Would you hire someone who was dismissed at last role?

Forums › Jobs › Would you hire someone who was dismissed at last role?

1 | 2 | 3

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#2969940 19-Sep-2022 01:34

lxsw20:

So were you in a small company let go under the 90 day trial rule?

Can't believe labour didn't get rid of that 90 day thing.

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#2969942 19-Sep-2022 06:15

mattwnz:
lxsw20:

So were you in a small company let go under the 90 day trial rule?

Can't believe labour didn't get rid of that 90 day thing.

Why? It seems like a good way for both parties to have a trial run. Getting rid of it would mean that employers would be more reluctant to hire people for fear if getting stuck with them... Sure you can say they should do proper references checks but the reality is a trial is always going to be better.

PS: I would leave role on cv and probably put an explanation with it

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

Dynamic

4016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1853

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2969944 19-Sep-2022 06:33

mattwnz:

lxsw20:

So were you in a small company let go under the 90 day trial rule?

Can't believe labour didn't get rid of that 90 day thing.

I strongly disagree. OP's scenario is a great example of where a 90 day trial is helpful for the employee.

This guy was dismissed (his own words) from his last role.
The reason for the dismissal seems plausible, but still the dismissal could be because he was an ass and the skills reason was just an excuse.
With the 90 day trial rule, if I think he's a good fit I can take him on and accept some risk but the risk is lowered as if he is an ass I won't get stuck with him.
Without the 90 day trial rule, I may not want to take the chance and may choose the next best candidate instead.

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

gzt

18686 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2969952 19-Sep-2022 08:17

Would you hire someone who was dismissed at last role?

Yes. Don't worry about it at all. It happens. I suspect some employers are known for a large proportion of unsuccessful trial periods. On the employer side this usually indicates a woefully inadequate hiring process.

gzt

18686 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2969953 19-Sep-2022 08:24

dismissed at last role

'dismissed' is really the wrong word here. It was a trial that did not work out. Nothing else to it.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2969958 19-Sep-2022 08:46

Been there, done that. Actually, I pulled the plug before I was dismissed, but it wouldn't have made a difference. Obviously I couldn't give that boss as a reference. It wasn't a problem.

I explained at my job interviews that I had taken the wrong job, that it wasn't what was represented to me, and was looking for something better matching my skill set (all true). Avoid saying that the boss was a micro-managing arsehole (also true), as some might infer that you have problems with boss-employee relationships.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2969959 19-Sep-2022 08:47

I won't hold it against them but it's a case-by-case thing. I wouldn't be where I am if someone hadn't hired me after getting sacked decades ago. I try pay that forward but context is everything.

xpd

Geek of Coastguard
14116 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4579

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2969960 19-Sep-2022 08:55

Bit OT, but I see both sides of that 90 day ruling........ sure, it works for employers, but some unfortunately take advantage of it and abuse it. Friend got hired for a fulltime permanent role, day 89, got called into office and told to leave. Turns out the role was only available because previous person went and had a baby and said they were coming back. None of this was obviously official so couldn't go anywhere with it but that's what happened.

XPD / Gavin

LinkTree

HellraiserNZ

112 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 25

ID Verified

#2969963 19-Sep-2022 09:01

HandBrake:

Journeyman:

How long were you at that role? A gap in the CV could look suspicous.

2-3 months.

Stretch your previous role period by a month and its perfectly feasible to say you wanted a break in between jobs.

-K

Handsomedan

7770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7406

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2969964 19-Sep-2022 09:06

As a former employer, I'd say it all depends - I wouldn't NOT hire you as a result of losing a job after a short period.

I don't believe it'd really cloud my judgement on the matter, but it would be one of the factors I'd weigh up. If you were really honest and made it clear this role didn't work out for either of you and why, I'd be fine with that and move on to whether you're right for the job I'm hiring for.

I've had jobs where it wasn't a comfortable fit for either of us in the past and one only lasted 6 weeks - I walked before I was pushed, but their moral compass didn't align with mine - I still tell potential employers about it when asked for "challenges" that I have overcome.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

johno1234

3357 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#2969966 19-Sep-2022 09:09

xpd:

Bit OT, but I see both sides of that 90 day ruling........ sure, it works for employers, but some unfortunately take advantage of it and abuse it. Friend got hired for a fulltime permanent role, day 89, got called into office and told to leave. Turns out the role was only available because previous person went and had a baby and said they were coming back. None of this was obviously official so couldn't go anywhere with it but that's what happened.

Ouch. If one was bloody minded one could take a grievance to the Employment Court as it would be quite damning to show the role matched that of someone on maternity leave. The employer was a twit - should have just hired a contractor instead of a "permanent". There's a good chance of a win as several lawyers I know have commented that it is far cheaper for an employer to settle than contest these things. $20k got mentioned.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

xpd

Geek of Coastguard
14116 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4579

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2969975 19-Sep-2022 09:36

It was for a VERY well known company too. But my friend has moved on and loves her new job.

XPD / Gavin

LinkTree

johno1234

3357 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#2969977 19-Sep-2022 09:44

xpd:

It was for a VERY well known company too. But my friend has moved on and loves her new job.

Good to hear. People who are not bloody minded have a better chance of happiness!

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2175

Subscriber

#2970014 19-Sep-2022 10:33

mattwnz:

lxsw20:

So were you in a small company let go under the 90 day trial rule?

Can't believe labour didn't get rid of that 90 day thing.

Only applies to a business with under 20 employees now. Pretty sure pre Labour it was any business size.

Handsomedan

7770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7406

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2970021 19-Sep-2022 10:43

lxsw20:

Only applies to a business with under 20 employees now. Pretty sure pre Labour it was any business size.

Yeah it certainly doesn't apply to large corporates, where I typically work.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

1 | 2 | 3