I wholeheartedly disagree that that is the "relevent question." The negative impact of a firing, whether it be to the employee, the employer, or both (as is almost always the case), is straying from the point.
You're right -- this is where we disagree.
I see keeping a dynamic balance between the freedom and security of both parties, the employer and the employee, to insure the liberty and justice of both parties, of paramount importance in resolving this obvious conflict.
This holds political bias at bay.
The point, I think, was whether an employer should have the right to release an employee without a stated reason- which boils down to "who owns the job?" Is it the employee's job, or the employers job? The job ALWAYS belongs to the company that created it. And that company can replace the person holding the position, or delete the position they created, without the input of the employee, or without having to explain to the employee why they are doing so- because it is the company's job. It belongs to the company. It is the property of the company.
Your point of reference -- who
owns it -- is clearly libertarian. Here, your political persuasion calibrates your perspective.
If everyone with a preconceived ideological political persuasion did that, we'd never agree on a great method of conflict resolution .. and, come to think of it, they don't all agree, do they?!
Perhaps. The conversation would probably go like this. "Unfortunately, we are letting you go. Good luck in your further endeavors." That could be contrued as either a lay off or a firing. The result would be exactly the same. The employee would no longer work for the company and they would be entitled to UI benefits. At the point that a termination occurs (and a layoff is a termination) the reason no longer matters unless the company has standing to dispute the UI benefits.
I'm thinking you might be surprised how many workers don't know this, that being given no reason for a dismissal is tantamount to being laid off.
If the employee is truly being laid-off, the employee should just be told that clearly and explictly.
If the employee is not being laid-off, the employee should be told that too, clearly and explicitly.
Such eliminates the confusion that would otherwise be possibly caused.
Why wouldn't they file for the benefits if the company did not provide a reason? If there was no reason, lathey should go get their benefits. If it was a lay off, they should go get their benefits. The only way a reasonable person would not pursue the benefits is if they know, already, what the reason for the termination was, even if it wasn't explicitly stated. A person, for instance, may have had several run ins with their supervisor regarding their job performance. It may have been that at the last meeting, the supervisor informed the employee that if their performance did not improve, they would be released. When the termination happens, whether the separation notice gives the reason or not, the employee KNEW the reason, and therefore might not waste their time trying to collect UI.
Many, many workers simply don't know the "rules" about no-reason-given dismissals meaning laid-off.
Companies that don't tell people they've been laid off are simply hoping the worker is oblivious on the matter, as that saves the company an increase in their UI payments.
As to the employee "already knowing" what the reason was for their dismissal, I don't think it's fair for the employee to have to be a mind-reader even if there has been previous inter-personnel conflict. Some of that conflict could have been triggered by the known spectre of pending layoffs.
We can both create plausible situations to account for dismissals.
But that doesn't excuse against the need for clearly stated accurate reasons given at the time of the dismissal.
Disgruntled terminated employees have a tendency to be angry. If you give them a reason, it may just be that they try to generate "witnesses" within your office, with the intention of attempting to prove that the reason you gave was invalid. For whatever reason, you, as the employer, decided their services were no longer needed. Why would you create this atmosphere of hostility within your company, opening the basis for your decision up for discussion? There is no more discussion needed. They may also, perhaps if they are a minority, attempt to turn a firing for poor performance into a discrimination case, completely lacking in merit, but time consuming and expensive just the same.
The manager scenario you're presenting here is one where the manager purposely withholds accurate information out of fear that the accurate information in the hands of the dismissed employee will come back to harm the company.
If there is genuine concern about the specific employee, then the right thing to do is to call in law enforcement during the termination, issue a restraining order, etc.
But if there is simply concern that the dismissed employee is going to talk with other employees afterward about the truth of why the employee was fired, or that the employee would file a wrongful termination suit based on discrimination of a type, I would contend that is codependently over-controlling in violation of justice for the employee to withhold accurate information from the employee as to the reason(s) the employee was dismissed.
Though I would understand the manager's concern, the manager's withholding of a reason is still subversion of justice for the employee.
People are going to talk, and if the dismissed employee has friends at the company who "know" why the employee was dismissed, the company is at greater risk from these people who can fire up a storm of controversy than if they just tell the employee the truth and live with it.
Thus it behooves a company manager to treat employees fairly while they're there, to not discriminate, to not misconstrue.
That fair behavior greatly lowers the risk of a post-dismissal repercussion.
If you choose to fill out the "reason" section on the separation notice, you better make sure you list ALL the reasons. Not just one. Because even though you are not required to fill it out, if you DO fill it out, you are locked into that being ALL of the information. You can't decide later that there were also other reasons. It just isn't worth it to provide a formal reason.
Yes, I can understand where the company might be afraid that someone might object to the reason(s) given for dismissal.
Sometimes, however, it is simply best for all parties that they let go of over-controlling behavior and simply let conflicts happen rather than withhold information justly owed the dismissed employee.
If a company is afraid of truthful dialogue, though there may be exceptional reasons to bring law enforcement in during a dismissal, for the most part a company's fear is simply that they might get caught doing something wrong.
