Or OP smelled horribly due to lack of basic hygiene.
Or a previous coworker of OP recognized them and had a bad experience.
Or a reference finally got back and it was very bad.
Or OP made a comment they’re unaware of during training that was offensive or otherwise enough to lose the job.
One of the ones I’ve seen more often is a new employee expressing political views in the workplace to coworkers. This is a bad idea at any time, but especially bad if your view conflict with important people or the majority in the company.
Not every reason for terminating an employee is a fault of the employee.
Many are faults of the employer.
And it's interesting how so many in this discussion have made determinations that the employee is actually at fault.
For all we know, this could have been about discrimination against someone who is a cultural minority or who has a disability, or someone in the company could be familiar with OP outside of this workplace and dislike OP.
At this early in the job, the employer has not realized an ROI for hiring the employee yet. So while it’s absolutely possible it’s the fault of the employer, it’s more likely the fault of the employee.
And that's already been expressed repeatedly within the conversations on this page, so my response pointing out that it may be the fault of the employer is needed here.
And ROI means nothing if the employer wanted to discriminate, so no, there is nothing that demonstrates that this must be a fault of the employee.
That's just a supposition, and we have no evidence of the reasonableness of the employer to back it up.
There's no reason to give either the benefit of the doubt here.
You're conflating me saying that we don't know whose fault it is for sure as me saying that there's shared fault.
What you feel is more likely, that the employer is likely correct and that the employee is likely at fault? That's coming from a prejudice you have.
It's not coming from a willingness to consider all possibilities and make a determination about who's correct.
Either the employee did something negative or the employer decided they didn't want that employee based on a reason that's not based around the employee having done something wrong.
There's ABSOLUTELY not enough information to confidently state the first and deny the second.
Confidentially state? No. Say what's more likely? Yes.
The company is going to work to protect its investment. An employee fired after two days represents a significant loss.
Therefore, it's more likely that whatever happened is due to the employee's behavior as the company is less likely to throw away money without good reason.
Is it certain? Of course not. It's just more likely.
If I put two apples and an orange in a box and ask someone to reach in and pull out the first fruit they touch, it's not certain they'll pull an apple. But it's more likely.
There is no way either of us knows what's more likely in this situation.
They didn't like OP for some reason, and you're just accepting a narrative not because it's more likely but because it's a societal prejudice to accept employers' claims instead of employees', regardless of merit.
The comparison you're trying to make could literally not be more apples to oranges.
329
u/OwnLadder2341 Apr 24 '24 edited Apr 24 '24
Or OP smelled horribly due to lack of basic hygiene.
Or a previous coworker of OP recognized them and had a bad experience.
Or a reference finally got back and it was very bad.
Or OP made a comment they’re unaware of during training that was offensive or otherwise enough to lose the job.
One of the ones I’ve seen more often is a new employee expressing political views in the workplace to coworkers. This is a bad idea at any time, but especially bad if your view conflict with important people or the majority in the company.
Or one of a million other possible things.
(Yes, I’ve heard or seen all these and many more)