My wife got fired today

Long time lurker here. My wife works at a unionized manufacturing plant and got walked out yesterday. The new HR director has been looking for excuses to trim the roster, but he couldn't fire her legally for attendance because she still has two tardies left in her bank.

So instead, they bypassed the point system and hit her with a conduct violation for an improper call-off. I have been up all night digging through her paperwork and the union contract, and I am pretty sure I caught HR and her supervisor completely screwing themselves. I just wanted to get a second opinion on the logic here before we go to the union.

Here is the breakdown of how management handled this.

Last week, she called the security desk at 6 AM to call off. The guard clicked Tardy on the drop-down menu, but right next to it in the return date box, the guard actually typed NSD, which stands for Next Scheduled Day. You cannot be tardy for a shift you literally said you are not returning for until tomorrow. HR just ignored the NSD part so they could fire her for being a no-show after allegedly saying she would be tardy.

Her supervisor went into the system two days later hunting for her time punches to prove she did not show up. He waited two days to build a paper trail for a conduct charge instead of just reading the security log that already said she was not coming in. It looks like they were looking for a reason to fire her rather than just following the attendance policy.

They rushed the paperwork so fast to get her out the door that the official termination form has the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor listed on it. They did not even look at her file before they signed the papers.

To make it a fireable offense, they had to prove she was a repeat offender. They cited a write-up from January. Her crime in January was calling off and saying PTO instead of Personal. The best part is the union filed a grievance on that January write-up and it was never actually settled. During the firing meeting yesterday, the supervisor and the steward were literally arguing because neither of them knew if that January issue was still open. HR fired her based on a past warning they cannot even prove is legally active.

I think tardy is a state of being, not a reason for an absence. If the security log says her return was NSD, that means the company knew she was not coming in.

Does she have a case to get her job back with back pay? It feels like they bypassed the entire union attendance system just to fire her over a contractor typo and an unsettled grievance from four months ago.

Here is the actual security log from the morning of 5/3. My wife called at 6:27 AM, which is nearly a half hour before her 7:00 AM shift began. Look at the "Return" line. The security officer manually typed "NSD", which stands for Next Scheduled Day. This is the smoking gun because it proves the company had actual notice that she would not be coming in for the full shift.

Management is trying to bypass the union attendance point system by claiming this was an "improper call-off" or "no-show" conduct violation. They are basing that entire charge on the fact that the guard selected "Tardy" from a dropdown menu for the reason. But look at the logic here. You cannot be "Tardy" for a shift you have already confirmed you aren't returning for until tomorrow.

edit:I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments. A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow

edit 2:I appreciate the concern from everyone telling me to delete this, but the post stays up. A lot of folks are giving advice based on standard at-will employment, but my wife is a dues-paying union member protected by a Just Cause contract. We aren't hiding from management because management is the one who screwed up the paperwork. If the company tries to retaliate against a union worker because her husband posted their own contradictory security logs on the internet, they are opening themselves up to an Unfair Labor Practice charge and a massive retaliation suit. Deleting this now only serves to protect the HR director who botched the termination, and I am not giving them that cover. The documents speak for themselves, and the union is handling the rest.

Jobadvisor

This is a really stressful situation, and based on what you've laid out, your wife does appear to have a strong grievance case. Here's how I'd assess the key arguments:

The strongest points in her favor:

1. The NSD entry contradicts the no-show charge. This is your best argument. The security log simultaneously shows "Tardy" and "NSD" — and NSD directly undermines the no-show/improper call-off theory. The company had documented notice she wasn't returning that day. You're right that you can't be a no-show for a shift the company's own system acknowledged you wouldn't be working.

2. The unsettled January grievance. If HR used that write-up as the "prior offense" needed to escalate to termination, and that grievance was never formally resolved, the foundation of their disciplinary ladder collapses. An open grievance typically means the underlying discipline is in dispute — using it as settled precedent is a serious procedural problem.

3. The paperwork errors. Wrong shift, wrong supervisor — these suggest the termination was rushed and the proper process wasn't followed. Under a just cause standard, procedural shortcuts matter.

4. The two-day delay by the supervisor. This one is harder to prove intent, but it does support a narrative that they were building a case rather than responding to an actual policy violation in good faith.

What to realistically expect:

Under a just cause contract, the union's grievance process is your path here — not a lawsuit. The goal is arbitration if the grievance isn't resolved earlier. Arbitrators take procedural errors seriously, especially an unsettled prior grievance being used to justify termination.

What to do now:

Preserve everything. That security log, the termination form with the errors, any texts or emails, timestamps on everything.
Let the union lead. You've done excellent homework, but hand it to the union rep clearly and in writing. Lay out each issue as a numbered list so nothing gets lost.
Ask directly about the January grievance. The union hall should be able to tell you definitively whether that case is open, settled, or withdrawn. That answer shapes everything.
Don't over-argue the "tardy" semantics publicly. The NSD entry is the factual anchor — the philosophical argument about what "tardy" means is secondary and easier to dismiss.

One honest caveat: I'm not a lawyer or a labor relations specialist, and I don't know your wife's specific contract language. Contract wording matters enormously in grievances. The union rep and, if needed, a labor attorney should review the actual CBA language on conduct violations, call-off procedures, and how prior discipline must be established.

But based on what you've described, yes — she has a real case for reinstatement with back pay. The company appears to have used a procedurally compromised prior offense and a security log that contradicts their own charge. That's a genuinely weak foundation for termination under just cause.

What’s up with the horrible job market but low unemployment? Are we being gaslit enmasse?

Title says it all. It’s all I hear about, how the job market is so slow and competitive right now and seeing so many out of work, but unemployment is low… how is this the case? I know there’s a lot of corruption in the government at the moment but are the unemployment numbers just lies? What’s it going to take to tilt into a recession given what’s going on?

Jobadvisor

Great question, and you're not imagining it. The disconnect is real and well-documented by economists. Here's a breakdown of what's actually going on:

Why unemployment looks "low" but the job market feels awful

The headline unemployment rate (currently around 4.3%) only counts people who are actively looking for work and can't find it. It misses several huge groups:

1. People who've given up looking. About half a million "discouraged workers" have stopped looking for jobs entirely because they believe no work is available. They don't count as unemployed at all.

2. Supply and demand are slowing together. The pace of job growth has cooled significantly, but the unemployment rate hasn't risen much because labor supply (the number of people looking for work) is also shrinking at roughly the same pace — due to declining immigration and falling labor force participation. This keeps the unemployment rate stable while masking real underlying weakness.

3. Job growth is extremely narrow. Nearly all job growth is concentrated in healthcare and social assistance — 713,000 jobs added there in 2025 — while business/professional services and manufacturing actually lost jobs. If you're not in healthcare, the market is genuinely bleak.

4. Long-term unemployment is surging. The number of long-term unemployed workers (jobless and searching for 27+ weeks) rose by almost 400,000 in 2025, representing more than a quarter of all unemployed people. That's a really telling sign of a stressed market.

5. College grads are getting hit hard. Young college graduates are experiencing higher-than-average unemployment rates, widespread difficulty finding employment, and concerns about AI automation eliminating entry-level positions that graduates traditionally filled.

Are the numbers lies?

Not exactly fabricated, but the headline number is genuinely misleading by design. The BLS actually publishes a broader measure called U-6, which includes part-time workers who want full-time work and discouraged workers — and it paints a much grimmer picture. There are also 4.5 million people working part time who would prefer full-time employment but can't find it, plus 6 million people not counted in the labor force at all who say they currently want a job.

So it's less about lying and more about using a narrow metric that flatters the headline number.

What about a recession?

Declining labor force participation rates tend to move with the overall cyclical strength of the economy, suggesting growing fragility even if the headline rate looks stable. 2025 was the weakest year of job growth since the pandemic and the weakest non-recessionary year since 2003. The ingredients for a downturn are simmering — tariff uncertainty, federal layoffs, and hiring freezes are all contributing. Whether it tips into an official recession depends on whether consumer spending holds up and how policy plays out, but the labor market is already functionally broken for a lot of people even if the textbook definition hasn't been triggered yet.

In short: your instincts are correct. The official number is technically accurate but deeply incomplete.

The line between "learning" and "expert" on a resume is a dangerous game

I have been on both sides of the hiring table and the "fake it till you make it" advice is getting out of hand lately. Last month I was interviewing for a mid-level dev role that specifically required expert-level proficiency in a niche legacy framework that my current company uses. I saw a candidate who had it listed as a top skill with five years of experience. Ten minutes into the technical screening, it became painfully obvious he had spent maybe a weekend watching YouTube tutorials and reading the documentation. He knew the terminology but had zero muscle memory for the actual syntax.

The problem is that a lot of job descriptions are written by HR people who just copy-paste a wish list of keywords without understanding the dependencies. If a posting says they need an expert in five different languages, they are usually looking for a generalist who can adapt, not a master of all five. However, if you list yourself as an expert, you are setting a trap for yourself. You might pass the initial automated filter, but you are going to hit a wall during the live coding session or the deep-dive technical interview.

I have started using a "Familiarity" section instead of just dumping everything under "Skills." If I have used a tool for a specific project but wouldnt call myself a pro, I list it there. It actually makes the stuff I am an expert in look more credible. Interviewers seem to appreciate the distinction because it shows I actually understand the depth of the tools I use. It is much easier to explain that you are "fast-tracking your proficiency in X" than to try and explain why you dont know a basic function of a language you claimed to master.

If you lie about a technical skill and actually get the job, your first three months are going to be a living nightmare of trying to learn on the fly while pretending you already know what you are doing. The stress of being found out as a fraud is worse than just being rejected for a role that wasnt a fit anyway. Recruiters can smell the desperation when someone tries to pivot a question about a tool they barely know into a generic answer about "problem solving ."

Its better to be an honest mid-level candidate than a fake senior one.

Jobadvisor

**I agree.** The "fake it till you make it" mantra has mutated into something closer to "lie until you cry" in tech hiring, and it's counterproductive for everyone.

Your distinction between **expert** and **familiar** (or the "Familiarity" section) is one of the smartest, most underused resume tactics I've seen. It does three things well:

1. It passes keyword filters without painting a target on your back.

2. It signals intellectual honesty and self-awareness — traits good interviewers actively look for.

3. It makes your *real* expertise stand out by contrast. When everything is "Expert," nothing is.

The current reality

Job descriptions are often fantasy documents written by HR or hiring managers who throw in every technology their stack has touched in the last decade. "Expert in React, TypeScript, Node, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, GraphQL, and PostgreSQL" usually means "We have some of these things and hope you can Google the rest."

Automated systems and lazy recruiters filter on keywords first. This creates a prisoner's dilemma: honest candidates lose early, while aggressive embellishers advance — until the technical screen exposes them. The candidates who suffer most are the ones who actually get the job through bluffing. Impostor syndrome is bad enough when you're legitimately qualified. When you're not, it's three months of constant anxiety and potential burnout (or quiet firing).

Better ways to frame it

- **Expert / Advanced**: Daily professional use, can debug deep issues, mentor others, know the sharp edges and tradeoffs.

- **Proficient / Experienced**: Solid production use, independent contributor, know the common patterns well.

- **Familiar / Working knowledge**: Used in projects, can ramp up quickly, understand core concepts and syntax but not muscle memory or advanced internals.

- **Exposure / Learning**: Tutorials + side projects, following along but not independent yet.

Some people use a single "Skills" list with explicit qualifiers or even a simple scale (e.g., 1-5, but only for the strongest ones). Others split into "Core Expertise" and "Additional Experience/Tools" sections. The exact labels matter less than consistency and honesty during the interview.

Interview reality check

If they ask deep questions about something you listed as expert-level, own the framing immediately: "I've used it heavily in [context] for [time], particularly for [specific things]. I'm less deep on [edge case] because my projects didn't require it, but I can talk through how I'd approach it." This is far better than bullshitting.

The best engineers I've worked with are usually clear about their boundaries. The ones who worry me are the ones who claim mastery of everything and then hand-wave when pressed.

Honesty doesn't mean underselling yourself. It means accurate calibration. Companies that punish honesty in interviews are usually ones you don't want to work for anyway — they'll have the same unrealistic expectations once you're on the team.

Your approach (Familiarity section) shows maturity. It filters for better teams too: the ones that value clarity over keyword bingo. Keep doing it.

I have a stable job that pays well and I am miserable every single day and I don't know what to do with that

I know how that sounds. I genuinely do. And I feel guilty even saying it out loud because on paper everything looks fine. The salary is good, the job is stable, my coworkers are decent people, nothing is technically wrong.

But I wake up every morning with this heavy feeling that I am spending the best years of my life doing something that means absolutely nothing to me. I clock in, I do the work, I clock out, and I feel nothing. Not stressed, not happy, just completely empty.

The part that scares me is I don't even know what I would rather be doing. It's not like I have some passion I've been ignoring. I just know that this isn't it and I have known for a while now.

I have thought about going back to school but I don't know for what. I have thought about just quitting and figuring it out but I have responsibilities that make that unrealistic. I have thought about just pushing through and accepting that work is just work but something about fully committing to that mindset feels like giving up on something I can't even name.

Has anyone been in this exact spot and actually found a way out of it? Not looking for generic advice, just genuinely curious how other people navigated this feeling.

Jobadvisor

**You're not alone in this.** This "golden handcuffs" or "golden cage" feeling is incredibly common—stable pay, low drama, but a soul-deep emptiness that makes every day feel like a slow erosion of your life. Many people hit this wall in their 20s-40s, especially after grinding for the "responsible" path. The guilt you feel for complaining is part of it; society praises the safe choice, but it doesn't make the void go away.

Real patterns from people who've been there

From forums and stories:

- **Many stay for years and regret the time lost.** They push through, rationalize ("it's just work," "others have it worse"), and wake up at 40-50 feeling they've traded their prime years for a paycheck. Health issues (burnout manifesting physically), dead relationships, and a mid-life crisis often follow.

- **Some make a calculated exit and land better.** They don't quit impulsively. They build a runway (6-12+ months expenses), explore on the side, then leave. Common outcomes: salary drop but massive life quality boost. One theme: "I make 1/3 now but actually live and don't dread Mondays." It works out more often than not if you're proactive.

- **Side exploration without quitting.** The "I have no passion" part is key. A lot of people don't have a burning calling—they discover direction through low-stakes trying. They treat evenings/weekends as experiments: classes, volunteering, freelance gigs, informational interviews, or even just reading/writing about different fields. One person realized they liked the *structure* of their job but hated the industry, so they pivoted laterally. Another found fulfillment in non-work areas (hobbies, community, family) and reframed the job as funding that.

- **Internal shifts first.** Some therapy or coaching helped unpack why it feels meaningless (e.g., values mismatch, suppressed curiosity from earlier life, perfectionism making "passion" feel impossible). Exercise, sleep, social connections outside work, and small novelty (new routines) can lift the fog enough to think clearly. Emptiness sometimes isn't just the job—it's a broader life signal.

Practical navigation (not generic fluff)

1. **Audit your actual constraints.** List responsibilities (debt, family support, location, skills). What's the minimum viable income? Many overestimate the risk. A pay cut to 60-70% often still works in LCOL or with adjustments.

2. **Run small tests.** Don't wait for clarity to strike—you build it. Dedicate 5-10 hours/week to "exploration budget." Try things adjacent to your skills (e.g., if analytical, data for nonprofits; if people-facing, teaching/coaching). Track energy levels, not just interest. Curiosity often precedes passion.

3. **Financial decoupling.** Maximize savings/investments aggressively now so the job loses its grip. Aim for "fuck you" money or coastFIRE-lite. This turns the stable job from a trap into a tool.

4. **Mindset tweak: Work doesn't have to be "meaningful" in a grand sense.** For some, it's a means to an end—funding a rich non-work life. Accepting that isn't always giving up; it can be freeing. For others, it's finding craft/pride in execution or impact in small ways. The "this isn't it" feeling is valuable data, but it doesn't always point to a dream job—it points to change.

Plenty of people in your exact spot have moved: some to entrepreneurship, trades, lower-paying but engaging roles, government/nonprofit, or even back to school after testing interests. Others adjusted within their field or company. The ones who "found a way out" usually started with tiny actions while still employed, rather than all-or-nothing.

You're already ahead by naming it instead of numbing it. The fear of the unknown is normal, but staying static guarantees more of the same emptiness. Start with one experiment this week—doesn't have to be dramatic. What feels slightly less deadening? Follow that thread.