sorry, we have to let you go

[SimonMac]

Can i expense it through the company?

[tarbera]

good reference

So, it happened this way -

client:- arnie, we have to let you go.
me:- what might be the reason?
client:- your performance till now has been excellent. But, yesterday you made a mistake.
me:- ok, here are my options1,2 and 3 to set it right...
client :-Business is not happy. sorry, you have to go....But we are willing to give you a very good reference....
..................
..................
10 minutes later I am out of the site.
recruiter calls:- sorry arnie, you have been very professional and the client is willing to give you a good reference....I will look for another opportunity for you...
....................
I re-activate my jobserve account on the bus back home... and lo and behold! The same recruiter has already put up an ad for my replacement at 100 quid a day less.

Sounds familiar?

Why would they give you a good ref if you had screwed up, they should sue you for compensation !!!

how much did you cost the business.?

[Dominic Connor]

I doubt if the agency is doing this to pocket the extra £100 pd, unless they are a monopoly supplier then the role will be competed for by other agents and of course there is the gap when they're making nothing. Odds are this will cost them money.

100 pd is just enough that I can believe that they have decided you're overpaid, but only just and if what you do is important enough that they really care if you do it wrong, then the risk of your replacement being worse is hard to justify.

I suspect this is some political piss, you made some mistake, someone wanted to cause trouble to the guy running your team and you were collateral damage. The cross charging to "the business" is always at least a bit politically contentious and I can image a conversation, where they take your rate + agency margin and compare it to the base pay without benefits or other uplift and say "we're paying £X for this guy, when I know we can get a better one for half the price."

Even though I don't know what you you do, what you get paid or how good you are at it, I'm pretty sure that is false, but that doesn't have any relevance to the politics.

At my last firm we have something like that where we had a guy who was a postman (yes, really) who taught himself VB who we'd inherited in a merger. He was a nice chap, but we actually needed C++, Java and SQL, but the point kept being made to me by the CEO that he was *cheap* and so the politics were that although he reported to me, he was sat as far away as was physically possible, effectively in another team and although I was never unpleasant to him, never once asked him to do any work. 8 years later he's still there, I think he now has a job title.

I could have got him made redundant, but he was a harmless soul doing his best to make himself useful and the political fight didn't seem worth it.

In different political weather, I might have felt it necessary to keep him and lose a contractor, not because it was rational but it would have kept costs down, which sometimes is all that matters.

There is little useful to take away from this, except that being seen to be visibly productive sometimes helps a bit

[psychocandy]

Yep. Bulltulip excuse to get rid of for someone cheaper I reckon.

[oscarose]

So, it happened this way -

client:- your performance till now has been excellent. But, yesterday you made a mistake

Be more careful on the next job.

Bad form all the same.

Good luck - onwards and upwards.

[Crack Addick]

Shirley you mean clientco instructed the same recruiter to seek your replacement at a discount?

Don't call me Shirley

[Boo]

At my last firm we have something like that where we had a guy who was a postman (yes, really) who taught himself VB who we'd inherited in a merger. He was a nice chap, but we actually needed C++, Java and SQL,
...
I could have got him made redundant...

Or got him retrained ?

Boo

[kingcook]

What was the mistake, if you don't mind me asking? Did it cause millions of pounds of damage?

He told the client what the agent was paying, which was £100 less than expected.

[GazCol]

I doubt if the agency is doing this to pocket the extra £100 pd, unless they are a monopoly supplier then the role will be competed for by other agents and of course there is the gap when they're making nothing. Odds are this will cost them money.

100 pd is just enough that I can believe that they have decided you're overpaid, but only just and if what you do is important enough that they really care if you do it wrong, then the risk of your replacement being worse is hard to justify.

I suspect this is some political piss, you made some mistake, someone wanted to cause trouble to the guy running your team and you were collateral damage. The cross charging to "the business" is always at least a bit politically contentious and I can image a conversation, where they take your rate + agency margin and compare it to the base pay without benefits or other uplift and say "we're paying £X for this guy, when I know we can get a better one for half the price."

Even though I don't know what you you do, what you get paid or how good you are at it, I'm pretty sure that is false, but that doesn't have any relevance to the politics.

At my last firm we have something like that where we had a guy who was a postman (yes, really) who taught himself VB who we'd inherited in a merger. He was a nice chap, but we actually needed C++, Java and SQL, but the point kept being made to me by the CEO that he was *cheap* and so the politics were that although he reported to me, he was sat as far away as was physically possible, effectively in another team and although I was never unpleasant to him, never once asked him to do any work. 8 years later he's still there, I think he now has a job title.

I could have got him made redundant, but he was a harmless soul doing his best to make himself useful and the political fight didn't seem worth it.

In different political weather, I might have felt it necessary to keep him and lose a contractor, not because it was rational but it would have kept costs down, which sometimes is all that matters.

There is little useful to take away from this, except that being seen to be visibly productive sometimes helps a bit

If he's self taught VB, surely it's worth the 3 day expense of sending him on an SQL training course or just buying him a copy of SQL for dummies and letting him pick it up in a week?

[Dominic Connor]

If he's self taught VB, surely it's worth the 3 day expense of sending him on an SQL training course or just buying him a copy of SQL for dummies and letting him pick it up in a week?

There was considerable resistance to paying for training and if I'd had any budget it wouldn't have gone on him.