Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • FelineFan
    • By FelineFan 24th Nov 17, 3:33 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 3Thanks
    FelineFan
    Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation
    • #1
    • 24th Nov 17, 3:33 PM
    Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation 24th Nov 17 at 3:33 PM
    Hi
    Whilst in a highly stressed state, (due to working conditions & treatment), I ranted at my boss (whilst we were in a room alone together) and said something in the heat of the moment, which he then reported and it has been deemed as gross misconduct.
    I was told there was going to be an investigation, which may lead to my dismissal.
    I have only worked for the company for 8 months, but did pass my 6 month probation with flying colours.
    However, I handed in my resignation, prior to the investigation, thinking this would stop any investigation in its tracks. This was not the case.
    However I was given 2 options. 1) Leave via immediate resignation, no investigation would take place and Iíd effectively leave with a clean slate/no black mark OR 2) work my notice, an investigation would still be carried out, during which time, could still lead to my instant dismissal.
    Does the 1st option sound legal? Iím worried Iíve been stitched up, for want of a better description.
    Iím still awaiting a letter from HR to confirm this.
    Thank you
Page 3
    • Energize
    • By Energize 29th Nov 17, 8:06 PM
    • 376 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    I've got to admit, I've lost the plot of what you are trying to argue too.

    I don't honestly understand what you are trying to argue here. Not everyone is a benefit basher if they don't support unfettered access to benefits at will. Which appears to be what underpins your arguments. There had to be a line in any system. The line here is that you will be sanctioned if you are at fault for the termination of your contact, however that is terminated. We can argue that the decision makers are misapplying the line in cases - I think they do - but that there should be no line? No, I don't think that is likely to ever get much support, and that isn't what I was saying.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    How does resigning make someone more employable?

    Because employers are far less likely to employ someone who was fired for poor performance than someone who resigned for "personal reasons".

    The taxpayer benefits because they aren't stuck on JSA forever.

    The problem with the whole sanction system is that the dwp are essentially taking the food off someones table for issues that an employer subjectively considered to be misconduct and decided on the mere balance of probability, that isn't acceptable.


    You have just stated something, then quoted me saying you said exactly that, then said "Utter nonsense". Extraordinary.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    It is utter nonsense, you are trying to take a nuanced argument and turn it into a statement that doesn't reflect it as a whole.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 29th Nov 17, 8:29 PM
    • 4,171 Posts
    • 6,863 Thanks
    sangie595
    How does resigning make someone more employable?

    Because employers are far less likely to employ someone who was fired for poor performance than someone who resigned for "personal reasons".

    The taxpayer benefits because they aren't stuck on JSA forever.

    The problem with the whole sanction system is that the dwp are essentially taking the food off someones table for issues that an employer subjectively considered to be misconduct and decided on the mere balance of probability, that isn't acceptable.



    It is utter nonsense, you are trying to take a nuanced argument and turn it into a statement that doesn't reflect it as a whole.
    Originally posted by Energize
    So what your are actually saying is that it is best for people to lie. Great advice. If they want to lie, then they can do so. That doesn't mean they should get befits whilst lying to potential employers. There is no correlation between begging eligible for benefits and lying to potential employers.

    I am not convinced that replacing your subjective opinion as to whether someone you have never met should have been dismissed is better than their employers opinion. Could you explain that bit?

    It does seem to be the case that your arguments are inconsistent and rather contradictory. Is it the case that you believe that there should be no consequences whatsoever for someone who voluntarily leaves, or is dismissed from, their job? If so, how much taxes are you prepared to pay to support everyone who isn't in work - for whatever reason the chose? 40%? 50%? More?
    • Energize
    • By Energize 29th Nov 17, 9:22 PM
    • 376 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    No one is talking about lying, where are you getting this from?

    Saying "I resigned" is 100% truth, the employer saying "this employee had great attendance etc" is 100% truth.

    I am saying that applying a financial penalty to someone on the basis that their employer said they did something bad is not an acceptable system.

    I actually advocate a negative income tax system sangie, I believe getting rid of the job centres and just giving people benefits would bring about enormous savings.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 30th Nov 17, 12:29 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    How does resigning make someone more employable?

    Because employers are far less likely to employ someone who was fired for poor performance than someone who resigned for "personal reasons".

    The taxpayer benefits because they aren't stuck on JSA forever.
    Originally posted by Energize
    No - instead somebody else who didn't do anything they were fired for is. Same cost either way. We don't have full employment, you may have noticed...and even if we did, that would mean somebody would employ people with poor references as they couldn't get better people.

    The problem with the whole sanction system is that the dwp are essentially taking the food off someones table for issues that an employer subjectively considered to be misconduct and decided on the mere balance of probability, that isn't acceptable.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Is it your opinion that the majority of people who are fired are fired for inadequate reasons? That's far from my experience.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 30th Nov 17, 12:54 AM
    • 376 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    No - instead somebody else who didn't do anything they were fired for is. Same cost either way. We don't have full employment, you may have noticed...and even if we did, that would mean somebody would employ people with poor references as they couldn't get better people.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    I simply don't think that pressuring people to stay on until they get fired and a bad reference is in the interest of the taxpayer. Sure at the moment we may not have full employment but that may change over time.

    Is it your opinion that the majority of people who are fired are fired for inadequate reasons? That's far from my experience.
    Not at all, I have no opinion either way. I just think that imposing financial penalties on people on the basis of hearsay is not acceptable in a civilized society. In a civil court that rules on the balance of probability they do not take away money that someone needs for food like the dwp does.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 30th Nov 17, 7:20 AM
    • 4,171 Posts
    • 6,863 Thanks
    sangie595
    No one is talking about lying, where are you getting this from?

    Saying "I resigned" is 100% truth, the employer saying "this employee had great attendance etc" is 100% truth.

    I am saying that applying a financial penalty to someone on the basis that their employer said they did something bad is not an acceptable system..
    Originally posted by Energize
    That isn't what you said though. You said that they could claim that they resigned for personal reasons. 100% of the truth is that they resigned before they were dismissed. And the same applies to the employers reference.

    The "financial penalty" is not applied "because the employer says they did something bad". Plenty of our members are in exactly that situation and do not get sanctioned. The regulations say that you will get sanctioned if you had no good reason to resign, or if the resignation or dismissal was brought about through your own fault. It's not all on the say so of an employer.

    Whilst I am not happy with the way that the benefits system operates, the principle that everyone should work if they are able to is sound. If they are able to afford not to work, then that is their choice, but that choice should not extend to affording not to work in someone else's purse. If there are no consequences at all for not working, then a great deal many more people wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that the system is the best system we could have. But equally, it doesn't mean that a better system would not sanction people.

    There are checks in place, and even people who are sanctioned are able to claim some money for food. But if there was no hardship involved, there is also no incentive to avoid sanctions. Any society that intends to thrive needs some checks and balances. You may argue about what these are, but suggesting that there should be none is a recipe for economic disaster.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 30th Nov 17, 8:32 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    I simply don't think that pressuring people to stay on until they get fired and a bad reference is in the interest of the taxpayer. Sure at the moment we may not have full employment but that may change over time.
    Originally posted by Energize
    You'll note I pointed out that even if we do, it doesn't change the situation. How is it not in the interests of the tax payer when the person with the bad reference is only going to get a job that somebody would have got anyway? The total number of people on benefits remains the same.

    Not at all, I have no opinion either way. I just think that imposing financial penalties on people on the basis of hearsay is not acceptable in a civilized society. In a civil court that rules on the balance of probability they do not take away money that someone needs for food like the dwp does.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that employers routinely fire people for bad reasons - and now you say you don't even believe that is the case?
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 30-11-2017 at 9:21 AM.
    • Samsung_Note2
    • By Samsung_Note2 30th Nov 17, 8:45 AM
    • 201 Posts
    • 75 Thanks
    Samsung_Note2
    Id have thought it would depend on more what was said...if you told them they were full of hot air and looked like Sloth out of the film Goonies,then id stick around and see what the outcome is.

    If you said something really offensive such as skin colour or sexual preference then it would be wise to leave quickly and forgot about them.

    When all said and done it sounds like your word against someone else....so what was said that lead to all this drama.
    If my appalling spelling offends you that much...dont read my posts.
    • deannatrois
    • By deannatrois 30th Nov 17, 8:46 AM
    • 4,910 Posts
    • 6,875 Thanks
    deannatrois
    Years ago, I walked out of a job because some of the men thought it funny to carry me across the floor inspite of me saying 'no' and being terrified (wasn't a good employer, they had hung another female out of a second story window by the feet, seriously). I went to a job centre and they said I wouldn't be able to claim benefits for six months as I'd left the employer. Why I'd left didn't matter a jot. Had only worked there for 6 months.

    I tried to get some agency work got some in the short term and then couldn't get any more (no jobs available). Applied for JSA again and was accepted, as their investigations were based solely on the last place of work. It was only a few weeks later.

    Not sure if things have changed since, but it shows you can get JSA in certain circumstances.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 30th Nov 17, 10:19 AM
    • 1,230 Posts
    • 1,012 Thanks
    Comms69
    No - instead somebody else who didn't do anything they were fired for is. Same cost either way. We don't have full employment, you may have noticed...and even if we did, that would mean somebody would employ people with poor references as they couldn't get better people.



    Is it your opinion that the majority of people who are fired are fired for inadequate reasons? That's far from my experience.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser


    I think it's an indication of the types of employment he has had.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 30th Nov 17, 10:21 AM
    • 1,230 Posts
    • 1,012 Thanks
    Comms69
    I simply don't think that pressuring people to stay on until they get fired and a bad reference is in the interest of the taxpayer. Sure at the moment we may not have full employment but that may change over time.



    Not at all, I have no opinion either way. I just think that imposing financial penalties on people on the basis of hearsay is not acceptable in a civilized society. In a civil court that rules on the balance of probability they do not take away money that someone needs for food like the dwp does.
    Originally posted by Energize


    But no-one is stopping the person finding alternative work.....


    The only way that 'food gets taken off the table' is if the person makes that decision themselves.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 30th Nov 17, 10:24 AM
    • 1,230 Posts
    • 1,012 Thanks
    Comms69
    Years ago, I walked out of a job because some of the men thought it funny to carry me across the floor inspite of me saying 'no' and being terrified (wasn't a good employer, they had hung another female out of a second story window by the feet, seriously). I went to a job centre and they said I wouldn't be able to claim benefits for six months as I'd left the employer. Why I'd left didn't matter a jot. Had only worked there for 6 months.

    I tried to get some agency work got some in the short term and then couldn't get any more (no jobs available). Applied for JSA again and was accepted, as their investigations were based solely on the last place of work. It was only a few weeks later.

    Not sure if things have changed since, but it shows you can get JSA in certain circumstances.
    Originally posted by deannatrois
    To be fair, reporting the assault (which is what it was) would prevent any sanctions
    • Energize
    • By Energize 30th Nov 17, 5:15 PM
    • 376 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    That isn't what you said though. You said that they could claim that they resigned for personal reasons. 100% of the truth is that they resigned before they were dismissed. And the same applies to the employers reference.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    It's not the case that people are always about to be immediately dismissed in such circumstances, people see it's not working out and choose to amicably leave before it gets to that point.

    However we have a fundamental difference of opinion in what constitutes lying, you seem to hold the opinion that a candidate is under some sort of moral obligation to divulge every detail surrounding the circumstances of why they left a job, and list all their shortcomings to a potential employer. I don't hold that opinion and believe it's perfectly acceptable just to say it didn't work out.

    The "financial penalty" is not applied "because the employer says they did something bad". Plenty of our members are in exactly that situation and do not get sanctioned. The regulations say that you will get sanctioned if you had no good reason to resign, or if the resignation or dismissal was brought about through your own fault. It's not all on the say so of an employer.

    Whilst I am not happy with the way that the benefits system operates, the principle that everyone should work if they are able to is sound. If they are able to afford not to work, then that is their choice, but that choice should not extend to affording not to work in someone else's purse. If there are no consequences at all for not working, then a great deal many more people wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that the system is the best system we could have. But equally, it doesn't mean that a better system would not sanction people.

    There are checks in place, and even people who are sanctioned are able to claim some money for food. But if there was no hardship involved, there is also no incentive to avoid sanctions. Any society that intends to thrive needs some checks and balances. You may argue about what these are, but suggesting that there should be none is a recipe for economic disaster.
    I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Despite what the daily mail would have you believe, most people don't choose to be on benefits, people choose to work because they want a good bit of money and to be independent. The idea that we would have an economic disaster with swathes of people dropping their £20k jobs to live on £3,800 JSA if we removed the patronising sanction system is simply not credible.

    But no-one is stopping the person finding alternative work.....


    The only way that 'food gets taken off the table' is if the person makes that decision themselves.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    It's very fanciful to believe that they could immediately find a new job.

    Economically speaking it's essentially impossible to have 100% employment, so there will inevitably be some people unemployed.

    You'll note I pointed out that even if we do, it doesn't change the situation. How is it not in the interests of the tax payer when the person with the bad reference is only going to get a job that somebody would have got anyway? The total number of people on benefits remains the same.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    That job could remain unfilled for who knows how long.

    Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that employers routinely fire people for bad reasons - and now you say you don't even believe that is the case?
    No it isn't, that's a logical fallacy. I'm saying it happens often enough to present a problem, not that's it's routine.
    Last edited by Energize; 30-11-2017 at 5:28 PM.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 30th Nov 17, 7:29 PM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser

    It's very fanciful to believe that they could immediately find a new job.

    Economically speaking it's essentially impossible to have 100% employment, so there will inevitably be some people unemployed.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Followed immediately by...

    That job could remain unfilled for who knows how long.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Surely even you can see you are absolutely all over the place.

    No it isn't, that's a logical fallacy. I'm saying it happens often enough to present a problem, not that's it's routine.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Oh you have an opinion now? A couple of posts ago you said you "had no opinion either way" on this. Still, that's the least of your self-contradictions.

    How often do you think people get fired for no good reason? It would have to be very significant in order to justify changing the benefits system just to let such people resign without being fired, wouldn't it? What grounds do you have to believe that it is so significant, and would it not be better to improve employment rights and tribunals so they had some comeback, rather than muck about with benefits just to let people resign without being fired?
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 30th Nov 17, 8:06 PM
    • 4,171 Posts
    • 6,863 Thanks
    sangie595
    It's not the case that people are always about to be immediately dismissed in such circumstances, people see it's not working out and choose to amicably leave before it gets to that point.

    However we have a fundamental difference of opinion in what constitutes lying, you seem to hold the opinion that a candidate is under some sort of moral obligation to divulge every detail surrounding the circumstances of why they left a job, and list all their shortcomings to a potential employer. I don't hold that opinion and believe it's perfectly acceptable just to say it didn't work out.



    I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Despite what the daily mail would have you believe, most people don't choose to be on benefits, people choose to work because they want a good bit of money and to be independent. The idea that we would have an economic disaster with swathes of people dropping their £20k jobs to live on £3,800 JSA if we removed the patronising sanction system is simply not credible.



    It's very fanciful to believe that they could immediately find a new job.

    Economically speaking it's essentially impossible to have 100% employment, so there will inevitably be some people unemployed.



    That job could remain unfilled for who knows how long.



    No it isn't, that's a logical fallacy. I'm saying it happens often enough to present a problem, not that's it's routine.
    Originally posted by Energize
    You know what? I've never read the Daily Mail, and I think the Morning Star is a bit right wing. No argument so you resort to name calling. But this is entirely boring. You don't know what you are talking about. No economic system can support people who don't want to work, no matter what you call it. The answer is get a job. Any job if you must.

    BTW - full employment is perfectly possible. You need to retake that economics course.

    I'm out.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 30th Nov 17, 8:31 PM
    • 376 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    Ok, you can't refute what I've said, fair enough.

    Like I said though, it's called a negative income tax, something proposed by nobel prize winning economists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

    Followed immediately by...

    Surely even you can see you are absolutely all over the place.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    It's perfectly consistent, if there is a job in London and the person qualified to do it lives in Glasgow for example it's not going to be possible for them to fill it.

    Oh you have an opinion now? A couple of posts ago you said you "had no opinion either way" on this. Still, that's the least of your self-contradictions.

    How often do you think people get fired for no good reason? It would have to be very significant in order to justify changing the benefits system just to let such people resign without being fired, wouldn't it? What grounds do you have to believe that it is so significant, and would it not be better to improve employment rights and tribunals so they had some comeback, rather than muck about with benefits just to let people resign without being fired?
    It's not a contradiction to develop an opinion on something.

    Last year there were 88,476 tribunal cases of which around half were successful.

    That is pretty significant and for me more than enough reason to reform the absurd sanctions system.
    Last edited by Energize; 30-11-2017 at 8:51 PM.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 1st Dec 17, 12:31 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser

    It's not a contradiction to develop an opinion on something.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Oh you "developed an opinion" in between those two posts. I see.

    Last year there were 88,476 tribunal cases of which around half were successful.

    That is pretty significant and for me more than enough reason to reform the absurd sanctions system.
    Originally posted by Energize
    How many of those people would have been helped by being able to resign before being sacked and claiming benefits? How many wanted to resign before being sacked and claim benefits? You don't seem at all able to stick to the point.

    I can only reiterate what sangie said really. You don't know what you are talking about. I'm out as well.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 1st Dec 17, 12:47 AM
    • 376 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    How many of those people would have been helped by being able to resign before being sacked and claiming benefits? How many wanted to resign before being sacked and claim benefits? You don't seem at all able to stick to the point.

    I can only reiterate what sangie said really. You don't know what you are talking about. I'm out as well.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    It doesn't matter whether they would have resigned or not, they would still be sanctioned for misconduct.

    I think it's best you two are out as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 1st Dec 17, 8:47 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    It doesn't matter whether they would have resigned or not, they would still be sanctioned for misconduct.

    I think it's best you two are out as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Well I would be out if you didn't keep misstating and misrepresenting both your own and other people's arguments.

    That's a completely different question then isn't it? Can you honestly not follow anything?? You came in here claiming that people should be allowed to resign and claim benefits in order to avoid bad references, and that's what people took issue with. The question of people being able to claim benefits when sacked hasn't been raised until now, and is entirely separate! It's not even something I disagree with!

    Give me strength.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 01-12-2017 at 8:50 AM.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 1st Dec 17, 9:38 AM
    • 1,230 Posts
    • 1,012 Thanks
    Comms69
    It doesn't matter whether they would have resigned or not, they would still be sanctioned for misconduct.

    I think it's best you two are out as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.
    Originally posted by Energize


    Ok, so why should the taxpayer support someone who either:


    Walks out of a job
    OR
    Is sacked for misconduct


    ?


    In both cases the person has deliberately given up an income
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

348Posts Today

1,456Users online

Martin's Twitter