I will be fired from work this Friday, do I resign or let them fire me Forum

[MKC]

that's beyond sketchy, although i don't think it would impact unemployment on the employee's end.

i've seen foreign companies innocently adopt a probationary period in the US because they're the norm in non-at will countries, but any company that advertises the probationary period to prospective employees has to be toxic.

My 1L summer I worked in house, and my paycheck came from some temp agency. It was an awesome position, and it was paid, so no complaints, but I'm pretty sure the temp agency was there to insulate them from any employment law issues that might have arisen.

[zot1]

So what happened?

[kaysta]

Just keep in mind that you apply for fed gov jobs, they will ask if you have ever been fired from a job and some of them run more extensive background checks by speaking with your former coworkers/employers. I don't know if you ever wanted to do fed gov, but that's something to keep in mind.

Since this keeps getting bumped I may as well say, this isn't how it works. Yes, you'll need to disclose that you've been fired. It won't become an issue unless other factors come into play.
For one, investigators have done this many times and they're pretty good at discerning a shittalking former colleague/boss with a grievance from an actual security issue. For another, I;ve read through a ton of denied/revoked clearance investigations, and "let go for lack of experience" is not the way these things are framed .
Obviously "misrepresentation of skill level" would be a potential issue but in your case I think this takes us back to my first point.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, I'm not sure where people ever got the idea that being let go was per se some kind of C&F/background check issue. People get fired from jobs all the time, for reasons that employers aren't going to care about. Embezzling funds, sure. Not being the right person for that job - doesn't matter at all.

[lacrossebrother]

the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

I don't know what bll is, but I'd definitely say the exceptions have swallowd the rule of employment at will. If a termed EE challenges anything, the first question asked is "what's your legitimate reason for terming them?" I don't get how pointing that out is responsive to the fact that probationary periods are pointless

[El Pollito]

the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

I don't know what bll is, but I'd definitely say the exceptions have swallowd the rule of employment at will. If a termed EE challenges anything, the first question asked is "what's your legitimate reason for terming them?" I don't get how pointing that out is responsive to the fact that probationary periods are pointless

tbf legitimate reason for term comes into play for lots of reasons, not just bc of employment at will not existing. we usually ask to make sure it was non-discriminatory, but i think employment at will is still firmly the dominant rule.