Need Advice: Unethical Employer & Termination

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by WCan_Kid

I always assume that any references put forward by a potential new hire are going to be friends of theirs ...

References are extremely important and valued. Providing phony references will not help you in industries where knowledge, reputation and experience are important to the employer and where reference checkers can easily figure it out.

More often than not, candidates avoid providing references that could be damaging due to their own performance issues or conflicts at a former workplace. In these cases, they try providing "side" references from people they've worked with while employed (suppliers, consultants, contractors, lawyers, clients, customers etc.). HR does their initial reference checks usually and give their snapshot. I always call the references provided as well and ask questions that I need to ask. If something feels fishy, I ask a candidate for permission to call their former manager.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

While I imagine the opinions of individual investors will vary, overall there doesn’t seem to be much concern amongst investors regarding company ethics(or a lack thereof) when it comes to the treatment of employees when you consider how some publicly traded company’s operate.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Nike had to fix their sweatshop image after their stock plummeted. Investors clearly didn't stand for unethical treatment in that case.

Do you have any examples of this behavior?

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

References are extremely important and valued. Providing phony references will not help you in industries where knowledge, reputation and experience are important to the employer and where reference checkers can easily figure it out.

More often than not, candidates avoid providing references that could be damaging due to their own performance issues or conflicts at a former workplace. In these cases, they try providing "side" references from people they've worked with while employed (suppliers, consultants, contractors, lawyers, clients, customers etc.). HR does their initial reference checks usually and give their snapshot. I always call the references provided as well and ask questions that I need to ask. If something feels fishy, I ask a candidate for permission to call their former manager.

Who said anything about phony? Friendly doesn't necessarily mean fake, but would you offer a potential employer the name of someone who wouldn't give you a positive reference?
And when you call that former manager, you're going to get "Yes, that individual worked for this company during that time frame." You can ask all the questions you want, but most employers won't, or shouldn't at least, say any more than that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I'm not sure what you mean here. Nike had to fix their sweatshop image after their stock plummeted. Investors clearly didn't stand for unethical treatment in that case.

I’d argue the consumer market boycotts were a much bigger factor than the shareholders in this example. What would the shareholders have used to persuade Nike? “Stop this or we’ll sell our shares which have plummeted?”

Do you have any examples of this behavior?

There are a number of companies that people continue to invest in despite their history of questionable business practices. This isnt to suggest that no investors care or that investors throw all ethics out the window, but there is evidence to suggest that overall it is not a major concern among many investors.

To answer your question, it would really depend on what you consider to be poor treatment or a lack of ethics. For myself, some examples would be Nike(as you mentioned), Walmart, McDonald’s etc... As well as companies that eliminate jobs through mergers. The grocery and retail industries in general is a great example of profits over ethics. When sobey’s bought Safeway Canada, there were job losses, but people continue to invest in those companies. Same thing with the Loblaws acquisition of shoppers, but the shareholders approved of it because it made their shares more valuable. What message did the shareholders send in response to the joe fresh factory collapse in Bangladesh? Their stocks didn’t plummet, and I don’t recall hearing of there being a rush of investors selling their stocks in Loblaws.

https://www.google.ca/amp/business.f...pse-loblaw/amp
This article on the joe fresh factory tragedy demonstrates how despite a long history of unethical business practices, publicly traded companies have opted to for the most part maintain their current practices while they internally “fix” the issue. It also speaks of Walmart shareholders voting 50-1 against implementing policies aimed at improving workplace safety in their foreign facilities after a fire in a garment factory.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How do we know that the friend is underqualified?

Maybe the friend adds tremendous value.

I've worked with the person before at the organization and within the industry. I was there when the person hired the current GM.

My position was brand new and created specifically for me. It is also one that can be quantified externally. After doing and developing it for 2 years there is, frankly, nobody more qualified than myself to perform the duties. I actually wrote the job description myself.

This, and witnessing the external quality, I can say with absolute confidence this person is objectively less qualified than myself. For the organization and members sake the person better grow into the role.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Yamer, my advice to you from a long experience - let it go and don't waste your life on petty grievances. Unless you stand to lose contract money that you believe you've earned, it's not worth it, period. And based on your preamble, you don't. It will ONLY make you feel worse. Guaranteed. Move on.

There's one thing that I would suggest you do: call your former GM and in a friendly manner ask him directly if a) you could give his name as a reference and b) if you should worry about giving his name as a reference? Don't bring up the new hiring, don't question your lay-off, don't ask for explanations or reasons. Just secure a good reference. 9 out of 10, you will get it, if for no other reason than guilt feeling he may have over letting you go and free up space to hire a relative.

Best of luck to you.

Due to the way my termination was handled I was already on the alert that something sinister was going on. I secured a basic letter of reference from the GM shortly afterwards, just in case.

I have listed the person as a reference when it is required (I have other references from my time there, thank Xenu), but I can't control what they may or may not say. This is probably paranoia, but the exit interview was highly inappropriate, which makes them capable of pretty much anything.

Definitely going to stick with the practice of "dismissed for budgetary/financial reasons...last one in, first one out" type response.

There's very little pettiness about this, just more concern for the members. It's the only way I would be justified to any action. However, I'll take your genuine advice to heart. Thank you.

[mk074]

I can understand your frustration but I don't think it’s a fight worth fighting. A similar situation happened to me in that I was laid off (after 5 years) and the boss' daughter was hired.

I did speak to legal counsel as my severance was very light. We did discuss all the information surrounding how/why I was terminated and while she agreed it wasn't ideal - there was literally no recourse.

If you don’t want your job back or additional compensation I would just walk away. My understanding is as long as they change job title they are following the ‘rules’. Sorry this happened – it’s a pretty sh*tty feeling overall.