87
By Anonymous / Thursday 9 May 2013 07:35 / United States - Norfolk
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
By  perdix  |  29

Actually, if you were "laid off" legitimately, you have the right to that job. Now, are you sure you were laid off, or were you really fired? If you were laid off, I'll bet the new job is at a lower pay grade so they can get someone to do your job more cheaply. Corporate America sucks.

Comments
Reply

Probably can't sue. This sadly seems to be an emerging trend from companies trying to get around ObamaCare. Companies are "laying off" full time employees they are required to provide a certain minimal coverage to and replacing them with part time or sub employees they wouldn't have to provide benefits for.

Reply
  Magicomoo  |  9

In Australia being 'laid off' means they can no longer afford to keep you in the company. Its only meant to be used as that purpose. If they did use the term 'laid off' I would be checking the law, because it sounds like a pathetic way of trying to fire you because they had no reason. Maybe something as silly as not liking you! You can sue them if they lied. (If it is your law.)

Reply
  wallandpiece  |  16

They can sue them because getting laid off means the company is actually getting rid of the job rather than the person in the job. So technically op's job shouldn't have existed after they got laid off, but it turns out they are still keeping the job. they just want to get rid of OP without having to come up with a real reason. Very cowardly.

By  Isuckatthis  |  18

That sucks..

Reply
  Taskmaster_fml  |  13

I doubt they were rubbing it in. They have every single right to post for replacement.

Reply
  Taskmaster_fml  |  13

It has nothing to do with me taking or not taking your reply seriously. It has to do with your reply being rather stupid. I still stand by my statement that they are not trying to rub it in the person's face. OP states that they are at their office cleaning it out and cleaning out the computer. Chances are pretty high that they had an e-mail strictly for work, which many companies do. Which would also be where they got such a post from. Now, when there are new job post many companies have HR automatically send out e-mails to ALL of the company to let them know about it. Since, the computer and e-mail would have been for OP's work, it would be safe to assume they where on that list of people who automatically get sent the e-mail. Thus why they got the e-mail. Does it suck they had to see the e-mail? Yes, of course it does. I am not disagreeing with that by any means.

Reply
  oicu812xD  |  16

He could get rehired. If he had a lot of seniority then he probably made a lot and they didn't want to pay it. If he got the job again he would get base pay

By  perdix  |  29

Actually, if you were "laid off" legitimately, you have the right to that job. Now, are you sure you were laid off, or were you really fired? If you were laid off, I'll bet the new job is at a lower pay grade so they can get someone to do your job more cheaply. Corporate America sucks.

Reply
  perdix  |  29

#33, no, they pay unemployment insurance and the state pays you. It's often a tiny fraction of your actual salary anyways, plus they get to cut off your expensive healthcare benefits the minute you leave.

Reply
  TheDrifter  |  23

Unemployment has a cap, so if OP was doing well, it'll likely be a third or less of what they made. These days the new job is likely part time hours at a good rate, saves the company over 10 grand per employee per year in benefits they don't have to pay for.

Reply
  perdix  |  29

#8, it could be one of his former subordinates who thought he was a shitty manager. Or, it could be from anyone who is working for a douchebag boss who likes seeing anyone of his ilk getting the shaft. I've worked for so many dickhead bosses that I'd vote YDI if I bothered to vote.

Reply
  vencku  |  13

14 - If you bothered to vote? Sounds like a chore. I imagine pressing a YDI/FYL button would be less time-consuming than writing a comment. Though I understand not voting because of the suspicion each FML has a hidden context. The OP looks like a victim but is that really the whole story?

Reply
  perdix  |  29

#14, Ironic, huh? When I see a story, I just want jump right down to the comment box and start writing. I use the classic site at all times, so voting means clicking those tiny links below the main story. I think the tone of my comments reflects perdix' feelings better that one vote out of thousands.

Reply
  bfsd42  |  20

Maybe op did a really bad job and/or is a complete asshole and that is why he got laid off. In this very possible case, he definitely deserved it.

Reply
  wjh100  |  13

unless in wrong to get laid off there has to be size if workforce reduction therefore the jobs not even there anymore. if their hiring a new person it means they layed him off instead of firing him so they don't have to oat severance any 2 ways you throw it its illegal

Reply
  Catkam623  |  27

Unless I'm wrong to get laid off there has to be a size able reduction in the workforce. Therefore the job shouldn't even be there anymore. If they're hiring a new person then they laid him off instead of firing him so they don't have to pay severance which anyway you look at it is illegal.

By  Blurgas  |  16

Sounds like they laid you off so they could replace you without having to have a reason to fire you, especially if the new listing pays less than what you were making

Loading data…