Recently I heard of a person being “allowed to resign” and was wondering if that was fair to future potential employers.  Letting someone resign instead of firing them outright can be very misleading,  To end a job someone quits with no notice, resigns with notice, gets fired, laid off or is allowed to resign.  In this lawsuit and retribution happy climate, employers have to be careful if they want a poor performing employee to leave.  In addition to paying unemployment compensation, disgruntled employees can sue for any number of offenses, file complaints with EEOC, the Labor Department or hire a lawyer and sue. 

Before we were all afraid of repercussions, employers could call each other for references to help them make hiring decisions.  Now most employers will only verify the dates of employment

It’s too bad that employers can no longer say things like mentally unstable, psychotic, thief, liar, on drugs, drunk…..

The person who was recently “allowed to resign” had already been allowed to resign at least two other times.  Do you think the employer would have hired this person if they heard the truth from one or more previous employers?  Is it fair?  I know it increases labor costs because of a high rate of turnover of marginal employees.

If the real truth was known, that person wouldn’t be able to get a job anywhere.  What do you think?  Is it fair not to tell?


leslie edwards

sells real estate


RE/MAX  Around Atlanta

Before you print this email, ask yourself if you really need a paper copy

conserve, reuse, recycle