STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

kenzie · Chanel

RE: Laid off - UPDATED

greendiamond · Marc Jacobs

Is there any way that you can say that your position was eliminated, and that they split your previous position into two new positions? One that the CEO absorbed as it was something he was interested in, and the second, client side position? From my understanding, it wouldn'ty be too misleading, plus it shows you were doing the work of 2 people...

Hermes

It is a bad situation, and you're right -- you don't deseve this. I have been in some bad work situations too, and I have recovered.

I agree - the best you can hope for is that they don't contact him.

The worst situation I found myself in was when a new employer tried to confirm my info on my application (they were sticklers about this, and they even warned me ahead of time.) I was very cautious to provide very accurate past employment and education information and my exact income from previous employers on the application. I was already in the job a couple of days and I got a call from HR telling me my previous employer informed them that my income was different from what I put on the application. HR was telling me they basically had to let me go. I was mortified. I ended up having to show the new employer all my pay stubs from the previous job to prove I was telling the truth. It was a horrible, horrible, awkward situation and to this day, I think the former employer did that out of spite. It certainly didn't give a good impression of me, even though I did nothing wrong and proved it.

Bottom line - for people like you and I, working for other people will always suck. Always. But, it's part of the game of life. One day, you won't have to rely on employers for income and you'll have your own business. Just keep that in mind as you pay your dues

Hermes

greendiamond wrote:
Is there any way that you can say that your position was eliminated, and that they split your previous position into two new positions? One that the CEO absorbed as it was something he was interested in, and the second, client side position? From my understanding, it wouldn'ty be too misleading, plus it shows you were doing the work of 2 people...

This would be a good explanation if they ever question the elimination of the position. Another thing to throw in there is that it was cheaper for them to divide the responsibilities of the position among a couple of entry-level employees to save money. A common practice these days. Strategy responsibilities become the responsibility of the entry-level employees manager.

Boots · Gucci

Could you also say that your former position was redefined? That would explain why the title stayed the same but the duties are different (you mentioned that the new person is more client orientated than what you did in that position.)

kenzie · Chanel

greendiamond wrote:
Is there any way that you can say that your position was eliminated, and that they split your previous position into two new positions? One that the CEO absorbed as it was something he was interested in, and the second, client side position? From my understanding, it wouldn'ty be too misleading, plus it shows you were doing the work of 2 people...

This is a really good suggestion because that's actually what happened. I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me to use that as the explanation. Thanks, gd!

D wrote:
It is a bad situation, and you're right -- you don't deseve this. I have been in some bad work situations too, and I have recovered.

I agree - the best you can hope for is that they don't contact him.

The worst situation I found myself in was when a new employer tried to confirm my info on my application (they were sticklers about this, and they even warned me ahead of time.) I was very cautious to provide very accurate past employment and education information and my exact income from previous employers on the application. I was already in the job a couple of days and I got a call from HR telling me my previous employer informed them that my income was different from what I put on the application. HR was telling me they basically had to let me go. I was mortified. I ended up having to show the new employer all my pay stubs from the previous job to prove I was telling the truth. It was a horrible, horrible, awkward situation and to this day, I think the former employer did that out of spite. It certainly didn't give a good impression of me, even though I did nothing wrong and proved it.

Bottom line - for people like you and I, working for other people will always suck. Always. But, it's part of the game of life. One day, you won't have to rely on employers for income and you'll have your own business. Just keep that in mind as you pay your dues

Ugh, D, that's a terrible work situation. I just don't get the need some people have to be so spiteful. I am so anxiously awaiting the day when I'm the employer; it really is what keeps me going through all this crap.

Boots wrote:
Could you also say that your former position was redefined? That would explain why the title stayed the same but the duties are different (you mentioned that the new person is more client orientated than what you did in that position.)

This is also good- I can just add that to the explanation gd mentioned and hopefully it will be okay. And hopefully, no one bothers to contact these jokers.