ReportWire

Tag: firing

  • No-Fire Season Is Real—Here’s Why Smart Companies Observe It

    [ad_1]

    It’s officially no-fire season — that is, unless someone commits an egregious act— you don’t terminate employees from the week before Thanksgiving until January.

    That’s the rule from employment attorney Todd Stanton, and it’s a good one. (In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote the forward to Stanton’s book, The 95% Rule: A Field Guide to Not Losing Your Mind or Making Your Lawyer Rich.)

    What’s the reason behind this rule? You may think that it’s just to be nice —nobody wants to lose their job around the holidays. And this is true. It is nice not to terminate people around the holidays. But it’s also arm of protection for your company.

    Stanton wrote on LinkedIn:

    As we learn in The 95% Rule and Employment Law Axiom No. 22, “Surprised people get angry. Angry people sue.” So at Stanton Law, LLC, we treat the week before Thanksgiving through the end of December as No Fire Season. Absent critical safety violations or severe rule infractions, employers considering terminations in this six-week spot should really ask themselves if timing is right to show someone the door. If you’ve put up with poor performance for as long as you have, gritting your teeth for another few weeks to let people get through the holidays may help you avoid getting coal (or a demand letter) in your stocking.

    The cost of a lawsuit

    Most lawsuit threats go nowhere, but any time a lawyer accepts a case from your terminated employee (no matter how ridiculous), it will cost you to respond. You hear a lot about companies settling without admitting guilt. They do this because, even when innocent, it’s often far cheaper to settle. Attorney Matthew Joseph Novian writes:

    “On average, it costs employers around $75,000 to work with an employment lawyer to settle a claim before it reaches trial. However, if the case progresses to court, the expenses can skyrocket, with pre-trial defense costs easily exceeding $125,000.”

    Note, these costs don’t include the amount you have to pay out to the employee. And you’ll still be out the money if you go to court and win. You can see why companies will settle a claim for $50,000 rather than go to court.

    So, of course, you want to avoid lawsuits — even ones you’ll win.

    Why people sue

    Not everyone who is wronged will sue. In fact, the EEOC estimates that up to 90 percent of people whose rights have been violated at work will not sue. Most people will let it go and move on.

    So what makes the difference between someone who lets it go and someone who hires an attorney? Well, as Stanton said, they are angry.

    In medical malpractice cases, the power of the apology has been so profound that several states have “apology laws.” This prevents patients from using a physician’s apology for a mistake in a lawsuit. It encourages doctors to apologize, and it doesn’t increase lawsuits. It’s a win-win. People often just want to know.

    Likewise, people don’t want to be embarrassed. From Thanksgiving to New Year’s Day, people are often with friends and family, and questions about jobs will naturally come up. Having your mother-in-law ask how work is going at the job that just fired you forces you to either confess over the turkey that you got fired or lie. Neither is good.

    And not to mention the financial pressure. It’s not that things are magically affordable come January; it’s that people tend to have extra year-end expenses. And having to tell kids that Santa isn’t coming because Daddy lost his job just adds to the anger.

    Often, companies slow down hiring in the fourth quarter as well, so it’s even more difficult to find a job.

    The more frustrated and angry a terminated employee is, the more likely they are to pick up a phone and call an attorney. Your i’s may be dotted and your t’s crossed, but if they can make a convincing case to the lawyer, you’ll still be on the hook for a few thousand for your attorney to pull together the information and speak with the plaintiff’s attorney.

    What about people who really need to go?

    Of course, Stanton’s rule doesn’t mean you never fire during this time. If someone is embezzling, sending naughty pictures on the company email, or punches a customer, you will terminate them, even if it’s Christmas Eve. 

    But for your standard employee who is struggling with a performance improvement plan, you can continue to work with them. If your financial straits mean you have no option but to let them go between now and January, Stanton adds:

    “If you are going to hand out pink slips with holiday cards, make sure to keep the process as considerate and generous as you can. You’re not rewarding the person you’re letting go, you’re protecting the folks you’re keeping.”

    You want to treat everyone with dignity. The employees who stay behind will see how you’ve treated their colleagues who lost their jobs. Remember that.

    Also, if you let people go for any reason other than gross misconduct and then show up to the company holiday party in your new six-figure sports car, your remaining employees will relay that information to the person you just laid off for “unavoidable cost reasons.” And their lawyer sees you as a deep-pocketed target.

    Not terminating during the holiday season is the nice thing to do, but even if you’re not a nice person, it’s the financially prudent thing to do. Follow Stanton’s advice and put a moratorium on almost all terminations. 

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Suzanne Lucas

    Source link

  • Should You Fire Employees Who Won’t Learn to Use AI Tools?

    [ad_1]

    One overarching narrative about the rise of AI technology is that it threatens millions of people’s jobs via advanced automation, and many reports show just how nervous workers are that they’ll suffer this fate. Another AI narrative suggests that company leadership is so eager to reap AI’s promises in terms of boosted productivity and lower costs, that they’re pressing new AI tools into use without properly training their workforce, and just expect results to happen. Now a new report stitches these two narratives into a disturbing new one: the majority of executives in a survey said that they’d prefer to fire a worker who refuses to learn and adopt AI tools.

    The data, from multinational U.S.-based office staffing company Kelly Services, shows that 59 percent of the senior executives surveyed would replace workers who “resist adopting” AI tools, news site HRDive notes. An even greater share of executives—fully 79 percent—think that pushing back against the AI revolution is a “greater threat to someone’s job than the technology itself.” 

    These managers, Kelly’s report says, think that AI should function the way AI boosters say it will: freeing up time for frontline workers to actually work on meaningful, higher-value tasks during their time in the office. Think of duties like collaborating with team members, mentoring junior workers and sharing their expertise and knowledge—all tasks that should, in theory, achieve workplace goals and tasks more quickly and smoothly.

    On the flip side, Kelly’s data shows that the workers who actually are expected to use AI are much more doubtful about its actual performance. Under half (47 percent) say they think it helps them save time. Around one in three says they’re just not seeing the benefits that AI promises. 

    The gap between management expectation and worker experience is stark here. Kelly’s report notes that despite this, “nearly all organizations are utilizing AI in some form,” even as they’re experiencing “technical challenges, security concerns, and slow user adoption.” And the vast majority of managers (80 percent) say that their company’s AI rollout is stuttering because their teams “lack the expertise” to use the tech properly.

    There are clear flaws in some of the thinking exhibited by managers here: AI is indeed a promising tech, but many experts warn that it’s not necessarily able to perform all the wonderful things that are promised. Some surveys even suggest that AI tools may be slowing certain workers down. AI technology is also not a panacea for all of a company’s ills—it’s not just something you can adopt and magically see the benefits. Report after report suggests that when you roll out AI to your workers you need to educate and then re-educate your workers on the benefits, best practices and risks of the tech you’re asking them to use simply because the cutting edge is advancing so very quickly (and the cybersecurity risks are advancing swiftly too). 

    You can also argue that Kelly’s data does neatly demonstrate that there’s a new ivory tower effect happening. Executives are simply expecting workers to use AI tools, even as they may be dismissing their workers’ concerns that they’re helping to hone the tech that one day may replace them: certain industries are already experiencing AI-related layoffs, for example. There’s a trust and leadership imbalance in place, and with such broad executive-level support for AI, this could create a toxic work environment. 

    What’s your big takeaway from this for your company?

    Firstly, you need to be aware that despite your hopes that AI will immediately transform your business, the truth is it may not. Barriers like staff reluctance, training time, AI tool issues and more may be stifling the opportunity to benefit from AI.

    Kelly’s report suggests a couple of tricks to solve this, which may be easier to implement in a smaller, more hands-on company than a larger corporate enterprise. For example, the report suggests linking career development to a workers’ AI fluency—a maneuver easily achieved by linking bonuses and promotions to demonstrated skills with AI. Directly addressing workers’ fears by performing “hands-on demos that illustrate how AI helps talent succeed” may also be useful. And you should definitely talk to and listen to your workers after you roll out AI tech: they may be encountering real difficulties, indicating that you need to try better training programs or perhaps that you’ve chosen the wrong AI tools for the task at hand.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Kit Eaton

    Source link

  • This 26-year-old was laid off from his ‘dream job’ at PwC building AI agents. He’s worried the tech he built has led to more job cuts | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Titans of industry like Salesforce, Microsoft, and Intel have all been slashing staff, and employees are hand-wringing about being next on the chopping block. Donald King, a 26-year-old who built AI agents for PwC, never thought he’d be the next one out the door—but he soon realized why consultants are called “hatchet-men.”

    After graduating with a degree in finance from the University of Texas at Austin in 2021, King landed a job at one of the “Big Four” consulting giants: PwC. He packed his bags and moved to New York to start his role as an associate in technology consulting, working with major clients, including Oracle, during his first year. But everything changed when PwC announced a $1 billion investment in AI; King was already intrigued by the tech, so he pitched himself to join the company’s AI factory team. Working 60 to 80 hours a week, he immersed himself in the tech, even throwing knowledge-sharing AI agent block parties within the firm that drew up to 250 participants. King logged a ton of hours—sometimes at the expense of his weekends—but was confident he was excelling in his role as a product manager and data scientist.

    “I was coding and managing a team onshore and offshore. It was crazy, it’s like, ‘Give this 24-year-old millions of dollars of salary spent per month to build AI agents for Fortune 500 [companies],’” King tells Fortune. “[It was] my dream job…I won first place in this OpenAI hackathon across the entire firm.”

    Although King was proving himself as a key AI talent for PwC, he did begin to question the impact of his work. The AI agents King was building for major corporations could undoubtedly automate swaths of human roles—perhaps even entire job departments. One Microsoft Teams agent his group created mimicked an actual person, and King was a little spooked. 

    “We had a late night call with all the boys that are building this thing, like, ‘What the hell are we building right now?’” King says. “Just saying ‘Treat them like humans’ is probably not the best way to think about it.”

    Behind the scenes, a layoff was brewing—but this time, for King. In October 2024, just eight months into his final role at PwC, the Gen Zer presented his winning project from the OpenAI hackathon: a fleet of AI agents that automated manual tasks. King was proud and felt confident in his place at the firm, but two hours later, PwC called King to inform him he was being laid off. The 26-year-old recorded the meeting and posted it on TikTok, raking up more than 75,000 likes and 2.1 million views. Commenters under his videos expressed shock that King would be let go after winning the hackathon.

    “I thought I was safe, especially after I won first place,” King says. “I just got a little blindsided.”

    King clarifies he doesn’t think there were any “nefarious” intentions behind his layoff, reasoning he was likely a random staffer dismissed after the firm had overhired in previous years. However, he does connect the dots between the AI agents he built for PwC customers and the layoffs that soon ensued at those client companies. 

    Fortune reached out to PwC for comment. 

    King believes his AI agents may have been connected to layoffs 

    While King doesn’t believe his former role at PwC was automated, he recognizes that the AI agents he built likely had an impact on others. The year after his layoff, King observed that some of the Fortune 500 clients he served were implementing staffing cuts. Those AI agents he helped create may have had a hand in the layoffs. 

    “It’s 100% connected,” King says. “I knew that consulting was a hatchet-man type job, I knew you’re going in to potentially lay people off, but I didn’t think it was going to be like this.”

    While King believes AI agents are akin to the reasoning power of a five-year-old, they still know “all the corpus of information in the world” and can automate mundane tasks. Oftentimes, that means entry-level jobs are most at risk of being disrupted. 

    “It’s automating tasks, 100%, those are gone,” King says. “If your job is doing those menial types of things, if you’re just emailing a spreadsheet back and forth, you can kiss your job goodbye.”

    Pivoting to his new life purpose: founding a marketing agency 

    While being on PwC’s AI team may have once been his dream job, the layoff didn’t crush his spirit. 

    “I’m grateful for it happening…It was the worst thing that ever happened to me, but then it turned into the best thing,” King says. “Overall, [I’m] very grateful that I got laid off.”

    In the aftermath of being let go, King says he was inundated with job offers from major tech companies to join their AI operations. However, the scrappy young entrepreneur sidelined the idea of returning to a nine-to-five gig; instead, King started his own marketing agency, AMDK. The business officially launched in December last year, less than two months after being laid off from PwC. 

    So far, King says AMDK has roped in clients ranging from small companies to billion-dollar enterprises, many of whom are looking for AI agents of their own. His end goal is to build a swarm of agents that help companies with their back ends—but after his experience on PwC’s AI team, he says he’s being cautious about the ramifications of his creations. He’s still learning the ropes of entrepreneurship, but wouldn’t trade the highs and lows for a salaried corporate job.

    “This is my purpose in life, versus this is someone else’s purpose,” King says. “[I’m] way happier.”

    [ad_2]

    Emma Burleigh

    Source link

  • My New Employee Is Someone I Fired at My Last Company

    [ad_1]

    Inc.com columnist Alison Green answers questions about workplace and management issues—everything from how to deal with a micromanaging boss to how to talk to someone on your team about body odor.

    Here’s a roundup of answers to three questions from readers.

    1. I’ve fired my new employee before

    I recently took a new job in my same industry and city. In my new role, I’ll have a team of eight reporting to me in various capacities and functions. During the interview process, I got a brief read-out on the team and a high-level talent assessment. Nothing stood out as an issue. On my first day, I met the team reporting to me. One of the people on the team is someone that worked for me before and who I terminated for cause due to performance at my previous company.

    What do I communicate to my management team and/or HR about this situation? It feels weird to say nothing because ultimately, this could be a management issue — I’m sure this employee doesn’t feel great about the situation. On the other hand, I don’t want to risk harming this person’s reputation at this company if they are doing a good job so far. This person is pretty new here, too, and my impression is they are either doing a better job in this role or management has not yet identified an issue with their performance.

    Green responds:

    Have you talked to the employee yet? That’s important because they are undoubtedly really uncomfortable, if not outright panicking. Ideally you’d tell them that you’re happy to be working with them again, you’ve heard good things about the work they’ve been doing (if that’s true), and while you know your last time working together didn’t go the way either of you wanted, this is a different situation and, as far you’re concerned, both of you are starting fresh.

    I do think you’re right that you need to mention it to your management team or HR. It’s unfortunate because this person is entitled to a fresh start without the firing following them to a different job, but it’s relevant not as a predictor of the person’s work now but because it could affect the dynamic between the two of you, and either of you could struggle not to interpret things through that old lens. You can keep it very brief — “I managed Jane at a previous company and unfortunately the fit wasn’t right and we ended up parting ways. I’m very willing to start fresh with her and I’m hopeful the role she’s in could be a great match, but I wanted to flag the prior work relationship.” Also, if it’s been a while since you worked together, stress that too.

    2. Why do people respond to emails with a phone call?

    What’s the etiquette on responding to people who you have emailed and they respond with a phone call? I understand there are times when a phone call is necessary. I’ve been getting dozens of phone calls (after sending out a ton of emails on a certain work issue) and they all ask me to call them back. I’m just frustrated because if I email someone, it’s because I don’t want to talk on the phone. And the question is usually easily answered via email. What’s the best way to respond?

    Green responds:

    I get being annoyed, but it’s not always up to you — and sometimes it makes sense.

    Sometimes people will call you back because they think — often rightly — that it’ll be faster. They might not be sure about the meaning of your email and they want to clarify before responding, and figure they’ll just jump on the phone rather than going back and forth. Or their answer might take a long time to write out but be easier to deliver over the phone. Or they just prefer the phone, just as you prefer email. And not everyone feels they communicate as well in writing as they do out loud.

    As an email fan, this can be annoying! When you like email, it feels efficient and convenient and respectful of everyone’s time. Plus, sometimes it’s helpful to have a written record of what was discussed as a reference you can look back at later if needed. And if you’re having an especially busy day or suspect a call will be 30 minutes when it should be five, it might be fine to let the call go to voicemail, then email later with, “Got your voicemail. I’m in back-to-back meetings and will be hard to reach today — any chance email will work?” Maybe it will, and they’ll tell you if it won’t. But save that for when I really need it — because while you get to have your preferences, they get to have theirs too.

    3. Setting boundaries on requests for help from a significant other’s network

    I am engaged to a wonderful person. We both work in the same field, though for different organizations. We are working to create healthy boundaries between our personal and professional lives and it is important to both of us that we are able to pursue careers independently.

    My organization is bigger and engages in some grant-making activities. A coworker of his recently reached out to me for more information on how their organization could acquire funding. I directed her to publicly available resources but she responded seeking a personal introduction to our grant officer. This made me uncomfortable; I’m happy to connect anyone who asks to public information, but it felt like she was leveraging my personal relationship to gain access. I know the importance of networking and personal connections, but I have no professional relationship with this person and we’ve only met once in passing.

    My fiancé and I discussed the need for a policy on how to deal with these kinds of inquiries as we see this being a recurring issue as we move forward in our careers. I would love advice on how to navigate these kinds of requests.

    Green responds:

    The way you handled it sounds just fine! When she asked for an introduction to the grant officer, you could have said, “Oh, we get such a high volume of interest in funding that we ask all grant applicants to follow the process listed on our website.” And if she still pushed: “I’m sorry I can’t help. We’re really rigorous about asking everyone to use the process on our website so that everyone is treated the same. Thanks for understanding!”

    In other words, not so different from how you’d probably handle it if your fiancé weren’t in the picture. Explain what the person should do, and then reiterate that if necessary. Be warm and friendly, but hold firm on what you are and aren’t willing or able to do.

    My answer would be different if the person had been requesting something different. If she were asking for something like an informal chat about moving into your field — as opposed to this kind of special treatment — I’d encourage you to consider that, like you presumably would consider other similar requests that came through a mutual contact.

    Want to submit a question of your own? Send it to alison@askamanager.org.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Alison Green

    Source link

  • From retail to tech, here are the 10 corporations that recently announced mass layoffs | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Amid wider economic uncertainty, some analysts have said that businesses are at a “no-hire, no fire” standstill. That’s caused many to limit new work to only a few specific roles, if not pause openings entirely. At the same time, some sizeable layoffs have continued to pile up — raising worker anxieties across sectors.

    Some companies have pointed to rising operational costs spanning from President Donald Trump’s barrage of new tariffs and shifts in consumer spending. Others cite corporate restructuring more broadly — or, as seen with big names like Amazon, are redirecting money to investments like artificial intelligence.

    In such cases, “it’s not so much AI directly taking jobs, but AI’s appetite for cash that might be taking jobs,” said Jason Schloetzer, professor business administration at Georgetown University’s McDonough School. He pointed to wider “trade offs” from employment to infrastructure investment seen across companies today.

    Federal employees have encountered additional doses of uncertainty, impacting worker sentiment around the job market overall. Shortly after Trump returned to office at the start of the year, federal jobs were cut by the thousands. And many workers are now going without pay as the U.S. government shutdown nears its fourth week.

    “A lot of people are looking around, scanning the job environment, scanning the opportunities that are available to them — whether it’s in the public or private sector,” said Schloetzer. “And I think there’s a question mark around the long-term stability everywhere.”

    Government hiring data is on hold during the shutdown, but earlier this month a survey by payroll company ADP showed a surprising loss of 32,000 jobs in the private sector in September.

    Here are some companies that have moved to cut jobs recently.

    Amazon

    Amazon said Tuesday that it will cut about 14,000 corporate jobs, close to 4% of its workforce, as the online retail giant ramps up spending on AI while trimming costs elsewhere. A letter to employees said most workers would be given 90 days to look for a new position internally.

    CEO Andy Jassy previously said he anticipated generative AI would reduce Amazon’s corporate workforce in the coming years. And he has worked to aggressively cut costs overall since 2021.

    UPS

    United Parcel Service has cut about 34,000 jobs since the start of this year as part of turnaround efforts, amid wider shifts in the company’s shipping outputs.

    The layoffs, disclosed in a regulatory filing on Tuesday, are notably higher than the roughly 20,000 cuts UPS forecast earlier this year. On Tuesday, UPS said it also closed closed daily operations at 93 leased and owned buildings during the first nine months of this year.

    Target

    Last week, Target that it would eliminate about 1,800 corporate positions, or about 8% of its corporate workforce globally.

    Target said the cuts were part of wider streamlining efforts — with Chief Operating Officer Michael Fiddelke noting that “too many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions.” The retailer is also looking to rebuild its customer base. Target reported flat or declining comparable sales in nine of the past eleven quarters.

    Nestlé

    In mid-October, Nestlé said it would be cutting 16,000 jobs globally — as part of wider cost cutting aimed at reviving its financial performance.

    The Swiss food giant said the layoffs would take place over the next two years. The cuts arrive as Nestlé and others face headwinds like rising commodity costs and U.S. imposed tariffs. The company announced price hikes over the summer to offset higher coffee and cocoa costs.

    Lufthansa Group

    In September, Lufthansa Group said it would shed 4,000 jobs by 2030 — pointing to the adoption of artificial intelligence, digitalization and consolidating work among member airlines.

    Most of the lost jobs would be in Germany, and the focus would be on administrative rather than operational roles, the company said. The layoff plans arrived even as the company reported strong demand for air travel and predicted stronger profits in years ahead.

    Novo Nordisk

    Also in September, Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk said it would cut 9,000 jobs, about 11% of its workforce.

    Novo Nordisk — which makes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy — said the layoffs were part of wider restructuring as the company works to sell more obesity and diabetes medications amid rising competition.

    ConocoPhillips

    Oil giant ConocoPhillips has said it plans to lay off up to a quarter of its workforce, as part of broader efforts from the company to cut costs.

    A spokesperson for ConocoPhillips confirmed the layoffs on Sept. 3, noting that 20% to 25% of the company’s employees and contractors would be impacted worldwide. At the time, ConocoPhillips had a total headcount of about 13,000 — or between 2,600 and 3,250 workers. Most reductions were expected to take place before the end of 2025.

    Intel

    Intel has moved to shed thousands of jobs — with the struggling chipmaker working to revive its business as it lags behind rivals like Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices.

    In a July memo to employees, CEO Lip-Bu Tan said Intel expected to end the year with 75,000 “core” workers, excluding subsidiaries, through layoffs and attrition. That’s down from 99,500 core employees reported the end of last year. The company previously announced a 15% workforce reduction.

    Microsoft

    In May, Microsoft began began laying off about 6,000 workers across its workforce. And just months later, the tech giant said it would be cutting 9,000 positions — marking its biggest round of layoffs seen in more than two years.

    The latest job cuts hit Microsoft’s Xbox video game business and other divisions. The company has cited “organizational changes,” with many executives characterizing the layoffs as part of a push to trim management layers. But the labor reductions also arrive as the company spends heavily on AI.

    Procter & Gamble

    In June, Procter & Gamble said it would cut up to 7,000 jobs over the next two years, 6% of the company’s global workforce.

    The maker of Tide detergent and Pampers diapers said the cuts were part of a wider restructuring — also arriving amid tariff pressures. In July, P&G said it would hike prices on about a quarter of its products due to the newly-imposed import taxes, although it’s since said it expects to take less of a hit than previously anticipated for the 2026 fiscal year.

    [ad_2]

    Wyatte Grantham-Philips, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • This Report Says AI Stole 17,000 Jobs This Year. The DOGE Effect Is Much Worse 

    [ad_1]

    AI evangelists continue to insist that AI is improving workers’ efficiency and thus business productivity, freeing up staff from mundane duties to do more meaningful work. Not as many boosters are cheering the fact that it’s just as easy for companies that have gone all in on the new technology to cut labor costs by replacing people’s jobs. According to a new report thousands of jobs have already gone from the job market this year as AI has assumed those duties instead, and fully 7,000 of the losses happened in September alone. All of this may feed into your thinking about rolling out AI at your own company.

    The data, from Chicago-based executive outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, attributes 17,375 job losses to adoption of AI tech since the start of 2025. Most of these cuts were made public in the second half of the year, industry news site HRDive reports.

    The numbers are dramatic, especially since a similar report from Challenger in July said that among some 20,000 jobs lost to “automation” in the first half of the year, only 75 were directly connected to AI. Andy Challenger, senior vice president at the firm, told CFODive at the time that the suspicion was that many more jobs were actually lost to AI. “We do see companies using the term ‘technological update’ more often than we have over the past decade, so our suspicion is that some of the AI job cuts that are likely happening are falling into that category,” Challenger said then, also noting that some firms were being careful because they “don’t want press on it.” 

    In the new report, Challenger noted that it’s mainly tech firms that are “undergoing incredible disruption,” because of AI. Challenger also backed up many earlier reports by noting that the buzzy, controversial tech is “not only costing jobs, but also making it difficult to land positions, particularly for entry-level engineers.” 

    HRDive notes that it’s losses at Salesforce that may be linked to those massive AI-related job cuts in recent months, with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff noting in August that customer service staff numbers were slashed by about 4,000 after AI agents took on some customer handling duties. The interesting wrinkle here is that Salesforce is one of the big tech names that is pivoting aggressively and openly to adopting AI tech, and is even selling it to its customers with the promise that agent-based AIs can save them money. Benioff in early 2025 also said “my message to CEOs right now is that we are the last generation to manage only humans.” In his vision for future company leadership, managers will be steering both AIs and humans through their day to day operations. 

    While 17,000 jobs lost to AI sounds like a lot, it’s dwarfed by other causes, the Challenger report shows. DOGE-related actions is the “leading reason for job cut announcements in 2025,” the report notes, with 293,753 planned layoffs connected to DOGE activities, including reductions to federal workforce numbers and the cutting of contractor deals. Nearly 21,000 more jobs have been lost as part of what Challenger’s report says is “DOGE Downstream Impact,” where funding cuts have hit nonprofits that depend on federal grants. Traditional market and general economic concerns drove another 208,227 cuts in 2025, the report also notes. This means DOGE and the typical workings of the economy are responsible for around 30 times as many job losses than AI.

    But it would be unreasonable to assume AI’s body count won’t rise, considering Big Tech’s push to get AI into the workplace, while developing increasingly capable AI tools that can handle human jobs. And while Challenger notes that tech-centric firms are bearing the brunt of AI-related job cuts right now, it would be sensible to guess that other industries will soon follow.

    What’s the takeaway for your company?

    Primarily that it may be a good idea to reassure your staff that if you’re rolling out AI tools to streamline operations, you’re not actually planning on downsizing your workforce. ”AI won’t be stealing anyone’s job here” is a strong message that will build your team’s trust, assuming that this is actually the case. 

    Another side effect may be a glut of workers in the job marketplace. Since many job seekers are using AI tools to boost their hunt for new employment, you may actually see many more applicants than before for open positions at your company, and your HR team may be quickly overburdened.

    [ad_2]

    Kit Eaton

    Source link

  • My Younger Employees Only Want to Communicate by Text

    [ad_1]

    Inc.com columnist Alison Green answers questions about workplace and management issues—everything from how to deal with a micromanaging boss to how to talk to someone on your team about body odor.

    Here’s a roundup of answers to three questions from readers.

    1. My younger employees prefer communicating by text

    I manage a team of five younger professionals, all between the ages of 25 to 30. I have noticed that each of them prefers to communicate with me almost exclusively by text message or through the chat feature in our collaboration software. Conversations by phone, video, or in-person only happen when I initiate them.

    When I initiate an in-person conversation or phone call, my employees don’t seem opposed and typically are very engaged, but if left up to them it seems like all of the interaction with me would be via text or chat. In my own career, I’ve always valued being able to talk one-on-one with my manager, whether it’s during a formal meeting or impromptu. Is the preference my employees show for engaging with me by text or chat generational or should this be a warning sign that my team does not view me as approachable, or doesn’t place much value in one-on-one time with me as a manager?

    Green responds:

    I’m not a fan of broad statements about generations because people are individuals…but in general there has been a cultural shift away from phone calls and toward other methods of communication. Not just among 20-somethings, but more broadly. And since your employees’ entire time in the workforce has been since that shift started, it makes sense that you’d see it reflected in them.

    Since they’re very engaged when you initiate calls or talk in-person, I wouldn’t worry that they don’t find you approachable or don’t value their time with you. Those communication methods just aren’t their go-tos. If you want, you could always ask them about it; maybe it’ll turn out that they think of calling or stopping by in-person as more of an interruption to you, and think they’re respecting your time by not doing it. But lots of people of all ages have just fallen into this particular set of preferences, and that’s likely all it is.

    2. Screening out bigots in interviews

    A member of our team was recently fired. There had been numerous problems with this teammate, including various remarks made to women and gay men that were not acceptable. So now the search is on to find a replacement.

    How do we ensure we don’t hire another bigot? I can’t flat out ask, “Are you comfortable working with women? How about gay men?” Can I? As a gay man myself, one thought I’ve had is to say, “I’m [name], and I live in the [part of town] of [city] with my husband and dog. [more basic personal info].” If they make a face or seem taken aback, red flag. Is this a reasonable approach or is there a better way?

    Green responds:

    Sharing information about yourself is fine to do. But you’re more likely to get a better sense if you ask about these issues more directly. For example, you could ask, “To what extent have you worked on teams with a broad diversity of race, gender, and sexual orientation, and what have you learned from those experiences?” If this person will be managing anyone, you could ask, “Can you tell me about a time that you had particular success in building an equitable and inclusive team with a variety of demographics, or when you faced an obstacle in doing that? What happened and how did you approach it?” (These questions also signal something about your culture to your candidates, which is useful.)

    3. How to unfriend someone I have to fire

    A few years back, I started at a new company in a mid-level role. During that time, I accepted Facebook friend requests from a few coworkers, all at my level. Generally speaking, I’m fine being friends with coworkers on Facebook as I don’t share anything I wouldn’t want the entire world to see. However, since then I was promoted to the director of our department. I am still friends with coworkers, because I’m comfortable with the content I share being appropriate for the workplace.

    However, I am in the process of terminating an employee on my team, who I am still friends with on Facebook. I understand that they most likely won’t want to remain social media friends with a boss who just let them go. I don’t want to put this employee in any more of an uncomfortable position, knowing how stressful and upsetting losing a job already is. Do I unfriend them prior to letting them go, unfriend them when we finalize the termination, or just see what happens and let them decide if they want to disconnect?

    Green responds:

    Definitely don’t unfriend the person right before letting them go; if they notice, it’ll look ominous and awfully cold. Frankly, doing it right afterwards will look pretty cold too! You’re better off leaving it in their hands; they can unfriend you if they want, block your posts, or whatever they’re comfortable with.

    For what it’s worth, ideally you would have disconnected from anyone you managed on Facebook when you became the director, because this is only the first of a bunch of awkward situations that could come up. It’s not enough that you’re not concerned about what you might post; being connected to them means you might see things they’d rather their boss not see or think about (their politics, health, family, whatever it might be) — and it’s less fraught for you to take the lead on fixing that than it is for them. And if you disconnect from everyone at once, it’s easy to explain it’s not personal and you just don’t want them to feel like you’re watching what they post.

    Want to submit a question of your own? Send it to alison@askamanager.org.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Alison Green

    Source link

  • Trump Says There Could be Firings and Project Cuts if Shutdown Continues

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday said federal workers could be fired and projects cut if a government shutdown continues, even as he suggested Americans might get rebate checks from new tariff revenues.

    “There could be firings, and that’s their fault,” Trump said of Democrats in Congress, when asked in an interview with OAN television network about a recent memo from the Office of Management and Budget that raised prospects of firings.

    “We could cut projects that they wanted, favorite projects, and they’d be permanently cut,” he said, adding, “I am allowed to cut things that should have never been approved in the first place and I will probably do that.”

    The federal government partially shut down on Wednesday after Congress failed to reach a funding deal, with only essential services continuing.

    Trump said revenues from new tariffs were just starting to kick in but could eventually reach $1 trillion a year. He said some of the funds would help pay down the government’s debt, which he said could reach $38 trillion.

    Trump’s tariff estimate far exceeds that of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who last month said customs duty revenues from Trump’s tariffs could top $500 billion a year.

    U.S. Treasury data shows the federal government has $37.64 trillion in federal debt.

    The Republican president said his administration was looking at using tariff revenues to issue rebate checks for Americans.

    “We also might make a distribution to the people, almost like a dividend to the people of America,” Trump told OAN. “We’ve thinking maybe $1,000 to $2,000. It’d be great.”

    Reporting by Kanishka Singh and Andrea Shalal, Editing by Franklin Paul and Cynthia Osterman

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold his firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook

    [ad_1]

    President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the independent board that can raise or lower interest rates.

    The appeal “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote.

    The appeal is the second this month asking the court to give Trump broad new power over the economy.

    The first, to be heard in November, will decide if the president to free to impose large import taxes on products coming into this country.

    The new case could determine if he is free to remake the Federal Reserve Board by removing a Democratic appointee who he says may have broken the law.

    Trump’s lawyers argue that a Fed governor has no legal right to challenge the president’s decision to fire her.

    “Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Trump’s lawyer said.

    Trump has chafed at the Federal Reserve board for keeping interest rates high to fight inflation, and he threatened to fire board Chairman Jerome Powell, even though Trump appointed him to that post in 2018.

    But last month, Trump turned his attention to Cook and said he had cause to fire her.

    Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

    Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

    The law does not define what amounts to cause.

    President Biden appointed Cook in 2023 and she was confirmed to a full term.

    In August, however, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, he said she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

    Typically, borrowers obtain a better interest rate for a primary residence. But lawyers say charges of mortgage fraud are extremely rare if the borrower makes the required regular payments on the loan.

    About 30 minutes after Pulte posted his allegations, Trump posted on his social media site: “Cook must resign. Now!!!”

    Cook has not responded directly to the allegations, but her attorneys pointed to news reports that said she told the lender her Atlanta condo would be a vacation home.

    Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25. “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referrral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

    Cook filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegation did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest the charges.

    U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, agreed she made a “strong showing” the firing was illegal and blocked her removal.

    She said Congress wrote the “for cause” provision to punish “malfeasance in office,” not conduct that pre-dated her appointment. She also said Cook had been denied “due process of law” because she was not given a hearing.

    The U.S. appeals court in Washington, by a 2-1 vote, refused to lift her order Monday.

    Judges Bradley Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, said Cook had been denied “even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed.”

    Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said the “for cause” removal provision was broader than misconduct in office. It means the president may remove an officer for “some cause relating to” their “ability, fitness, or competence” to hold the office, he said.

    And because a government position is not the property of office holders, they do not have a “due process” right to contest their firing, he said.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Nestlé fired its scandal-clad CEO without a payout—a ‘really unusual’ move, corporate governance expert says

    [ad_1]

    When Nestlé abruptly ousted its chief executive Laurent Freixe over Labor Day weekend after revelations of a romantic relationship with a direct subordinate, one detail stood out: He was shown the door without a severance package.

    That, according to corporate-governance veteran Nell Minow, is almost unheard-of in the C-suite.

    That is really unusual,” she told Fortune. “I think that’s actually a badge of success for corporate governance, because that’s something investors have been concerned about for a long time: CEOs being dismissed and somehow getting to stay on.”

    Nestlé confirmed to Fortune that Freixe will not receive a severance package. 

    For years, high-profile executives who crossed ethical lines have left with multimillion-dollar parachutes. Famously, Steve Easterbrook, the former chief executive of McDonald’s, walked away from the role with a hefty sum of $40 million after getting caught having a consensual relationship with a subordinate. McDonald’s later clawed back $105 million from Easterbrook after finding he hadn’t disclosed sexual relationships with other subordinates at the fast food giant.  

    Adam Neumann—after leading a disastrous charge to take the company he founded, WeWork, public—received $445 million in a payout package during his ouster. And after 346 people died in two crashes during Dennis Muilenburg’s tenure as Boeing CEO, he was not awarded severance but still left with more than $60 million in stock options. 

    Minow said these different outcomes show that boards are not always consistent in how they police misconduct, but that one thing remains the same: Social media has left directors with fewer options to look the other way. 

    “There has been bad behavior in the boardroom for a long time,” Minow said. “But partly because of social media, partly because of the way things get out, the board is under more pressure to respond.”

    The reputational fallout from bad behavior can be brutal. A Polish CEO who was recently caught on video snatching a U.S. Open souvenir hat from a child watched his company’s online reviews collapse to near zero in days. The “John” of Papa John’s caused Major League Baseball to pull its promotion with the pizza chain after he used the N-word during a media-training call in 2018. 

    Boards are slowly adapting, Minow argued. Some have begun docking bonuses or moving faster to terminate CEOs “for cause,” meaning the executive in question committed serious misconduct that warrants dismissal without severance pay. But she warned many still demonstrate  a double standard. 

    “If you see some hypocrisy in the board, by the way that they handle the CEO versus the way they handle a middle manager, that’s a green light for employees to behave badly themselves.”

    Even the apology, she said, operates as a test of governance. Minow keeps what she calls an informal “hall of shame” of poor executive apologies. The worst, she explained, dodge responsibility or fail to show how the company will prevent a repeat. The best are blunt, swift, and backed by action.

    Ultimately, Nestlé’s move may prove a turning point. By denying Freixe a golden parachute, the Swiss food giant signaled that boards are starting to treat reputational risk as seriously as financial risk, and that missteps at the top no longer guarantee a cushy landing.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed: What to know

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump is seeking to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, citing allegations surrounding mortgage forms she filed before she became a Fed governor.

    The Federal Reserve is arguably the most important player in shaping the economy in the U.S. — and possibly the world. In his second term, Trump has consistently attacked the institution and its chair, Jerome Powell, for failing to lower interest rates as fast as he wants. 

    But the Fed was established to be independent of political influence, and the effort by Trump to fire Cook represents a breach of historical norms — and possibly the law. Cook was nominated by President Joe Biden and is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor. Her term runs until 2038, and she has said she is not resigning.

    Here’s some background on the legal dispute and what it may entail.

    How are Fed board members chosen and how long do they serve?

    The Fed is headed by seven governors nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The president selects and the Senate confirms a chair and two vice chairs from among the governors. These governors serve nonrenewable 14-year terms, while the chair and vice chairs serve renewable four-year terms. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    The Fed’s most closely watched power comes from monetary policy decisions, which are determined by the Federal Open Market Committee. This committee, which meets at least every six weeks, includes the seven governors, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents of the remaining 11 regional banks, who rotate on and off the committee.

    This structure means that Cook is one of the committee’s seven permanent members. One position is currently vacant, following Biden appointee Adriana Kugler’s Aug. 8 resignation. Trump nominated White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Stephen Miran to succeed Kugler, which will require Senate confirmation. Cook, if she is forced out, would offer Trump a second governor vacancy to fill.

    During his first term, Trump appointed Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller as Fed governors. He also initially appointed Powell as chair, before becoming disenchanted with him.

    What has Trump done to try to oust Cook?

    After increasing rhetoric against Cook, Trump on Aug. 25 released a letter in which he said he was immediately dismissing Cook on Truth Social

    Trump cited a “criminal referral” from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, a Trump appointee, relating to mortgage fraud. Pulte and Trump allege that Cook falsely attested on loan forms that homes in both Atlanta and Ann Arbor, Michigan, qualified as her primary residence, potentially allowing her to secure a lower interest rate.

    “The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks,” Trump wrote. “The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve. In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

    Cook said the firing was unsupported by the law.

    “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” her statement said. “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”

    On Aug. 26, her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, announced that Cook would sue to block her firing.

    The same day, the Fed said through a spokesperson that “Cook has indicated through her personal attorney that she will promptly challenge this action in court and seek a judicial decision that would confirm her ability to continue to fulfill her responsibilities as a Senate-confirmed member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”

    How can a Fed governor be removed?

    The Federal Reserve Act says governors can be removed from their position only “for cause.” The interpretation of this phrase will be central to the legal fight over Cook’s status.

    “‘For cause’ generally means inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” said Daniel Farber, a University of California-Berkeley law professor. “Arguably, none of those apply since the conduct took place before Cook was in office. But legal precedent is scanty.”

    In addition, Trump’s decision to fire Cook rests on “allegations from one of his loyalists,” rather than a conviction, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.

    Trump may not need a conviction, which could take more than a year to play out, said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor. But Bowman said something more than an allegation ought to be necessary.

    “Unless judges are willing to impose some minimal process, some standard of misconduct seriousness, and some evidentiary standard, the ‘for cause’ requirement becomes illusory,” Bowman said. 

    Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on the question eventually. Under Trump, the court has been deferential to the president’s ability to fire federal officials, even those that had previously been assumed to be safe from such ousters.

    However, in a May procedural decision, a majority allowed Trump to proceed in removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board — but specifically noted that the Federal Reserve is a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” that fell outside the bounds of its decision to green-light Trump’s firings elsewhere.

    If Cook’s case reaches the high court, Farber said, “the odds favor her, but I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk case.”

    Why is this dispute important?

    Trump wants the Fed to lower interest rates, which could encourage investment and home purchases.

    However, some economists say this would be risky — not only because inflation hasn’t fully returned to the Fed’s target 2% rate since spiking to around 9% in 2022, but also because Trump’s aggressive tariff policy could drive prices higher. The Fed was designed with political insulation, because higher rates to keep inflation low may not be popular with the president or other elected officials.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump fires Fed governor Lisa Cook, opening new front in fight for control over central bank

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets. Stock futures declined slightly late Monday, as did the dollar against other major currencies.If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”Cook was appointed to the Fed’s board by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.Her nomination was opposed by most Senate Republicans, and she was approved on a 50-50 vote with the tie broken by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.Questions about ‘for cause’ firingThe law allows a president to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which typically means for some kind of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. The president cannot fire a governor simply because of differences over interest rate policy.Establishing a for-cause removal typically requires some type of proceeding that would allow Cook to answer the charges and present evidence, legal experts say, which hasn’t happened in this case.”This is a procedurally invalid removal under the statute,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia law school and author of “The Fed Unbound,” a book about the Fed’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.Menand also said for-cause firings are typically related to misconduct while in office, rather than based on private misconduct from before an official’s appointment.”This is not someone convicted of a crime,” Menand said. “This is not someone who is not carrying out their duties.”Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. While they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.No presidential precedentWhile presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before, no president has sought to fire a Fed governor. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors. Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ’70s.President Harry Truman pushed Thomas McCabe to step down from his position as Fed chair in 1951, though that occurred behind the scenes.The Supreme Court signaled in a recent decision that Fed officials have greater legal protections from firing than other independent agencies, but it’s not clear if that extends to this case.Menand noted that the Court’s conservative majority has taken a very expansive view of presidential power, saying, “We’re in uncharted waters in a sense that it’s very difficult to predict that if Lisa Cook goes to court what will happen.”Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the president’s use of the “for cause” provision is likely an effort to mask his true intent. “It seems like a fig leaf to get what we wants, which is muscling someone on the board to lower rates,” she said.A fight over interest ratesTrump has said he would only appoint Fed officials who would support lower borrowing costs. He recently named Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, to replace another governor, Adriana Kugler, who stepped down about five months before her term officially ended Aug. 1.Trump appointed two governors in his first term, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, so replacing Cook would give Trump appointees a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s board.”The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the president wrote.Cook will have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials.Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump’s attempt to fire Cook illegal, “the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans. It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would only appoint officials who would support cutting rates.Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.__Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed.

    President Donald Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.

    Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.

    Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”

    Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.

    Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets. Stock futures declined slightly late Monday, as did the dollar against other major currencies.

    If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.

    Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”

    Cook was appointed to the Fed’s board by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

    Her nomination was opposed by most Senate Republicans, and she was approved on a 50-50 vote with the tie broken by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Questions about ‘for cause’ firing

    The law allows a president to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which typically means for some kind of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. The president cannot fire a governor simply because of differences over interest rate policy.

    Establishing a for-cause removal typically requires some type of proceeding that would allow Cook to answer the charges and present evidence, legal experts say, which hasn’t happened in this case.

    “This is a procedurally invalid removal under the statute,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia law school and author of “The Fed Unbound,” a book about the Fed’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Menand also said for-cause firings are typically related to misconduct while in office, rather than based on private misconduct from before an official’s appointment.

    “This is not someone convicted of a crime,” Menand said. “This is not someone who is not carrying out their duties.”

    Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. While they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.

    No presidential precedent

    While presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before, no president has sought to fire a Fed governor. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors. Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ’70s.

    President Harry Truman pushed Thomas McCabe to step down from his position as Fed chair in 1951, though that occurred behind the scenes.

    The Supreme Court signaled in a recent decision that Fed officials have greater legal protections from firing than other independent agencies, but it’s not clear if that extends to this case.

    Menand noted that the Court’s conservative majority has taken a very expansive view of presidential power, saying, “We’re in uncharted waters in a sense that it’s very difficult to predict that if Lisa Cook goes to court what will happen.”

    Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the president’s use of the “for cause” provision is likely an effort to mask his true intent. “It seems like a fig leaf to get what we wants, which is muscling someone on the board to lower rates,” she said.

    A fight over interest rates

    Trump has said he would only appoint Fed officials who would support lower borrowing costs. He recently named Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, to replace another governor, Adriana Kugler, who stepped down about five months before her term officially ended Aug. 1.

    Trump appointed two governors in his first term, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, so replacing Cook would give Trump appointees a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s board.

    “The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

    Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the president wrote.

    Cook will have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.

    Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump’s attempt to fire Cook illegal, “the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans. It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”

    Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.

    Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would only appoint officials who would support cutting rates.

    Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.

    __

    Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ranger fired for hanging transgender flag in Yosemite

    [ad_1]

    A Yosemite National Park ranger was fired after hanging a pride flag from El Capitan while some park visitors could face prosecution under protest restrictions that have been tightened under President Donald Trump.Shannon “SJ” Joslin, a ranger and biologist who studies bats, said they hung a 66-foot wide transgender pride flag on the famous climbing wall that looms over the California park’s main thoroughfare for about two hours on May 20 before taking it down voluntarily. A termination letter they received last week accused Joslin of “failing to demonstrate acceptable conduct” in their capacity as a biologist and cited the May incident.“I was really hurting because there were a lot of policies coming from the current administration that target trans people, and I’m nonbinary,” Joslin, 35, told The Associated Press, adding that hanging the flag was their way of saying, “We’re all safe in national parks.”Joslin said their firing sends the opposite message: “If you’re a federal worker and you have any kind of identity that doesn’t agree with this current administration, then you must be silent, or you will be eliminated.”Park officials on Tuesday said they were working with the U.S. Justice Department to pursue visitors and workers who violated restrictions on demonstrations at the park that had more than 4 million visitors last year.The agencies “are pursuing administrative action against several Yosemite National Park employees and possible criminal charges against several park visitors who are alleged to have violated federal laws and regulations related to demonstrations,” National Park Service spokesperson Rachel Pawlitz said.Joslin said a group of seven climbers including two other park rangers hung the flag. The other rangers are on administrative leave pending an investigation, Joslin said.Flags have long been flown from El Capitan without consequences, said Joanna Citron Day, a former federal attorney who is now with the advocacy group Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility. She said the group is representing Joslin, but there is no pending legal case.On May 21, a day after the flag display, Acting Superintendent Ray McPadden signed a rule prohibiting people from hanging banners, flags or signs larger than 15 square feet in park areas designated as “wilderness” or “potential wilderness.” That covers 94% of the park, according to Yosemite’s website.Park officials said the new restriction was needed to preserve Yosemite’s wilderness and protect climbers.”We take the protection of the park’s resources and the experience of our visitors very seriously, and will not tolerate violations of laws and regulations that impact those resources and experiences,” Pawlitz said.It followed a widely publicized instance in February of demonstrators hanging an upside down American flag on El Capitan to protest the firing of National Park Service employees by the Trump administration.Among the climbers who helped hang the transgender flag was Pattie Gonia, an environmentalist and drag queen who uses the performance art to raise awareness of conservation issues. For the past five years, Gonia has helped throw a Pride event in Yosemite for park employees.She said they hung the transgender flag on the iconic granite monolith to express that being transgender is natural.This year, Trump signed an executive order changing the federal definition of sex to exclude the concept of gender identity. He also banned trans women from competing in women’s sports, removed trans people from the military and limited access to gender-affirming care.Gonia called the firing unjust. Joslin said they hung the flag in their free time, as a private citizen.“SJ is a respected pillar within the Yosemite community, a tireless volunteer who consistently goes above and beyond,” Gonia said.Jayson O’Neill with the advocacy group Save Our Parks said Joslin’s firing appears aimed at deterring park employees from expressing their views as the Trump administration pursues broad cuts to the federal workforce.Since Trump took office, the National Park Service has lost approximately 2,500 employees from a workforce that had about 10,000 people, Wade said. The Republican president is proposing a $900 million cut to the agency’s budget next year.Pawlitz said numerous visitors complained about unauthorized demonstrations on El Capitan earlier in the year.Many parks have designated “First Amendment areas” where groups 25 or fewer people can protest without permits. Yosemite has several of those areas, including one in Yosemite Valley, where El Capitan is located.Park service rules on demonstrations have existed for decades and withstood several court challenges, said Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers. He was not aware of any changes in how those rules are enforced under Trump.

    A Yosemite National Park ranger was fired after hanging a pride flag from El Capitan while some park visitors could face prosecution under protest restrictions that have been tightened under President Donald Trump.

    Shannon “SJ” Joslin, a ranger and biologist who studies bats, said they hung a 66-foot wide transgender pride flag on the famous climbing wall that looms over the California park’s main thoroughfare for about two hours on May 20 before taking it down voluntarily. A termination letter they received last week accused Joslin of “failing to demonstrate acceptable conduct” in their capacity as a biologist and cited the May incident.

    “I was really hurting because there were a lot of policies coming from the current administration that target trans people, and I’m nonbinary,” Joslin, 35, told The Associated Press, adding that hanging the flag was their way of saying, “We’re all safe in national parks.”

    Joslin said their firing sends the opposite message: “If you’re a federal worker and you have any kind of identity that doesn’t agree with this current administration, then you must be silent, or you will be eliminated.”

    Park officials on Tuesday said they were working with the U.S. Justice Department to pursue visitors and workers who violated restrictions on demonstrations at the park that had more than 4 million visitors last year.

    The agencies “are pursuing administrative action against several Yosemite National Park employees and possible criminal charges against several park visitors who are alleged to have violated federal laws and regulations related to demonstrations,” National Park Service spokesperson Rachel Pawlitz said.

    Joslin said a group of seven climbers including two other park rangers hung the flag. The other rangers are on administrative leave pending an investigation, Joslin said.

    Flags have long been flown from El Capitan without consequences, said Joanna Citron Day, a former federal attorney who is now with the advocacy group Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility. She said the group is representing Joslin, but there is no pending legal case.

    On May 21, a day after the flag display, Acting Superintendent Ray McPadden signed a rule prohibiting people from hanging banners, flags or signs larger than 15 square feet in park areas designated as “wilderness” or “potential wilderness.” That covers 94% of the park, according to Yosemite’s website.

    Park officials said the new restriction was needed to preserve Yosemite’s wilderness and protect climbers.

    “We take the protection of the park’s resources and the experience of our visitors very seriously, and will not tolerate violations of laws and regulations that impact those resources and experiences,” Pawlitz said.

    It followed a widely publicized instance in February of demonstrators hanging an upside down American flag on El Capitan to protest the firing of National Park Service employees by the Trump administration.

    Among the climbers who helped hang the transgender flag was Pattie Gonia, an environmentalist and drag queen who uses the performance art to raise awareness of conservation issues. For the past five years, Gonia has helped throw a Pride event in Yosemite for park employees.

    She said they hung the transgender flag on the iconic granite monolith to express that being transgender is natural.

    This year, Trump signed an executive order changing the federal definition of sex to exclude the concept of gender identity. He also banned trans women from competing in women’s sports, removed trans people from the military and limited access to gender-affirming care.

    Gonia called the firing unjust. Joslin said they hung the flag in their free time, as a private citizen.

    “SJ is a respected pillar within the Yosemite community, a tireless volunteer who consistently goes above and beyond,” Gonia said.

    Jayson O’Neill with the advocacy group Save Our Parks said Joslin’s firing appears aimed at deterring park employees from expressing their views as the Trump administration pursues broad cuts to the federal workforce.

    Since Trump took office, the National Park Service has lost approximately 2,500 employees from a workforce that had about 10,000 people, Wade said. The Republican president is proposing a $900 million cut to the agency’s budget next year.

    Pawlitz said numerous visitors complained about unauthorized demonstrations on El Capitan earlier in the year.

    Many parks have designated “First Amendment areas” where groups 25 or fewer people can protest without permits. Yosemite has several of those areas, including one in Yosemite Valley, where El Capitan is located.

    Park service rules on demonstrations have existed for decades and withstood several court challenges, said Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers. He was not aware of any changes in how those rules are enforced under Trump.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta Fires $400,000 Employee Over $25 Uber Eats Meal Voucher | Entrepreneur

    Meta Fires $400,000 Employee Over $25 Uber Eats Meal Voucher | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Meta fired about two dozen people in the company’s Los Angeles office last week for misusing a $25 dinner voucher over an extended period of time. One employee made $400,000 per year.

    Meta gives employees a $20 credit for breakfast, $25 for lunch, and $25 for dinner through Grubhub or Uber Eats. Instead of using the $25 credit to buy dinner and have it delivered to the office, some Meta staff opted to buy items like toothpaste and wine glasses with the credit, per The Financial Times. Or they would get dinner delivered at home or pool their credit money together.

    Related: Meta Is Putting AI Images on Your Facebook and Instagram Feeds, With Personalized Pictures

    The staff who were let go routinely misused their vouchers, while others who misapplied them less frequently, were reprimanded but not fired.

    The Meta employee who made $400,000 wrote on an anonymous messaging platform that being let go over the meal credit was “surreal.”

    Mark Zuckerberg. Photo Credit: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Meta started a new round of layoffs on Wednesday that affected teams across Instagram, WhatsApp, and Reality Labs. It’s unclear how many people were affected.

    Meta reported 22% revenue growth, or revenue of $39.07 billion, in its second quarter in late July. In an earnings call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company was “driving good growth” and that Meta AI was “on track to be the most used AI assistant in the world by the end of the year.”

    Related: She Sent a Cold Email to Meta Judging Its Ray-Bans. Now She Runs the Wearables Division.

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • A CEO Firing, and the Chaos at Paramount

    A CEO Firing, and the Chaos at Paramount

    [ad_1]

    Matt is joined by Lucas Shaw to discuss the ousting of Paramount Global CEO Bob Bakish, why it happened now, and whether it affects a potential deal moving forward. They then update their predictions in the Skydance vs. Apollo deal, and wonder what would happen to Paramount Global and its new three-headed CEO triumvirate if there is no deal. Matt finishes the show with an opening weekend box office prediction for the upcoming action movie Fall Guy.

    For a 20 percent discount on Matt’s Hollywood insider newsletter, What I’m Hearing …, click here.

    Email us your thoughts!

    Host: Matt Belloni
    Guest: Lucas Shaw
    Producers: Craig Horlbeck and Jessie Lopez
    Theme Song: Devon Renaldo

    Subscribe: Spotify

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Belloni

    Source link

  • Terminating an Employee? Don’t Make These Legal Mistakes | Entrepreneur

    Terminating an Employee? Don’t Make These Legal Mistakes | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Insubordination. IP disclosure. Misconduct. Breach of restrictive covenant.

    All of these are legitimate reasons to fire someone, but what do HR managers and business owners need to know about the legal technicalities surrounding employment termination?

    Components of a legal termination

    To avoid legal issues post-termination, it’s important to understand the main components of a lawful employment termination.

    • Make sure you identify any required paperwork to provide to the employee under state or local law. For example, in California, employees must be provided a certain form of Notice of Change in Employment Relationship as well as a pamphlet about unemployment benefits at the time of termination.
    • Check your state’s termination paycheck rules. You might have to pay your employee on the date of termination or within a certain time thereafter, despite your normal payroll cycle.
    • Identify any legal risks in connection with the termination. For example, is the employee a member of a protected class? Have they been a whistleblower?
    • If the termination is for performance or other “cause” termination, have you documented the performance issues? Has there been progressive discipline of some sort, or will this be a surprise to the employee? These are important questions because firings for performance should not be a surprise to the employee; an employee should be on notice of the performance issues and be given a chance to improve. This protects the company if the employee alleges wrongful termination. It also helps with morale; employees won’t want to stay if they think they may be terminated out of the blue.
    • Always have a witness in a termination meeting, which may benefit the company in the event of litigation. In most cases, the witness should not be a lawyer. This is to prevent that lawyer from becoming a witness in the lawsuit, which could present an issue for attorney-client privilege reasons.

    Related: How to Fire an Employee: 4 Ways to Make the Process Kinder

    What not to say during a termination

    While there’s no guidebook for all of the things to say — and not to say — during a termination, there are some guidelines that an HR manager or business owner should heed.

    Termination discussions should be short. Less is more in this case.

    Don’t ramble on about the reasons for the termination. Don’t talk about other employees; if the termination is a layoff, don’t explain whose employment status is safe or why. Don’t get into an argument or long exchange. Be respectful but firm.

    The gray areas of legal termination

    A broader, more objective view

    HR and legal professionals can have a broader, more objective view of terminations that are important to the company, which can help to mitigate risk. For example, a hiring manager might opt for layoffs or otherwise terminate some employees because those employees are having a harder time adapting to new software. However, this can often end up in terminating mostly older employees. It’s important to think about whether there’s an age discrimination issue. It’s also worth considering whether the manager needs to be counseled on how to better train these employees.

    High-risk termination situations

    It behooves HR managers and business owners to protect themselves from getting into high-risk termination situations. Therefore, it’s important to have policies in place for documenting employment issues and progressive discipline; this can serve as a written record to support termination. This is especially helpful in situations where an employee in a protected class or situation is to be terminated. For example, you need to terminate an employee who is going on maternity leave. If their performance issues are documented, and if there was a process of progressive discipline, a company will be better prepared for an employment claim.

    Effective and legal use of severance agreements

    Severance agreements can be invaluable in terms of mitigating the risk of lawsuits, but the law around them changes rapidly. Don’t reuse forms, and do be sure to work with a lawyer who knows current employment law at both the state and federal levels.

    Related: 11 Tips for Firing an Employee

    Repercussions of unlawful termination

    Failure to comply with final paycheck laws can lead to wage claims and penalties.

    Failure to comply with proper paperwork required by state and local law can lead to fines.

    Failure to document employment performance issues and engage in progressive discipline can make the company vulnerable to wrongful termination lawsuits. For example, if someone who just asked for a disability accommodation has been terminated, but the HR manager claims it’s for performance reasons, a jury is unlikely to believe the manager if those performance problems weren’t previously documented.

    Failure to identify whether there are risks to termination can lead to making nonoptimal termination decisions. If you see that there is a high chance of an employee bringing a wrongful termination claim, you can better prepare in terms of offering severance or perhaps delaying termination while establishing a better documentation process.

    The bottom line

    As a business owner or HR manager, it’s inevitable that you will have to terminate employees. Keeping these considerations in mind can help to protect you and your company in the long run.

    [ad_2]

    Mital Makadia

    Source link

  • Even Cloudflare's CEO says that viral firing video is 'painful' — here's what went wrong

    Even Cloudflare's CEO says that viral firing video is 'painful' — here's what went wrong

    [ad_1]

    A tech employee’s recording of the meeting firing her from a sales role at Cloudflare
    NET,
    -1.79%

    has spurred criticism of the company — and a broader conversation about the right way to let employees go.

    Viewers have called the roughly 10-minute TikTok video, which went viral this week, “sad” and a “disaster.” Even Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince responded on X (formerly Twitter) that it was “painful for me to watch.”

    In the video captioned, “POV: You’re about to get laid off,” former Cloudflare account executive Brittany Pietsch logs into a virtual meeting with an HR representative and a director at the company, both of whom she says she’s never met before. In a caption, Pietsch writes that she assumed they were meeting to let her go, because she had heard from coworkers who had been axed already.

    In the video, the company reps say that Pietsch hadn’t met performance expectations, and that Cloudflare had decided to “part ways” with her. Pietsch’s response is what has pushed this clip to be shared all over social-media newsfeeds: She asks for an explanation for why she, specifically, is being let go by the company, particularly because she’s a new employee who hasn’t heard any negative feedback. She also asks why her manager isn’t a part of this termination meeting.

    “Every single one-on-one [meeting] I’ve had with my manager, every conversation I’ve had with him — he’s been giving me nothing but ‘I am doing a great job,’” she says during the meeting. “I’m just definitely very confused and would love an explanation that makes sense.” 

    The director, who can’t be seen in the video, says he “won’t be able to go into specifics” on Pietsch’s performance. 

    In a statement to MarketWatch, a Cloudflare spokesperson clarified that the company did not conduct layoffs, and is not engaged in a reduction of force. “When we do make the decision to part ways with an employee, we base the decision on a review of an employee’s ability to meet measurable performance targets,” the Cloudflare statement said. “We regularly review team members’ performance and let go of those who aren’t right for our team. There is nothing unique about that review process or the number of people we let go after performance review this quarter.”

    Pietsch did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

    Company CEO Prince added on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the company fired 40 salespeople out of 1,500 in its go-to-market division. “That’s a normal quarter,” he wrote in his post. “When we’re doing performance management right, we can often tell within 3 months or less of a sales hire, even during the holidays, whether they’re going to be successful or not.” 

    But he also added: “We try to fire perfectly. In this case, clearly we were far from perfect. The video is painful for me to watch. Managers should always be involved. HR should be involved, but it shouldn’t be outsourced to them … We don’t always get it right.”

    Many viewers seem to agree, as the video has drawn close to 200,000 views on TikTok and millions of views on X, along with going viral on Reddit.

    “Total disaster on both sides,” lawyer Eric Pacifici said. 

    “Totally unfair to her,” wrote Austen Allred, CEO of the online-coding bootcamp Bloom Institute of Technology. “Pretty sad across the board.” 

    On LinkedIn, Pietsch gave her own response to the social-media uproar. She said that her manager was unaware that she was being let go, and that she asked questions during the meeting not to try and save her job, but rather to get greater clarity on why she had been singled out for termination. 

    “I’ll never be able to wrap my mind around it,” she wrote in the post. “We as employees are expected to give 2 weeks notice and yet we don’t deserve even a sliver of respect when the roles are reversed?”

    What’s the right way to fire an employee? 

    It’s never easy to part ways with an employee, according to Molly, a human-resources consultant who runs the TikTok account HR Molly, which has 80,000 followers. She asked only to be identified by her first name for privacy reasons. 

    But that being said, it’s very important to treat affected employees with respect. That can include sharing as much information as possible about why the decision is being made. 

    “I tell people that even if you catch someone stealing, even that termination meeting should have a level of decency,” she said. “It seems like there’s a significant consensus that the meeting [in the viral video] lacked some dignity.”

    It’s also important to understand these kinds of conversations will be difficult for an employee no matter what, Molly added. 

    “We know this impacts people and we know this is emotional and that it’s harmful. How can we do it in a way that creates the least amount of additional harm?” she said, noting that she picked up the concept from fellow TikTok creator and diversity consultant Ciarra Jones. “Companies need to prioritize the well-being of the employee that’s impacted.” 

    As for recording your layoff or firing meeting — that can be risky, Molly said, and downright illegal in states that require you to receive consent before doing so.

    But companies and HR professionals would be wise to remind themselves that, in this day and age, it can happen, she said. And if a camera or tape recorder would change the way you handle an interaction, it’s a good sign to reevaluate.

    According to its company website, Cloudflare has dozens of job postings for open positions across the company, including sales roles.

    In her LinkedIn post, Pietsch said that she’s not very concerned about any backlash over the video that might impede her chances of getting another job. 

    “Any company that wouldn’t want to hire me because I shared a video of how a company fired me or because I asked questions as to why I was being let go is not a company I would ever want to work for anyway,” she wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. private-sector ‘pulling back’ adding 145,000 jobs in March, ADP

    U.S. private-sector ‘pulling back’ adding 145,000 jobs in March, ADP

    [ad_1]

    The numbers: U.S. private payrolls climbed by 145,000 in March, according to the ADP National Economic report released on Wednesday. 

    Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal had forecast a gain of 210,000 private sector jobs.

    The private sector added a revised 261, 000 jobs in January.

    Key details: Service sector providers added 75,000 jobs in March. Leisure and hospitality added 98,000 workers. Meanwhile, goods producers added 70,000 jobs. Manufacturing shed 30,000 jobs.

    By company size, small businesses added 101,000 private-sector jobs in March while medium businesses added 33,000. Large-sized businesses added 10,000 jobs.

    Pay growth decelerated for both job stayers and job changers, ADP said.

    For job stayers, year-over-year gains fell to 6.9% from 7.2%. For job changers, pay growth was 14.2%, down from 14.4%.

    Big picture: The job market has been strong, with jobless claims trending below 200,000. Companies seem wary of letting workers go.

    Economists are forecasting that the U.S. Labor Department’s employment report will show the economy added 238,000 jobs in March. That estimate includes government jobs. If the data comes in as expected, it could show over one million jobs created in the first three months of the year.

    What ADP said: “Our March payroll data is one of several signals that the economy is slowing,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist, ADP. “Employers are pulling back from a year of strong hiring and pay growth, after a three-month plateau, is inching down.”

    Market reaction: Stocks
    DJIA,
    +0.24%

    SPX,
    -0.25%

    were set to open lower after the data. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note
    TMUBMUSD10Y,
    3.282%

    fell to 3.32% after the data was released.

    [ad_2]

    Source link