[tomp]

> I also think how it's framed matters a lot: "this isn't working out for either of us" vs. "you aren't welcome here, don't come back".

Doesn't really matter how it's framed, when the reality is clear in almost all interactions: the employee is getting the short end of the stick. It's very simple, really: the ratio of employee's salary to his/her total income is very likely to dwarf the ratio of the cost of the employee to the companies total costs. Hence, keeping an employee is very low-risk for the company, while getting fired is very high-risk for an individual. Even if you say "it's not working for us", what you really mean is "I'll slightly improve my profit margins by turning your life on it's head!".

[makmanalp]

Maybe. What you're saying is a tautological conclusion of the fact that large companies tend to have a lot of employees. None of your employees cost much individually, but if you don't fire anyone, the aggregate cost is a lot.

Besides, if you thought that the point of a company was to provide you with a job and sustenance, you were delusional to begin with. The fact that they're paying you is a side effect of the fact that you're doing things for them that they need. I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm just saying that no one's really hiding that fact.

How this ties in to what the parent is saying: not everyone is fired because they inherently suck. It's possible to not suck and still not be useful to the company. So the stigma here is a bit irrational. I know a company who hired a C-level executive and then very soon realized that they didn't need that person yet, and went through many pains to keep that person onboard on the paperwork. They made it look like they left after a year on their own accord, all in order to not ruin the person's career.