141–150 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monzo is better in nearly all ways, except slightly worse exchange rates.
All ways? They appear to have _literally_ no way to use any of their services except through a phone "app". No thank you. I don't want a toy bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US it isn't immediately obvious why it would work, either. As a worker you're much better off being laid off than quitting. "Firing" when it is pretty flagrantly just a mass lay-off shouldn't impact future hiring.
I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer ("if they were, the company would have found a way to keep them"). Of course, reality is great people do get laid off when companies draw really broad lines like "everyone hired within the past year" or "the entire division of X". Or sometimes it's just being on the wrong side of y…
Not saying this is always the case, but there is some truth in this concern that might make hiring managers weary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I used to work in an office on a typical 5 day week pattern I wouldn't be in the office for breakfast or for dinner If there's a culture of people being on site working longer hours than 9-5 then thats something that will affect your job.
Comparatively, my costs have gone up now that I'm WFH instead of going into the office, because I have to feed myself. I used to arrive at the office for 7am, have a delicious breakfast, a delicious lunch, and take a doggy bag to go for dinner when I left at 4pm. While that can sound terrible on the one hand, on the other hand, the cognitive load of having to make sure I have food for breakfast and/or dinner was wear…
Check out Anna Jones videos on youtube, like this one
One-Pan Genovese-Style Pasta Recipe | Food Honestly | The Pool
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US it isn't immediately obvious why it would work, either. As a worker you're much better off being laid off than quitting. "Firing" when it is pretty flagrantly just a mass lay-off shouldn't impact future hiring.
I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer ("if they were, the company would have found a way to keep them"). Of course, reality is great people do get laid off when companies draw really broad lines like "everyone hired within the past year" or "the entire division of X". Or sometimes it's just being on the wrong side of y…
The distinction I was trying to draw was between firing-for-cause and layoffs; I believe there is more negative association with the former.
> But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder.
Pretty hard to claim wrongful termination for a non-cause layoff in the US with typical at-will employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I automatically assumed this was a ploy to dodge unemployment/redundancy benefits for employees. This also happens in the US. Much harder to get benefits if you voluntarily quit versus get fired or laid off.
Which is why US companies sometimes pay people to voluntarily retire instead of laying them off.
> Employers with more unemployment claims against them will pay a higher rate, and employers with fewer claims will pay less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
• 10+ years as an engineer • Minimum GPA 3.5/4 (US), 60% (UK), 8/10 in any other country "So we know you've been out of school for 10 years, but can you send us a copy of your report cards?"
Well I had "we know you've been out of school over 20 years, but we really need to know which exam boards you did your age-16 English literature exam with before we'll interview you for this science degree requiring position ... that we previously employed you for". Thankfully I quite enjoy hunting down lost information but I was not impressed with the HR personnel in that one.
They also successfully pressured over 60% of their staff into exchanging salary for twice the value in options. I've worked for dysfunctional companies, but I guess I'm lucky I haven't run into management trying to steal from me.
Being from the US it wasn't immediately clear to me why they would do this. Found the relevant part of the article: > In Poland, workers say they were told by their line managers and HR that they were underperforming and would be terminated if they didn’t leave voluntarily. But in Portugal mutual agreements stated that dismissals were a result of a reduction of 40 per cent in the group’s activity and a 30 per cent ex…
Why on earth would anyone voluntarily quit, particularly as in Portugal you will be eligable for unemployment benefits from having been laid-off, vs quitting and not being eligable for the same. Call their bluff. (I live in Portugal, and some foolish bosses tried the same and were rebuffed. FWIW the gov't agreed to pay 60% of the workers benefits during the lockdown in an effort to stem layoffs and furloughs etc.)
Is there a difference in Portugal between being laid off (for economic reasons) and being fired (for underperforming or misconduct)? I got the impression, perhaps mistaken, that the choice for some of the workers referenced in the article was get fired or take this meager deal.
While I am not sure, I think legally here is a very grey area as employment information is protected, but I'm not 100% sure.