IIRC the UK is at-will for the first two years of your employment too. Some startups leverage this to an almost toxic degree.
I had one manager (who then became CTO and is now CEO of another startup) who, by all appearances, treated firing as the only tool in his arsenal for dealing with any personnel problem. I was never on the receiving end, but in a few cases I know for a fact that he lied (or hugely exaggerated) about what the terminated employee had been done. He is the reason I left.
* you can demand written explanation if you've worked for at least two years
But, for most contracts here a 3/6 month probationary period seem to be the norm for tech/professional roles, and then a 3-month notice period (to quit or be let go).
You don't actually need to give a reason, at-will means you can be fired without cause.
For those abroad, remember that most of the time health insurance is tied to employment in the US... so when you get fired your costs also skyrocket (especially if you're the insurance source for your family).
Here in South Africa it's challenging but certainly not impossible. If you provide 3 or so written warnings and set up sessions to try to allow the employee to improve, you may go ahead and dismiss the person. But you can't simply fire at will unless it's gross misconduct or similar.
But is that at the will of your direct boss or there is a process that they have to go through? Like, if for some reason I piss off my manager, they get mad and fire my ass on the spot? How common is this in tech companies?
Pretty uncommon at tech companies, but it's entirely based on the company's policy. The company can fire you at any time (as long as it's not one of several specific bad reasons like racial discrimination), but it's the company that employs you, not your manager. So only the company can fire you.
Generally big tech companies don't give your manager the authority to blindly fire you, but only because that's a decision the company made.
Short answer is yes. Long answer is yes, but reasonable companies will try to find some reasons first as firing for no reason will only increase company's unemployment insurance.
I've fired some people in an EU setting; and have also been let go myself (layoff round, I never took it personally). It's true that countries outside the US have more legal checks and balances around this topic. But it's not true that it's impossible to fire people. Basically, those checks and balances are mostly for good reasons. And I've noticed that better employers in the US tend to use them as well even if they are not required to. Mostly the bureaucracy around firing people is a bit more efficient but the process is loosely the same; or at least it should be. In some places it isn't of course.
Basically there are a few different scenarios here:
1) somebody committed a firing offense. This is rare but it happens and it requires immediate action. These are in a way the easiest because they are usually so clear cut and sometimes it involves legal action as well. I've never had to do this myself but I've seen it happen to other people around me. We're talking clear cut cases of "WTF did that person just do?!". You get legal involved and make it happen. It's unpleasant and you'll have no choice.
2) mutually agreed consensus about somebody's performance. This is the "it shouldn't be a surprise" situation. This usually happens after you've created plenty of opportunities for the person to improve. Often that just doesn't happen and you need take it to the next level. It's stressful and it involves building a case against a person such that they can't ignore the reality that they are indeed not delivering. Mostly people like this leave by themselves. For me the test of this done well is me being able to meet these people afterwards to have a friendly/courteous chat over coffee/beer a few years later. I'm often pleasantly surprised to see that people moved on and improved themselves. Sometimes firing somebody can be the best thing you do for a person from a career development point of view. Don't make it personal.
3) financial difficulty sometimes makes it necessary to make tough choices. Usually people that were performing less (see 2) would be the first ones to go. This sometimes comes as a surprise. In my case I got an excellent performance review, a little raise, and was out on the street two months later. It wasn't personal and I was definitely surprised/shocked. I've since had to fire people in struggling startups a couple of times. It sucks. For everybody. If it feels like failure, it's because it is. I've had to fire friends even. And we're still friends.
Simple recommendations when firing:
- Build consensus about the action with your direct peers. You are representing your company here and relaying a joint company decision. So, make sure it's a fair decision that everybody can stand behind. Firing somebody should not come as a surprise to your peers.
- Be straight about this happening on your recommendation though. Don't hide behind the company.
- Expect people to be shocked, emotional, etc. and be ready for this. So, don't ask them to take any difficult decisions on the spot. But inevitably, some paper work may be involved and some legal steps on both sides.
- Focus on the core facts of the situation and avoid any debating or arguing.
- Lead with the core message: "I have some bad news for you ...".
- Have an off-boarding plan and communicate that plan. "This is what happens next".
> This usually happens after you've created plenty of opportunities for the person to improve. Often that just doesn't happen
Doesn´t that mean you the employer failed too? It could be that someone is really not well fit for the role, but it could also be that the employer has no clue how to lead someone to success. As you say
> I'm often pleasantly surprised to see that people moved on and improved themselves
This is for me an indication that the employer lacks critical skills and needs improvement. Being a checklist manager and demanding improvement is the easy part, but making people grow in the direction you want is the hard part.
That's a very one sided view. It assumes the employee always means well and is super motivated to adapt and change. Or even capable of changing. When all that stops being true, it's usually quite obvious. The mistake is allowing such a situation to continue to exist and not intervening. Every dysfunctional team you've ever been on, that's what happened.
As a manager/supervisor/mentor, I've coached more than a few people to success to know that I'm actually objectively good at this. Quite a few people I've worked with have gone on to be extremely successful in what they do. And I like to think I helped them on that path a little. But there are exceptions to this where indeed I failed to get people off their ass and improve themselves. A handful of those situations escalated to the point where letting them go was the next logical step. Some people are just fundamentally hard to coach or even open to being coached.
> It assumes the employee always means well and is super motivated to adapt and change. Or even capable of changing. When all that stops being true, it's usually quite obvious. The mistake is allowing such a situation to continue to exist and not intervening.
> As a manager/supervisor/mentor, I've coached more than a few people to success to know that I'm actually objectively good at this.
Ok fair enough, that is a vital addition you made.
What I have observed is the pattern of "she doesn't function" => "she needs to improve" => "she needs to let go".
If you do provide coaching to a motivated person, I believe success is the most likely outcome.
I've been around people who were fired in Germany as well, both as what you described in 1) and 2).
2) takes a lot of effort, a lot of people and the negative effect of that person's performance on the rest of the team can be severely damaging too, that I wish we had at-will employment in Germany too sometimes, but it's there for good measures and I'm generally happy with it.
I had one manager (who then became CTO and is now CEO of another startup) who, by all appearances, treated firing as the only tool in his arsenal for dealing with any personnel problem. I was never on the receiving end, but in a few cases I know for a fact that he lied (or hugely exaggerated) about what the terminated employee had been done. He is the reason I left.