Timeline for answer to What does "x employee is no longer employed by XYZ company" mean? by Matthew Gaiser
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2019 at 17:46 | history | edited | Matthew Gaiser | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 409 characters in body
|
| Dec 13, 2019 at 16:54 | comment | added | computercarguy | In my experience, if someone voluntarily left the company, there will either be no notice or a "happy farewell" notice. This sounds more like a "don't let this person in the front door and don't talk to them about company matters anymore" notice. Yes, it could be a form letter, but to be sent out company wide, the person would have to be well known and likely upper management, rather than the seeming "line worker" of the person in question. | |
| Dec 13, 2019 at 16:54 | comment | added | O. Jones | +1. This "no longer with...." wording is typical corporate doublespeak. It almost certainly means they were sacked. It also means the people who did the sacking don't want to talk about this situation (for legal or business reasons). Sometimes they say "left to pursue another opportunity..." which implies resignation rather than sacking. | |
| Dec 13, 2019 at 12:10 | comment | added | Flater | Not necessarily. If the employee resigned over something that would cause others to consider resigning (or even if it would simply impact morale), then the same decision to remain vague about the end of employment can be made. | |
| Dec 13, 2019 at 11:36 | comment | added | Karl Nicoll | I'm not sure this is knowable with the information we have. At least at my company in the UK, "X is no longer employed by COM" is a very standard response. In a business setting, it's pretty common for someone to email someone that has quit, have their email forwarded to the person that took over the account, and for that to be the standard response. It's a very dry/formal response, but it's pretty standard response in my industry at least. | |
| Dec 13, 2019 at 5:52 | comment | added | Juha Untinen | It is evading any legal issues. If they said anything directly, it could allow a lawsuit against them. Eg. GDPR, or its equivalent in the US (where the evasion practice seems to originate). | |
| Dec 13, 2019 at 5:09 | history | answered | Matthew Gaiser | CC BY-SA 4.0 |