What to do about references and reason for leaving after ambushed with dismissal

penners324

Your work history is not blemished. That's not even a 'thing'.

The job wasn't as you expected from the advert & interview so you left (the fact you were sacked is irrelevant and won't get back to your new employer).

Undervalued

penners324 said:

Your work history is not blemished. That's not even a 'thing'.

The job wasn't as you expected from the advert & interview so you left (the fact you were sacked is irrelevant and won't get back to your new employer).

I wouldn't bank on that. They are quite entitled to say that the OP was dismissed in any reference (if indeed that happens) then of course there is the informal grapevine.

wilfred30

penners324 said:

Your work history is not blemished. That's not even a 'thing'.

The job wasn't as you expected from the advert & interview so you left (the fact you were sacked is irrelevant and won't get back to your new employer).

It's not irrelevant at all and the employer is quite within their rights to say so in a reference.

Own_Worst_Enermy

400ixl said:

Most companies now give a very basic reference which just states the role you did and the period you did it for. Doing anything more can lead to issues for them so they try to avoid it.

How can you promise this in these times? 18 months before 30th September 2021 there were employers chancing their luck at a bit of a furlough fraud and who won't have the greatest memory for dates and for fear of being caught (unless there is a HR dept willing to be involved in fraud) as much as Undervalued suggests not to 'rubbish' the employer, clearly never suffering from an incorrect HMRC record with such public records made of which companies claimed furlough. 

I think reference checking is coming back in a big way for all of society, because of. 

SChitmehard

TBagpuss said:

As others have said, if asked, you say that it didn't work out and unfortunately the job turned out to be different to the way it was advertised / presented. That isn't a lie - if they ask directly whether you were dismissed then of course you say yes, and can raise that you were dismissed after raising concerns about lack of raining. 

You are correct that you shouldn't lie, however,  most employers are going to look at the whole picture - one job that only lasted a short time isn't a major red flag where you have been in other roles for long periods.

That said, it may be worth you reflecting on whether there is anything you would need to change if you are offered other similar job. You say that you were overloaded and expected to do too much, too soon - they said they were dismissing you on the basis of capacity . Obviously, from your perspective,  you were misled about what was involved but it may be worth thinking about whether there is any possibility you might also have misjudged what would be expected, for example in terms of how soon it's reasonable to expect you to be able to get up to speed, and what may be expected in other, similar private sector jobs. 

What was the conduct that they referred to as a reason? again, it may be worth considering whether there is anything there that you need to be aware of - for instance, do you come across as more aggressive than you intend? 

I work work related to  child social services. I was overloaded with work straight off and I knew I couldn't do it which would put children at risk. I discussed this with my manager that children are at risk as I may "miss" things as I will not not have sufficient time to look into issues they are raising and could put children at harm (which is how we get into situations where children are killed and then social workers get the blame by management higher up).

 Before me they had an experienced temps working and they gave me the exact same workload. I had some experience of the field but needed training. My Manager said that they would slowly increase my workload during induction but then gave me the same number of cases that the temps were handling (and fired the temps). It's probably so that they could keep hitting some target. Anyway a couple of days after saying this to my manager  they dismissed me saying conduct and capability. They did not detail the conduct/capability in their letter. They discussed the capability aspect and I said I need more time to get up to speed with the workload but they dismissed me anyway. I suspect it was because I said I was being overloaded and it'd put children at risk of harm. 

Undervalued said:

SChitmehard said:

My work has a regulatory body so have to be honest about my employment history and new employers can fire you for lying about this anyway so no point doing something like that.

You refer to a "regulatory body", can they not offer any guidance as to exactly what is (or isn't) required? In some regulated fields a former employer is legally obliged to provide a reference if requested. If they do then they have a obligation to both parties to be honest and not deliberately misleading.

Regulatory body doesn't give a monkeys, if you get overloaded and it results in harm, you get in trouble for not saying anything to your employer. If you say it to your employer, you get fired and the regulatory body does not care. Why do you think there are so many scandals in social services and repeated failures, lessons will be learnt and then the same things happens 1 year later??

Savvy_Sue said:

TBagpuss said:

As others have said, if asked, you say that it didn't work out and unfortunately the job turned out to be different to the way it was advertised / presented. That isn't a lie - if they ask directly whether you were dismissed then of course you say yes, and can raise that you were dismissed after raising concerns about lack of raining. 

I'd also practise what you'd want to say and how you'd want to say it out loud. I'm a great believer in this: once you've heard yourself saying "the job turned out to be different to the way it was advertised / presented" a few times in a quite neutral way, the less likely it is that you'll use the emotive language up thread ....

Sounds like a good idea!

SChitmehard

getmore4less said:

I didn't have an issue with the job/work, just that they lied to me about what I would be doing 

If you weren't doing what you thought you were employed to do that sounds like an issue with the job.

You will need to be a lot clearer in your own mind why this was not working.

If the new jobs you are looking at are the "same" then why will what you end up doing not be the same again.

If you really ended up doing something different that's a clear it was not working because I want to be doing what you want me to do.

Regulated sector often a lot smaller than people think and what's the chances you are a known quantity in the industry anyway.


There is also the higher level ex public sector can't hack it in the real world bias.

Yes, they misled me about the job and then also about the induction. But I get your point that maybe the job isn't right for me and the glimpse it gave me is that the job is not as good as the one I left but it is too late to get that back. the manager was overbearing checking up all the time about how much work was being done etc which is why I hold manager that I can't get through the number of cases that other experienced staff have > this got me dismissed.

If I could, I would get a similar job to the one I was doing the council but those jobs are a bit hard to get which is why I feel really miffed. They misled me to take the job and they know that once an employee quits their old job, that they can "bully" the employee  as their old job is gone and they are effectively stuck, the new employee has to comply or risk termination with everything that entails. I could have just done a rubbish job, put children at risk and kept my job, but I stuck up for me and the children. Maybe in the future I won't be so "stupid" and put myself first. Who knows??

It's was not my ideal job in hindsight. I had slightly  different expectations, the manager wanted me to take on the 100% workload of the temps that could then be fired, which was not as they promised me during the interview. If I knew I would have the temp workload I would NEVER have taken the job. The only jobs being advertised are similar to this job so I'll just have to try another employer and hope that the manager/workload is better.

Yes, my profession is small and word may have got round and maybe I'm institutionalized after working the the council for so long. But I'll try the same job at another employer and if it's the same I guess I'll know.

Savvy_Sue

SChitmehard said:
the manager was overbearing checking up all the time about how much work was being done etc which is why I hold manager that I can't get through the number of cases that other experienced staff have > this got me dismissed.

Sounds to me as if the manager was in a no-win situation: if they didn't check up on someone new to the role 'all the time', it would be easy for a new person to just flounder, and not do the work properly at all. 

400ixl

Jillanddy said:

400ixl said:

Most companies now give a very basic reference which just states the role you did and the period you did it for. Doing anything more can lead to issues for them so they try to avoid it.

People do keep saying this. Without any evidence to support the claim. Some companies give basic references. Other don't. I don't know a single employer in my sector who give basic references. And if the role is in a regulated industry as suggested, it is very unlikely that a reference would be basic.

And your evidence they don't is?

Every company I have worked for and every company I know of, including regulated industries have basic details given by HR. Most do not allow the managers of resources to give company references unless that is done as a personal reference.

Have worked with many corporate HR departments helping them to digitise their processes and this is very much how they typically work.

SChitmehard

Savvy_Sue said:

SChitmehard said:
the manager was overbearing checking up all the time about how much work was being done etc which is why I hold manager that I can't get through the number of cases that other experienced staff have > this got me dismissed.

Sounds to me as if the manager was in a no-win situation: if they didn't check up on someone new to the role 'all the time', it would be easy for a new person to just flounder, and not do the work properly at all. 

I was floundering a little, but the reason was lack of training and being asked to do the same work as a temp without adequate induction - they rushed it so they could get rid of the temps that were costing them a lot of money. Manager spied on EVERYONE - but in a bad way. I said this is not what I was promised before I took the job and if I try to do work at that level, I may mess up which could result in a child being harmed. A day or so after this I was dismissed.

SChitmehard

BTW manager did NOT check that the work was being done properly, just that all the boxes were being "ticked". During my induction I saw many of the staff were cutting corners just to hit a target.

I knew it was risky to speak up, but I am glad that I stuck up for myself (and the children), but obviously that has cost me.