[andy]

I was fired from Wickr.com a few months after their layoffs.

I was fired from Wickr a few months ago. The given reason was they considered me not a Senior Android Developer and that was my title - I asked too many questions apparently. My manager indicated that if my title had been Android Developer there probably would not have been a problem. I don't care about titles really. I was hired in 2014 as a contractor for 3 months, and then they converted me to a salaried employee. I'm currently searching for a job. I'm finding it challenging to find my next job I think due to disclosing that I was fired from Wickr after a performance review and me being there 2 years doesn't help. The interesting thing is the performance review was held in December 2015, a few months after some layoffs where I was not affected but coworkers were. Another interesting thing is Wickr HR person told us that during the performance review to not expect any surprises. However, this underperformance was a complete surprise to me. I had never been notified. Personally, I would prefer to be laid off vs fired, even if it means a few months less of salary. It was very easy for me to obtain the job at Wickr. I wasn't asked hardly any technical questions and just did a phone screen, never met in person. One thing is I liked being a contractor at Wickr because I was paid for hours worked. The CTO was very insistent about us working overtime, meaning nights and weekends. I complained to him about this overtime requirement without getting paid in an email about a month before my performance review. The reason I emailed was because we were just in a scrum meeting where management was asking us for feedback on how the sprint went.

[traviswingo]

I would honestly refrain from telling people you were fired in that case, and simply state you were laid off. I would then begin to infer that something fishy was going on internally and that you're probably better off not being involved with the company anymore.

It really sounds to me like management didn't know how to deal with the situation and a "performance review" was simply their scapegoat, and not the reality of why they let you go. I wouldn't be surprised if you were performing at a high level and they were just trying to cut the team down to the originals. These things happen all the time. Good luck to you!

[kyrra]

Agreed. If your former employer is smart, they won't say much beyond "yes, that person worked here" when contacted by any company that is looking to hire you. If they say anything that directly results in you being denied a job, it opens them up to lawsuits. (at least that's my understanding)

[mgkimsal]

> If they say anything that directly results in you being denied a job, it opens them up to lawsuits.

This is the received wisdom, but not sure it happens. It might be something that happens at high levels, but it's uncommon for most people to even get a rejection letter or email in the first place, this notion of companies badmouthing you then them telling you that's why you were not hired is just... weird.

Someone would have to call/email your former company, they'd have to put something in writing (or recording) that specifically was negative about you, the company you are applying to would then need to keep a record of that, and then tell you why you weren't hired was because of that negative information.

Has that ever happened to anyone?

It feels to me like the 'lawsuits!' excuse is mostly a smokescreen to cover people being lazy, rude or incompetent at their job of actually managing a hiring process.

[webmaven]

Here is how it happens:

You're applying at a bunch of places, some of them being internal referrals from friends of yours. After a while you notice that all of your job applications are fizzling out, so, frustrated, you start asking for feedback (especially since a friend of yours kept getting rejected for talking about SOA instead of RESTful APIs).

The answers you get aren't helpful, like "we just felt that you weren't a good fit", and in a couple of cases somewhat antagonistic.

Eventually, you hear through the grapevine that you might want to check the references you're using.

So, you get your Significant Other to pose as an employer checking your employment history and references, while they record the calls with an app.

Guess what? One of your references is actually trashing you, saying you were unreliable and a troublemaker. It also turns out that another reference just blows everyone off and never returns calls.

Ta-da! You have a recorded evidence. BIG PROBLEM for the reference that bad-mouthed you.

[scribdjobs]

There's also "back channel" references. If there are some red flags but someone at the hiring company knows someone who worked with that person, they often reach out to get feedback from someone who worked with the candidate directly. Many companies do this during early stage interviews to see if they should continue. They're not official references by any means but pretty common in a small community like the Bay Area tech industry.

[mgkimsal]

Cue people spouting how it's illegal for you to record a conversation.

[sli]

I suppose one could sidestep it by requesting permission to record for "review with the rest of the hiring team." Probably not a good idea, though.

Confronting them on the phone is probably a worse idea, though.

Realistically, though, if you're job hunting, filing lawsuits might not be the best use of time.

[wayn3]

lots of places in the US where recording a conversation is legal if one party of the conversation agrees to it (in this case, the party that does the recording)

[scribdjobs]

Definitely make sure you're giving references who are reliable. But why would /anyone/ give a reference who would badmouth them?

[webmaven]

Haven't you ever been surprised to find out that someone didn't like you?

[slgeorge]

It may not happen, but many companies believe it could happen. Consequently, they say next to nothing about ex-employees - only the dates of employment. If you're the company being asked for the reference there is no upside in you saying that Joe was fired - why would you want to help another company, and why would you want to risk (however infinitesimal) a law suit. This is commonly defined by policy, simply ask the last company that you worked at what their policy is for references and what data they will reveal.

[hanginghyena]

Sadly that is trivial to get around these days, especially if someone at the new company knows someone at the old one.

Most professionals I know are happy to "bend" policy to give a respected colleague or personal friend a good reference, especially if that person is on the street.

If the company clams up and limits its response to name, rank and serial number, that's a huge red flag.

[jrnichols]

I've worked for places that will not say anything about you at all. Nothing. They refuse to even say if you worked there or not, instead referring you to a service they use called The Work Number or something like that.

It's really frustrating to try to look for a job when your potential employer really has a limited way of checking your references.

[mgkimsal]

I get that part, but even if past employer A said something to potential B, why would B say anything to me? It's just going to involve them in something they don't want to be part of in the first place.

[scribdjobs]

HR professional weighing in here :)

You are correct. It's not just "if they're smart" it's "if they're complying with the law." Former employers are only legally allowed to confirm employment, salary (yes, really), and whether or not you're eligible for rehire.

[driverdan]

How is it illegal? Source?

Do you mean they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit by saying anything else? If so, that's different than being illegal.

[liquidcool]

What state? Employment law varies considerably from state to state, and I didn't think that's federal law (but IANAL).

[marme]

it opens them up for lawsuit because they could have slandered you resulting in you losing a job opportunity. It does not mean the former employee will win but if you did say something that is grounds for the lawsuit which you will have to defend and prove what you said was all factually correct. It is cheaper to just settle with the former employee rather than pay lawyers to defend the suit even if you have 100% chance of winning. This is why no company will say anything other than yes that person worked here from x date to y date and maybe a handful of other benign facts about your employment such as your title

[JamesBarney]

Most companies will answer two questions "When did Joe work here, and is Joe eligible for rehire?" This is why it's important for him to figure out if he was terminated-with-cause or not. If this was the case then he is not eligible for rehire and when a company does a background check Joe will run into this issue.

[beachy]

Do you have any evidence about that? We are in the HR software field and in my experience being"eligible for rehire" is not a binary fact, and even if it was it might not be at the fingertips of the person giving the reference.

[JamesBarney]

This was my understanding talking to a couple of friends who were in H.R. They said their company's policy was to only let them answer these two questions. And they implied that this was similar for several other companies they worked for.

So what I'm drawing this conclusion from is definitely anecdotal.

[istorical]

Nobody in this world is gonna fight for you other than yourself.

Don't bring up the termination without being asked if you were fired (in which case it may be better to just admit it), when you're talking about work experience just say after working there for some time you then decided to pursue other opportunities.

Maybe 3 out 4 companies will still figure it out, but all you need is that one success.

[KB1JWQ]

Hand of fate is moving and its finger points to you

It throws you on the street; now what's next for you?

Your options: worthless, and you're bound by NDA

Pied Piper seems quite cushy, best update your resume

-- Iron Maiden, "The Wickr Man"

[jszymborski]

are you suggesting he apply for a job at that new compression company Hooli tried to buy?

[muyuu]

Their middle-out algorithm doe, what a Weisman score.

[JSeymourATL]

> Personally, I would prefer to be laid off vs fired...

That's a distinction with very little difference. You got pushed out.

Creating a poor employee performance review is standard corporate cover for incompetent managers. Besides, who do you want on the team? Cheerfully loyal minions or the guy who gripes about overtime?

Use the Group Restructure/Company Lay-offs as your cover story for leaving and move-on.

[timv]

That is definitely the approach I would use.

Something like:

"The company went through a series of restructures and down-sizing, and I got caught up in that. They mostly kept the junior staff and a lot of the senior developers were let go."

[bbcbasic]

Smooth!

[andy]

I'm not looking to sue Wickr! I am sure I was fired not laid off. I don't bring up to people on interviews that I was fired. I wait for them to ask. I have my own company, so I am even considering taking Wickr completely off my resume completely. I don't know.

[JamesBarney]

First question is are you sure you were fired with cause and not laid off?

If you're sure it's the first you might want to consult a lawyer. Usually a company needs a pretty strong paper trail and a lot of evidence of you screwing up royally before they can fire with cause.

[scolson]

Obviously, they should consult a lawyer, but I want to clarify this point, because the parent comment can be very misleading.

If you have a specific employment contract, all bets are off and only your lawyer and the courts can really determine what is/is not a permissible dismissal.

Assuming no contract, "cause" needs vary by state, so you can't just trust the parent message. In At-Will states, most of the time, you can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons) at any time including "asking too many questions", "asking the wrong questions", "not asking enough questions", or "he/she looked at me funny and I was in a bad mood." All are perfectly valid reasons for an on-the-spot dismissal in an At-Will state.

Now where it gets trickier is filing for unemployment. This can be harder to navigate than simple At-Will rules. In my state, all of the following will be docked against the employer for unemployment compensation:

* Just felt like firing someone

* Asks too many/not enough questions

* Constant quality issues

* Couldn't actually code and in a developer role

In all of the above, it is expected that the employer either should have figured it out before hiring, or should train/retrain to address the situation.

If an employer fires you for a policy violation, then unemployment will not be charged back to the employer (and likely the employee is not "unemployment eligible"). Usually this involves a longer paper trail with multiple meetings and "official" written notice of a policy violation in your company file before being terminated. Generally, this is a CYA thing for the employer so you cannot claim "you didn't know."

Protip: If there is a bs policy that everyone violates, you can still be fired for-cause for violating it. Chances are if this happens, someone really doesn't like you and they want a good reason to get you out.

But in all cases in an At-Will state, you are still out of a job.

(PS: You notice I do not name my state. Since this is an already tricky situation, assume my state is fictitious, and the rules and experiences are equally made up. Ask your lawyer or the equivalent of your state's (un)employment department/commission/branch for how things apply in your state.)

[JamesBarney]

I think you are confusing termination in an at will state with "termination-with-cause" which means that you cannot collect unemployment, and cannot be rehired by the same firm.(or maybe I'm wrong)

When someone asks if you've been fired by a previous company usually they are asking about the second. They will call the previous company and ask if you are eligible for rehire.

[scolson]

No, not confusing it. Your original message was WRT paper trail, which is not required in all cases.

To your message here, fired means something very specific. Though fired can be for cause or no cause. And the reason of cause matters for unemployment.

Laid off means something else.

So really, there are four categories from an unemployment standpoint:

1. Fired - policy violation

2. Fired - "incompetent" (note: in the eyes of the employer)

3. Fired - no cause

4. Laid off

Both 1 and 2 are bad for new job prospects. 3 is hit and miss from a job prospect perspective, but still generally negative. 4 has no impact.

For unemployment in my state, 2, 3, and 4 will all let you collect (and bills back to the company who terminated the working relationship) where #1 makes you unemployment ineligible.

Circling back to your original message about paper trail, #1 is the only one that companies essentially always keep (or should keep) the paper trail for in my state, because it is the only one that is needed to to defend the company in an unemployment hearing if it ever gets there. For the other categories, there may or may not be a paper trail, and it certainly isn't required.

[JamesBarney]

Do most companies when contacted by future prospective employers disclose which of these 4 was the reason for termination?

[scolson]

Depends on who is asking, what they ask, and for what reason. Though it is generally avoided.

If it is a simple reference check (never minding why a terminating company would be listed as a ref...) then as little information as possible would be given; possibly as small as "so and so no longer works here and that is the limit of what we can disclose with them" in order to avoid a bad reference lawsuit.

If it is an employment verification firm, depending on how rigorous the verification, it may come up by direct questioning and this should be expected by all parties.

Some companies do have strict policies about not disclosing some/all details. I am aware of a few firms, that wether good or bad, have policies against providing any reference, similarly, to avoid any potential lawsuit.

Now, when it comes to unemployment, if an ex-employee files a claim, the gloves will very likely come off. If the company can avoid a claim being made against their account, that is the difference of a lot of money on a recurring basis. So in this sense, reason very much matters.

[frenchman_in_ny]

And if you have a specific employment contract (and you're in an at-will state), take a close look at it since it likely includes an arbitration clause.

So going to a lawyer & the courts might make you feel like you're going to get a resolution, but likely you aren't going to get very far.

[amdavidson]

Wickr is based in SF. CA is an at-will state.

Many companies prefer to have a strong paper trail and a lot of evidence to scare people away from filing wrongful termination suits, but he could have been fired just because the boss didn't like him without any legal repercussions.

[coin]

> fire with cause

Isn't it all at-will employment? Why is a reason necessary?

[andy]

Something funny is they granted me some additional stock options which I did not purchase after my negative review and before they fired me. Being fired was actually a surprise to me, I thought I had improved at least a little bit.

[acedinlowball]

From this comment, I can get a sense of why you were fired.

"The reason I emailed was because we were just in a scrum meeting where management was asking us for feedback on how the sprint went."

They wanted feedback on a sprint and you complained about overtime? Pretty easy to see why you got the axe.

[nathan_long]

> Pretty easy to see why you got the axe.

What!? "How did this sprint go?" "Well, I had to work a lot of overtime to finish my work on it."

If you're the manager, do you 1) take this as a sign of poor planning or 2) fire the employee?

I mean, it depends on context, but if you fire people because they complain, you're going to lose all trust and everyone who knows they can find work elsewhere.

[andy]

Yes, I liked being a contractor for that reason.