I think this is why it carries on unchecked. They'd all have to admit endorsing someone without doing even a cursory fact check of their story. At this point, they are equally as culpable....wouldn't it be embarrassing for the papers who initially punted her having to admit that she's a total fraud?
So, as we all guessed.
Ok Jack, you sue the Fire Brigade for something that you didn't like 10 years ago, even though it was all your fault.
With added 'it was everyone's fault but mine' for good measureShe resigned.
She changed her mind.
The employer did not change their mind.
That's the story in 3 lines, isn't it? Resignation ends contract of employment, no onus on employer to reinstate. Harsh, but true.
This new telling of the resignation story doesn't do her any favours. If she was a valued member of the team, and had worked out a solution with other team members, they would be only to happy to keep her. Training new staff is a costly business, so they tend to hang on to trained staff wherever possible, the ones that are any good that is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?