I don’t know how I would feel if I had to train my replacement after being informed that I am no longer needed in this company. It puts people in such a difficult position. It’s nice to help someone new and introduce them to the business, but in this case, it would be a real humiliation for me. I would have neither the will nor the concentration to do so at all. Enbridge of course isn’t the only one that has that practice, but it is really awful.
15 replies (most recent on top)
It's not called "getting even" . It is called "holding people to account" .
Wow, you must really be playing the long game. Waiting for your grandchildren to get even with theirs? :)
The architects of the IT outsourcing are gone but their minions who aided and abetted them are still very much around. Those of us in IT know who they are and we will be after them.
"they are legally entitled to..."
Careful what you ask for... you might get it.
If you were in Alberta, for instance, your legal entitlement to meet the bare minimum standard is:
< 2 Years = 1 week
- up to...
10 years or more: 8 weeks
https://www.alberta.ca/termination-pay.aspx
Now that's not what would come out of a court proceeding - it's simply the minimum to not be in violation of the law. But given that the company's offer very much exceeds that, demanding what is legally entitled isn't a route to improvement.
"Transition-free exit - that's nice to know after the fact. Didn't know you can do that"
One of my night courses at the University of Alberta was on commercial law. It was taught by a lawyer of some 30 years, and he told me the following:
"Almost everybody that goes into a layoff situation leaves something on the table. Usually it's money - but even when the money is good, there may be other things to consider." That's why somebody facing a large enough offer might choose to seek legal advice.
"Should heads roll ?"
Maybe. But that's an entirely different question. And (of course) none of the architects of that outsourcing are still around. They've long fled to other companies.
Their due - their severance pay they are legally entitled to without any threats.
Their relationship is pay as you go - yes, if the employee has no feelings. A long time employee has a lot invested in the company.
Transition-free exi( - that's nice to know after the fact. Didn't know you can do that
BTW, I understand outsourcing has NOT significantly saved Enbridge money. Add up all the bribes that were paid out and no money was saved. And client satisfaction is down. Should heads roll ?
Depends what you consider "their due". What, really, is that?
The company didn't just suck the life out of someone and discard them. At every point in their employer/employee relationship, the employee got paid - and generally paid pretty well. That relationship is pay-as-you-go.
The company does not owe anybody a job for life, any more than the employee owes the company their efforts for life. Circumstances change. That cross-training is not a large commitment, and it's not unreasonable to ask for it.
The employee could have tried negotiating for a transition-free exit. The offer on the table on day one is simply that - an offer. It's open for modification. But what's in it for the employee, except for the satisfaction of torching the fields on the way out?
I originally posted, "be cordial and cooperative". The employee stands to benefit. Either way they'll be shown the door. Leave with more money and a better lasting impression.
There's no good way to handle outsourcing. There are only differing levels of bad. Some people will always believe they're being disrespected.
When you are ordered to train someone who will take over your job otherwise you will be out on the street with no money, does that make any sense at all ? After sucking out all the juice from the individual, you will just be discarded ? Does it sound dignified ? Whether it is worth the bribe or not is debatable. Couldn't they have just laid off the employee and give him/her his due and let the remaining employees bring the new one up to speed ? The original poster on this thread sounds quite anguished and I would, too.
F enbridge
Don't be afraid of the word "bribe". Enbridge pays more than average for severance for one reason: to stay out of court. They are risk averse. It's a bribe the same way the pension is a bribe. Golden handcuffs, and their opposite. Nothing wrong with that.
The original post has nothing in it to allow us to judge if they were treated with dignity. If there's one thing this board has demonstrated, it's that a great many people view the layoff itself as a fundamental indignity, and therefore nothing can make it anything but.
I know the process. They would have been given the option in private with an HR rep. They would not be permitted to sign it at the time, to ensure they didn't make the decision in the emotionally charged moment. They were offered access to extended family support and outplacement services. And, knowing most of the people involved, I would be very surprised to hear anybody was treated disrespectfully.
I've seen this go a lot worse elsewhere.
Of course, it was not bad management. In fact, it was brilliant. But it only goes to show how uncaring the company has become. When you have been working for a company for some time, it is no longer just a source of income. you belong to a community. You have a lot invested. Then you are told you are being ripped out and replaced with someone cheaper but if you are a bad boy/girl then you won't get your bribe ( word not mine ). Laying people off is a business reality and it is never easy. I once worked for a small company that had to lay off some of its employees. The director personally escorted out each laid-off employee. Then he went back to his office and shed a lot of tears. That is treating people with dignity. Ask if the original poster on this thread if he has been treated with dignity.
I'm very familiar with how Enbridge treated people during the outsourcing. If somebody was on the block, they were offered a pretty decent severance. Of course that was contingent on their cooperation. Why wouldn't it be? That's not bad management. If somebody chooses to make a stink on their exit, rescinding the bribe seems appropriate.
This happened in IT when management outsourced a major chunk of its functions overseas. If you did not cooperate, meaning you did not do a proper knowledge transfer, you were threatened with not getting severance pay as you will be deemed to have been dismissed with cause. Such is the kind of management Enbridge has.
Generally this happens when a function is being outsourced or otherwise moved to a contracting arrangement. The right thing to do is to be professional about it. Do your best to do knowledge transfer, ensure things will run when you're gone, and be cordial and cooperative.
Why burn a bridge? If you leave on good terms, it can only help.
Why are you still around? Are you waiting to train the replacement and then get fired?