Resignation in lieu of termination

I personally think this is a bad idea. It does have some redeeming features, such as allowing the ee to spin his/her reason for leaving their last job when they are interviewing, and providing the illusion of some protection from termination issues for the employer, but it does a disservice to all of us who may be the next employer.

The reference check phone call the prospective employer makes to the former employer gets the info that the applicant resigned, they do not get the termination information. Unless you are a very skilled interviewer, or a mind-reader, maybe even a hypnotist - the potential employer does not have vital information he/she needs to pursue potential issues that could have a significant impact on whether or not to employ the candidate. This misinformation allows the candidate more freedom to "spin" the reason for leaving the last job. Some people are adept at spinning. The phrase "...it depends on what the definition of is, is..."

In my opinion, we are doing a disservice when we let this happen.

Comments

  • 12 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-27-03 AT 04:51PM (CST)[/font][p]I have to disagree to a large extent.

    I can possibly see that in "at will" situations, not having resignations in lieu of discharge (letting the employee resign once he or she knows the company is firing him or her), may generally be better for the employer (both the current and potential). But if there is any possibility, such as in union shops and in civil service, that a "weakly-based" discharge can be challenged, or even a concern that the basis for the discharge in "at will employment" is questionable in relations to either discrimination ro wrongful discharge, then resignation in lieu may be beneficial to all concern. Overall, I think they do serve a good purpose.

    And I think that a potential emplyer should have any and all candidates authorize release of the information by past employers to include the circumstances of any resignation.
  • In this case, the employer who is losing the employee should consider his interests above the interests of the leaving employee or the succeeding or subsequent employer, every time, period.
  • Both Hatchetman and Don D make arguements that a person expects. Here is a situation that for purposes of this discussion shall be considered hypothetical:

    A clerical accounting position opens up. Duties, include weekly bank deposits, some of which are cash. The final candidate looks good on paper, has a good experience level, references check out, including fingerprint background check. The ex-employer only gave dates of hire and resignation, confirmed job description and ending hourly rate.

    In a casual conversation, the finance officer finds out from a personal friend, who also worked for the now new employees ex- employer, that the employee was caught pocketing $200 in cash, and was given the option of paying back the money and resigning or being terminated. Of course person resigned. No police report filed, no information available except to those few who were on the inside, close to the top of the ex-employer.

    Could this have been avoided with proper action by the ex-employer. I think so.


  • or.... the last ee I allowed to resign, pulled out a knife when an ISO auditor questioned him on how he ensures ee's are properly trained. He proceeded to demonstrate corporal punishment. He never made any threatening gestures and though the auditor was disconcerted, she never felt threatened. It was his first offense after several years of a "good" record, but not outstanding. He used extremely poor judgement but did not harm anyone. I gave him the choice and he chose resignation and was very apologetic realizing he screwed up royally. He won UI because there was no previous discipline documented. I believe we did the right thing in this case.

    Maybe, it depends on the "crime". In the case of a theft, especially if significant, I would be less apt to give the ee a choice. In my case, if we had lost our certification or lost a customer, there would have been no choice.
  • >In a casual conversation, the finance officer finds out from a
    >personal friend, who also worked for the now new employees ex-
    >employer, that the employee was caught pocketing $200 in cash, and was
    >given the option of paying back the money and resigning or being
    >terminated. >Could this have been avoided with proper action by the ex-employer. I
    >think so.

    Do you propose to tell us that it might be the prior employer's obligation or debt, somehow, to society, or the employer community at large, to have prosecuted the case or revealed its unproven details/allegations in employment verification contacts? And, that by so doing, this "could have been avoided with proper action by the ex-employer"? Perhaps I misunderstood your post. In any event, an employer has no obligation to consider the succeeding employer's interest ABOVE that of his own.

    And, if the finance officer, having participated in a casual conversation with a friend, took action based on the remarks of that friend, and having no other evidence of guilt, released or disciplined the new employee, might the finance officer find himself holding his testicles in a handbag in court?

  • Your "probing interview skills" are at work here as well. The finance officer is question is a friend of mine. Action has been taken in the workplace to implement a more rigid set of controls around cash handling functions. He admitted this needed to happen anyway so it does not appear to be a direct result of the allegations (I was present during the conversation where this information arose). I am told the ee in question has acceptable performance so far and my friend has not taken in other overt action to date.

    I understand the obligation to the company, I am an avid proponent of those obligations. Perhaps I am angling for an acknowledgement that a bigger picture role exists that holds ees and ers to a higher duty. That if we were all held to suffering the consequences of our actions we would somehow be able to raise ourselves up by our bootstraps to a higher plane. Wow does that sound like I lived in the 60's?

    Enough for now, I wanted to vent on behalf of my friend who felt sandbagged by the whole situation.
  • As with so many other things in HR it's really a judgement call based on specific circumstances. I think I would treat a rapist diffently than a thief, wouldn't you agree?
  • This is currently happening to me so I had to speak up. My former employer completely eliminated my position thereby terminating me without cause. Since I filed for unemployment & received payments, my former employer has appealed and now I have a telephone hearing next week. If I had been allowed to resign and given a severance, I would have never applied for unemployment.
  • "I understand the obligation to the company, I am an avid proponent of those obligations. Perhaps I am angling for an acknowledgement that a bigger picture role exists that holds ees and ers to a higher duty. That if we were all held to suffering the consequences of our actions we would somehow be able to raise ourselves up by our bootstraps to a higher plane. Wow does that sound like I lived in the 60's?"

    Flashbacks are a pain huh? x:-)

    I usually agree with you Marc, but not in this case. Most of us have fallen prey to the "poor-hiring-decision-that-came-back-to-haunt-you" situation. To now blame it on the previous employer for not disclosing the information is short sighted in that it won't improve your friends hiring systems. It's the responsibility of good HR folks to learn from their previous hiring mistakes & rectify the situation through learning better interview techniques, whether that be profile testing, better interview questions targeting the biggest issues to the company or reference forms, signed by the applicant, sent to the previous employer that authorizes employment disclosure. Also, if the previous company was not willing to press charges and accepted a resignation instead of termination, there's probably more to the story. Do we really want to punish new hires for what, without any concrete action from the previous employer, is essentially gossip?
  • Some great points. I am a proponent of changing what you can, and in this case, I asked my friend what other issues like this exist in his companies work force that he did not know about. You can only impact things you can control, and you cannot control the actions of other employers, you must be responsbile for your own decisions. The points made about interview skills and information gathering are clear. Some people are obviously better at it than others, just as some applicants are more skilled than others with respect to spinning facts and circumstances. My own BS radar seems to work intermitently, so I tend to adopt a cynical attitude and am often distrustful with no good reason.

    I also brought up the issue about unsupported allegations being taken at face value and to think through the issues before he took any action. My friend has not taken any actions other than the strengthening of controls mentioned in an earlier post. He did tell me that he is on a big introspective journey right now with respect to the content of these posts and what actions he should be taking to mitigate future problems in this area.

    He asked me to thank everyone for their input.
  • He's sitting there beside you, right Marc? Innagoddidavita ring a bell? (sp)
  • I also have an evil twin, but my friend would be insulted to think he was it. Did that make sense?
Sign In or Register to comment.