Talk:Termination of employment/Archives/2012

Discriminatory termination

I put those sentences in about termination due to a desire to discriminate against certain groups or classes of people in. Anyone who says that this does not happen today is quite frankly full of it. These discriminatory acts still do happen today, even though they are oftentimes illegal. If you want to re-edit what I've written, fine. But please do not remove it, because that would be hiding the truth of the matter.
JesseG 19:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jesse – The paragraph about discriminatory termination has been moved to a new subsection, because it is a separate type of termination. Involuntary terminations are usually for just cause, discriminatory terminations (though some will try to claim "just cause") are not. I will also say that this sort of termination can also be called "retalitory termination," when an employee reports misconduct (usually sexual harassment) by a supervisor or manager. [[Briguy52748 21:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)]]

This article needs a lot of work

This article is in a poor state. It has a massive overemphasis on US practice and law, and effectively none for the rest of the world, instead relying on the assumption that US practice = world practice. (For example, the opening paragraphs, or in the "Discriminatory and retaliatory termination", it makes the statement: "It is important to note such acts are in violation of federal law, and in many cases state law as well." This is far too US-centric.)

The standard of writing also needs to be lifted. For example, the reference to WWE and Vince McMahon is extraordinary. (History shows that User:El T wrote this comment on 14:06, 30 March 2006; remember to sign your comments with four tildes ~).

El T – If you believe this article is too U.S.-centric, then perhaps you – or someone who has knowledge of how employment terminations are handled outside North America — can contribute this information. As for the example of the WWE and Vince McMahon, that example was included to show how television, movies, etc. often exaggerate situations where people are "fired." As the article accurately states, these types of dismissals are rarely this dramatic (or humiliating, for that matter), but rather only after a process that includes documentation of an employee's shortcomings, etc. And then, it only happens behind closed doors. [[Briguy52748 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)]]

The WWE example is bush league. Everybody is aware that firings aren't the same as in the movies. It contributes nothing useful to the article. I usually like to add something constructive, but my advice is to condense the overstated and eliminate the obvious. (History shows that 134.241.58.153 wrote this comment on 18:13, 11 April 2006; remember to sign your comments with four tildes ~)

Well, I'd disagree for the reason that not everyone is aware that firings are the same as in the movies/television. Such a statement is an overgeneralization, and some people - albeit a minority - believe in stereotypes (don't ask why; I'm not a psychiatrist). To be fair, if you can give a better example or version of the "stereotypical" firing (e.g., that it rarely involve screaming at the employee to make him feel ashamed and humiliated, such as the WWE example), please by all means include it in a future revision. [[Briguy52748 21:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)]], with edit. P.S. - It's funny you complain of the WWE example, but yet, it remains in the article.

"An employee who was fired by an employer may in some cases be eligible for rehire by that same employer, although in some cases it is usually related to staffing issues."

Can we clarify this sentence? What are the "staffing issues"? "although in some cases"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.192.210 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quitting, outsourcing, offshoring

These are also other ways of terminating employment.

• Quitting - voluntary termination, akin to resigning, but "resign" is a term usually reserved for high-profile people (C-levels, presidents, officers, etc.)
• Outsourcing - a form of redundancy where the function is not being dropped per se but instead done by a third party entity
• Offshoring - specifically the non-outsourced sort, where job function is being replaced by other employees of the same company, but in another country.

It occurs to me that there is another category among the above where perhaps you are being laid off to be replaced with cheaper employees that is neither outsourcing nor offshoring.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, outsourcing and offshoring may be reasons to terminate employment, but they are not ways to terminate employment. Kransky 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NCR "firing" explanation

This has all the hallmarks of a tall tale. It needs to be very well sourced to stay in. --87.82.29.198 13:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

<quote>

<unknown> You should be fired... with a rocket launcher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.206.77.179 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Vietnam War

To the non-American reader this reference is relevant. I had never realised that "termination with prejudice" was used by anyone outside the VN War! Please don't delete again before discussing further.--Jack Upland 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

what's to discuss - just because something was used in a film does not mean it's was real - feel free to add it back in when you have a WP:RS to that effect. --Fredrick day 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a commonly heard variation on the term "terminate with prejudice". I've added a source and a link to the other page. I've also put "alleged" in, so you should be happy with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Upland (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping on the job

I removed "sleeping on the job" because I didn't think that was considered an offense for immediate termination at most jobs, but yet it has been re-added. Is there a source that says that sleeping is cause for automatic dismissal? Or else it will be removed again. [[Briguy52748 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]]

It depends on the policies of the employer. Many employers consider this a most serious offense, and will list this in employee handbooks as such. Others may be more lenient. It may be helpful to find some external links on the topic. Hellno2 16:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What does "for cause" mean in this context?

In the context of a dismissal, what does "for cause" mean? For example, in The West Wing season 7, there is a scene in which Toby, knowing he is going to be fired, hands Bartlet his resignation. And Bartlet says "I can't accept your resignation. I have to fire you. For cause." What does "for cause" mean in this context? Kidburla2002 17:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does "stand down" redirect here?

The term "stand down" redirects here, though it does not appear anywhere in the article to explain why. I thought "stand down" was primarily used in a military context, as a verbal order roughly meaning "cease what you're doing". I've never heard it used in regard to civilian employment. Does it have some relevance here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.76.25 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

sd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.206.237 (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the military meaning, but not aware it could mean termination of employment. It's quite a difference, for example: [1] I think the registrar in question meant they could stop work at 3, not that everyone was getting fired. --92.232.57.8 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)