General Etiquette > All In A Day's Work

Is this mean? Or do I just not know enough. I feel bad for him

<< < (2/9) > >>

LilacRosey:
I think he's in information systems? I work in another area very different so I'm not famaliar. I feel better though thank you. I guess I just didnt undertsand the issues so well. I don't realize there were effects beyond what happened. I'm glad I was wrong because I really do love my brother!, LilacRosey

YummyMummy66:
Whether or not the man just had a kid should not enter into this equation.

He did a poor job for his employer.  He was laid off.  He apparently hacked into his old work email to garner references, which he should not have done. 

I don't know if I would give any consequences to this as he is now laid off, but as an employer, probably at the most I would do is just delete that email account from my mainframe system. Problem solved.

Laid off employee should not or be allowed to use his previous work email account to garner references.

bopper:
Also keep in mind that usually people who get fired usually have had a chance to improve their performance or they have done something really bad.  So he most likely was very bad at his job.  But then you said "laid off" which usually means there is just too much work for the amount of people. In any case, they laid off either the worst performer or someone who they just don't have enough work for.  Most likely other people that work there have families too!   So if they laid him off, they may have given him some extra money to help out.  That is fairly normal, but not required.  So after they gave him the money (which was nice) he was still trying to use the company's email to either send email or use their contacts.  So if you think about it, he was not being very nice back!  Your brother probably feels like he did the best he could for this guy given that he was either a terrible worker or they just did not have enough work for him, and what does this guy try to do? Sneak back in to email!

peaches:
I'm puzzled why the  brother was discussing this situation with someone outside the company/business. Even if he didn't name the former employee, this is too much information IMO. It might be possible to recognize the person just by the details given. Since OP is not a decision maker at the business, I wonder why brother is discussing this with her.

Maybe he meant this as an object lesson in how not to behave if you've been laid off. Still, the example is so detailed that confidential information could be involved.

Sharnita:
Just to clarify, OP mentioned that this guy wad layed off which is quite a bit different from being fired, in my experience. We have also seen somebody in another thread who was willing to withond raises based on a lack of treats so even when somebody is fired I am not inclined to adsume the employee has been given all that many chances to improve.

I would think that if they want employees who are layed off to lose access to email they would cut off access to email. It sounds like there might have been a compny fail on followinf through with that if he still had access. Perhaps I am cynical but I eonder if part of the enthusiasm for enforcing this policy might.be to distract from somebody's failure to cut off this guy's access to begin with.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version