Unexpected Termination & Grievances
An ex-TCS employee reported a problematic separation from the company, citing a lack of warning and a perceived disregard for established policies. The
employee pointed out that the 'Separation due to Business exigency' clause in TCS's Separation Policy mandates prior notice, a step they claim was skipped. Furthermore, the employee expressed frustration at the inability to secure new roles internally due to a lack of information. This included the assertion that senior positions are filled via personal contacts rather than through official channels, further complicating the situation for those looking for assignments. The individual's account portrays a feeling of unfairness, particularly concerning the short notice given before the termination and the lack of clarity surrounding the company's actions.
Process Gap Allegations
Central to the employee's narrative is the claim of a significant process gap within TCS. The former employee described being told to resign or face termination, emphasizing how this was experienced as an unjust and sudden decision. They highlighted that after providing feedback on the lack of advanced notice and process transparency, a new benchmark policy was implemented by TCS. However, this policy was not in place during the termination, leading the employee to believe that there was no real process to follow at the time of their dismissal. The employee felt entitled to be informed about essential milestones, rather than being informed of them after the fact, pointing out a failure in internal communication and a lack of respect for employee rights.
Internal Role Acquisition Difficulties
The ex-employee revealed difficulties in acquiring new roles inside TCS. This difficulty stems from the employee's perspective that the RMG team often responded with, "I don't have anything for seniors." They mentioned they were left seeking roles, and believed that most senior positions were filled via leadership's personal contacts, with few managerial positions advertised on the LEAD portal. This perceived lack of transparency in the job assignment process added to the sense of being unsupported during a difficult period. After the employee's termination, two roles became available, highlighting the potential for misallocation and the RMG and HR's supposed target to dismiss seniors, further compounding the employee's frustration and sense of injustice.
Employee Feedback & Reaction
Following their discharge, the ex-employee gave feedback to TCS. The feedback highlighted the absence of communication of key milestones and a perceived breach of company process, particularly given the lack of proper notice and the employee's regular engagement with the RMG team. Their feedback underscored the need for advance communication about crucial process milestones rather than post-event updates. The employee claimed they were given a discharge based on 200 days of unallocation, which was not mentioned in the company's separation policy, nor communicated by the RMG team, despite regular interaction with them. This was a central point of contention.
Internet Community Response
The employee's account garnered attention online, sparking discussions about company policy and employee experiences. The employee shared their experience in a public forum, specifically mentioning the absence of the unallocation milestone from the separation policy and its non-communication by the RMG team. The account triggered reactions from the internet community, which reacted to the allegations of unfair treatment. The sharing of this experience shows the extent of the employee's frustration with the internal processes within the company and how it impacted their experience. The incident highlights the importance of clear policies and transparency in dealing with employee separations to prevent similar situations and maintain trust within the organization.
