"Let go" from my job, how is this going to affect me?

[toledos]

I'm a full-time university student. I decided to go ahead and find employment earlier this year. I was hired at a restaurant at minimum wage about mid-May. I was only given about 20 hours per week, but since I was taking summer classes and fall classes that was fine by me.

In early August, I took a week off for a family vacation. I gave a month's notice prior to this and there were no issues. I took the week off. Upon return, I informed my usual shift manager that I could take hours again. I was not given any. I came in again a few days later and offered to take over any shifts that people didn't want. No hours given. 2 weeks passed without any hours, and I finally left a note for the owner in the office telling her that I need work and provided my class schedule. The next day, I received a call from the manager who informed me that they had re-hired an employee who had left for the summer before I was hired. They said hours were only being given to top performers and I was not one but that I am being "let go" on good terms and that they wished me the best of luck.

No further explanation was given other than I wasn't a "top performer" and they had re-hired an old employee. I don't understand their argument. I took shifts whenever people asked, I was cross-trained on 3 of the 4 stations, I always put full effort into work, never on my phone, get tasks done, etc. Whereas other members of the team would come in high and get glued to their phones and lollygag.


Anyway, /endrant. Is this termination going to be a big deal? I never thought I'd get fired from somewhere so it's been a bit of a shock to me. I feel like I was let go because of politics and don't want this to have a negative impact on my future.




Thanks.

[Crazed]

Assuming everything you are saying is 100% accurate, which I doubt, it is all about how you spin it.

Getting "laid off" is better than getting "fired". It is not uncommon for a company to hire someone temporarily as a fill in until one of their regular employees come back. Throwing in all those excuses just makes it sound like you are trying to hide something.

[toledos]

Assuming everything you are saying is 100% accurate, which I doubt, it is all about how you spin it.

Getting "laid off" is better than getting "fired". It is not uncommon for a company to hire someone temporarily as a fill in until one of their regular employees come back. Throwing in all those excuses just makes it sound like you are trying to hide something.

My apologies, I'm not trying to hide anything, I just get irked when I think about it. Thanks for the input.

[PhilipCal]

Not a career ender, just a glitch in your employment history. List it, explain it, move on.

[slamdunc]

Sounds like it was temporary, part-time, Summer work to me. When you were initially hired, did they tell you they would probably 'thin the herd' and / or hire back their regular employee?

[toledos]

Sounds like it was temporary, part-time, Summer work to me. When you were initially hired, did they tell you they would probably 'thin the herd' and / or hire back their regular employee?

No sir, it was our agreement that I would continue to work in the fall. Now that I think about it though, the turnover at that place is rather high. New employees every other week.

[wutzcrack3n]

Just list it (BRIEFLY)stating what happened, then move on. It wont be a dealbreaker unless you make it one by lying or omitting it.

[Iowa #1603]

No sir, it was our agreement that I would continue to work in the fall. Now that I think about it though, the turnover at that place is rather high. New employees every other week.

You are not understanding slamduc's response.

While slamdunc put in his answer "Summer work" that is just a term. You were hired part time non permanent

You were hired part time. Unless you have a contract saying you are going to remain employed, you are an "at will " employee and can be terminated or laid off at the whim of the employer

It is not at all unusual for an employer to simply not give an under achieving part time employee hours in an attempt to get the employee to resign, thus ending any unemployment insurance issues. In this case they chose to simply inform you that you are no longer employed.

It happens all the time

[just joe]

Not a big deal. They didn't fire you for cause; they just stopped putting you on the schedule because they no longer had hours for you.

[L-1]

What Will Your Employer Say?

In early August, I took a week off for a family vacation. I gave a month's notice prior to this and there were no issues. I took the week off. Upon return, I informed my usual shift manager that I could take hours again. I was not given any.

Not to throw a monkey wrench in all the positive responses you’ve received so far, but let’s pursue this a little further.

The wording of your post has made me curious. Did you simply tell them you would be unavailable for work because you decided to take a vacation, or did you apply for and receive approval to take vacation in accordance with their company policy for doing so? There is a great distinction between the two and which one your employer says it was can make a difference.

If they say you made yourself unavailable because you told them you were taking a week off and they let you go because they can’t have unreliable employees who dictate the terms of their own employment, this can be a no go in the background process. It suggests you lack the traits of dependability, industry, and a willingness and ability to assume the responsibilities and to conform to the conditions of work characteristic of your employment. OTOH, if you requested and were approved vacation time in accordance with company policy, then it sounds like you were laid off.

[Iowa #1603]

Not to throw a monkey wrench in all the positive responses you’ve received so far, but let’s pursue this a little further.

The wording of your post has made me curious. Did you simply tell them you would be unavailable for work because you decided to take a vacation, or did you apply for and receive approval to take vacation in accordance with their company policy for doing so? There is a great distinction between the two and which one your employer says it was can make a difference.

If they say you made yourself unavailable because you told them you were taking a week off and they let you go because they can’t have unreliable employees who dictate the terms of their own employment, this can be a no go in the background process. It suggests you lack the traits of dependability, industry, and a willingness and ability to assume the responsibilities and to conform to the conditions of work characteristic of your employment. OTOH, if you requested and were approved vacation time in accordance with company policy, then it sounds like you were laid off.

I caught that too, but didn't try to read anything into his statement about " gave a month's notice prior to this and there were no issues. I took the week off"

Obviously your take could also be true

[sgt jon]

…..Anyway, /endrant. Is this termination going to be a big deal? I never thought I'd get fired from somewhere so it's been a bit of a shock to me. I feel like I was let go because of politics and don't want this to have a negative impact on my future. Thanks.

If it is truly as you parlayed it- it should not be a huge issue. But we have a collective level of skepticism for some inane reason.

[toledos]

[post deleted]

[Adrianhamm]

When you list it on future applications be honest and diplomatic about it. It will help in the long run. You don't actually know what they are going to say about you when they are called about your history with them.