they can fill them right away. I think there is a time frame buried in Employment Standards, but can't dig it up now.

Not too sure about termination as I don't know anyone who has been fired, but definitely for layoff/elimination of the job

To your point about "good enough to work there before", arguably that no longer applies because we give people anywhere from 30-60 days to find another job internally before you're officially laid off (as opposed to laying people off and walking them Out the door). So maybe they figure if you weren't able to network your way into finding a new role then not the type of employee they want to see even if things pick up

Somewhat harsh but that's the way she goes.

[dirtsniffer]

hasnt the area around midland been blowing up for years?

[killramos]

Originally posted by r3ccOs


I don't think he's wrong... if you are laid off because the role no longer exists, you are entitled to the position in the case it again is available...

the premise of "laid off" is intended to indicate no more work for that position rather than performed out or "you cost too much"

getting around this... adjustment to role profiles and calling them something else, and reposting

Interesting, sounds pretty well entirely unenforceable considering a "role" can be nebulous and vary day to day based on an organizations whims.

[SkiBum5.0]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
hasnt the area around midland been blowing up for years?

It's been a strong producing area for many years - it's a known commodity. Right now, it's the most active play in North America.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by killramos


Interesting, sounds pretty well entirely unenforceable considering a "role" can be nebulous and vary day to day based on an organizations whims.

Ever heard of "constructive dismissal"? This falls into this category. Again, why fight it if they want you gone and are willing to give you a good chunk of change? Your severance is void if you sue and you usually sign a NDA.

Take your chances with lawyers charging $400-$500/h? Burn through $60k-$100k pretty quick.

[suntan]

Originally posted by sabad66

Not too sure about termination as I don't know anyone who has been fired, but definitely for layoff/elimination of the job

To your point about "good enough to work there before", arguably that no longer applies because we give people anywhere from 30-60 days to find another job internally before you're officially laid off (as opposed to laying people off and walking them Out the door). So maybe they figure if you weren't able to network your way into finding a new role then not the type of employee they want to see even if things pick up

Somewhat harsh but that's the way she goes.

The clause exists, but I do know people that have come back there.

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by suntan
The clause exists, but I do know people that have come back there.

Yah I do too. Assuming we are talking about Shell.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by FraserB
It seems odd that it would apply to both situations since you were obviously good enough to work there before and if you left on terms not related to performance, why would they not want you back.

I can understand it as a blanket rule since it's a global company with so many pissed off ex-employees. This is a way to make sure they don't come back via some connections.

I am sure there will be exceptions but the manager hiring you back probably have to put his/her career on the line to pull that off.

Originally posted by suntan
The clause exists, but I do know people that have come back there.

Originally posted by lasimmon


Yah I do too. Assuming we are talking about Shell.

I'm sure we all know where sabad66 works as much as he doesn't want the internet to know.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by suntan
The clause exists, but I do know people that have come back there.

Originally posted by lasimmon


Yah I do too. Assuming we are talking about Shell.

Of course anything is possible if you are valuable/wanted enough, just saying it exists in the signed severance paperwork.

I'd be curious if other companies do something similar

[suntan]

From what I've heard, it seems unique.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by suntan
From what I've heard, it seems unique.

It is, Shell is still the only place I have heard has that clause in there. And I was also an exception to that clause for a while.

[killramos]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Ever heard of "constructive dismissal"? This falls into this category. Again, why fight it if they want you gone and are willing to give you a good chunk of change? Your severance is void if you sue and you usually sign a NDA.

Take your chances with lawyers charging $400-$500/h? Burn through $60k-$100k pretty quick.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing on this.

My point was along the lines of if you are laid off ( packaged ) and then they hire someone to replace you for the "same" role then that statute is likely effectively unenforceable on the company and nothing will come of you making a stink ( including legal action ) about it.

GL pulling off a genuine constructive dismissal suit unless you have a management contract worth enough to fight over.

[spikerS]

I know with us, when you leave, HR asks your manager about your performance and such. HR then makes a note on your file if you are rehire-able or not.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by killramos


I'm not sure we are disagreeing on this.

My point was along the lines of if you are laid off ( packaged ) and then they hire someone to replace you for the "same" role then that statute is likely effectively unenforceable on the company and nothing will come of you making a stink ( including legal action ) about it.

GL pulling off a genuine constructive dismissal suit unless you have a management contract worth enough to fight over.

Ah, I understand, yes, I think we do agree.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Xtrema



I'm sure we all know where sabad66 works as much as he doesn't want the internet to know.

cat's out of the bag! not a big deal though otherwise i wouldn't have mentioned any details that make it blatantly obvious. i think there's at least a few more of us on this site too. suntan's wife too apparently

[bjstare]

Well, I got a new job. Back to work Monday. Haven't even gotten an EI payment yet, basically just a paid vacation from my previous employer.

Pretty pumped, got more money and increased responsibility. Getting laid off was a fantastic career move apparently.

edit: It was all thanks to networking. Applying for jobs didn't produce any callbacks for me, coffee meetings were what got it done. For anyone that's still looking, go have coffee or beers with anyone you've worked with/for that you have a decent relationship with.