“Lesson Officially Learned”: Employee Shares Why You Should Never Warn Your Coworkers About Them Getting Fired

Losing a job can be a gut-wrenching, stressful experience, and one often learns too late in life which people do not have the ability to manage their emotions. Having security escort out a terminated employee might seem heavy-handed and even cruel, but every once in a while, there is a situation that justifies it.
An internet user shared a cautionary tale of why one should possibly avoid warning a coworker about an impending firing. They described the chaos and disruption that ensued and decided to write up the whole experience so others in a similar situation could think twice. Readers shared their thoughts and some even had some tough questions for OP.

Despite often sitting mere feet away for years, we can’t always know how they are when inhibitions or rational thought are gone. Many commenters note that OP really did not do a great job evaluating Carl and his behavior, but it’s worth noting that OP is also telling the story from the perspective of someone who knew they messed up. It’s not the easiest thing to fess up to mistakes and we should always remember that OP’s willingness to share is what enables us to learn. And their point stands, probably best to not divulge that someone is going to get fired when you really don’t know how they may act. This in many ways is OP’s biggest mistake. If it was someone close to themselves, they may have had a better understanding of what reaction the person would have to this information. So giving this volatile bit of news to a guy they didn’t know that well was just a disaster in waiting.

These sorts of situations are the precise reason some companies will have security on site as soon as an employee is informed that they are being fired. Often, this seems unnecessary, cruel, and humiliating, but that one time in a thousand, the policy makes sense. Even if there isn’t an altercation, some employers have stated that recently fired workers will try to steal as much as they can or vandalize their desks in retaliation. While there are no hard numbers on how often this actually happens, managers will generally not spend money employing security if they don’t feel like they are doing anything useful. In the digital age, employees can do even more damage, if administrative permissions have not been adjusted, leading to the modern phenomenon of tech workers learning about their termination when they can no longer access the project they are responsible for.

Of course, in most circumstances, the employee is just a normal human being who won’t flip out like Carl. Indeed, a heavy-handed policy can and will end up causing some legal issues down the line. Don Works, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Orlando, believes that companies risk discrimination suits if they only use security with certain employees. Inevitably, unless it’s a blanket policy, managers will be forced to justify why they used security in certain circumstances. On the other hand, a blanket policy opens up other risks. Employee morale would suffer, as it can’t be comfortable to see coworkers walking out of a building like cattle. Even further, a worker in Canada sued his ex-employer for escorting him off the premises after firing him without cause. While the case wasn’t explosive, it did set a precedent that employers had to have due cause to use heavy-handed methods like security.

Carl, on the other hand, proved that his employer was correct to fire him based on his own reaction to the news. This is not normally a good reason for termination, but cases like this are good reminders of why on-site security exists. If there was dedicated security, the fire alarm would not have been needed, probably limiting the chaos to just the poor manager's office. Obviously, not a great situation for her, but at least the rest of the workforce wouldn’t have been disrupted.