For many professionals, the most agonizing part of a job loss is not the final notification, but the creeping suspicion that This proves coming. Job insecurity often manifests not as a sudden announcement, but as a series of subtle organizational shifts designed to “prepare the ground” for a termination. When a company decides to let an employee go, the process is frequently preceded by strategic maneuvers that allow the employer to build a legal case for the dismissal.
Legal expert Juanma Lorente, a labor lawyer known for his educational outreach on social media, has identified three specific patterns of behavior that serve as warning signs. According to Lorente, recognizing these señales inconfundibles—unmistakable signs—is critical for workers to seek legal counsel and protect their rights before the situation becomes irreversible.
The objective of these strategies is typically to shift a dismissal from a “fair” or “unjustified” category—which usually requires a higher severance payout—to a “disciplinary” or “objective” one. By documenting a trail of failure or instability, companies can minimize their financial liability while insulating themselves from future lawsuits.
The relocation trap: When a move is a signal
One of the most deceptive tactics is the sudden change of work center or department. On the surface, a transfer may appear to be a routine organizational decision or a request for a skilled employee to help a struggling branch. Yet, Lorente warns that if a worker is moved to a site, project, or department with significantly lower performance or an uncertain future, it may be a calculated first step toward an “objective dismissal.”
By placing an employee in a failing environment, the company can later argue that the position is no longer viable due to low productivity or the closure of that specific center. “Si tienes varios centros de trabajo y te mandan a uno que no está funcionando muy bien, ten mucho cuidado,” Lorente advises, suggesting that such moves are rarely about optimization and more about creating a justification for a future exit.
Empleado sorprendido recibiendo la notificación de despido del jefe
Under the microscope: The rise of hyper-supervision
A more visceral sign is the sudden shift from a trusting management style to extreme fiscalization. This occurs when a supervisor who previously maintained a distant or hands-off relationship begins to scrutinize every minor task, demands constant reporting and hunts for errors with meticulous precision.
This change in behavior is rarely accidental. According to Lorente, the goal is to gather a dossier of shortcomings and mistakes that can be cited in a disciplinary dismissal letter.
“Están buscando fallos que vayan a aparecer en una carta de despido”
, explains the lawyer. He notes that when a manager becomes obsessively focused on a worker’s output after years of autonomy, they are likely building a case for a despido disciplinario.
For employees in this position, the recommendation is to be hyper-vigilant. Documenting every interaction, saving copies of positive performance reviews, and keeping a log of unusual demands can provide a critical defense if the case ever reaches a labor court. In many jurisdictions, such as Spain, the Estatuto de los Trabajadores governs the legality of these dismissals, and the burden of proof often rests on the employer to show a genuine breach of contract.
The paper trail: From warnings to termination
The final stage of this process is the imposition of written sanctions. Often, this begins with a mild warning—a “slap on the wrist”—that carries no immediate financial penalty or suspension of employment. To the worker, this may seem insignificant, but Lorente identifies it as a pivotal piece of the company’s strategy.
The first warning establishes a legal precedent. While a single minor infraction might not justify a firing, a pattern of repeated warnings creates a narrative of persistent incompetence or misconduct. This “accumulation of faults” is what eventually blinds the company’s legal position, making it significantly harder for the worker to challenge the dismissal.
Lorente emphasizes the danger of the second and third warnings:
“Una sanción a lo mejor no tiene ningún efecto, pero si te sancionan dos o tres veces ya es muy complicado volcarlo y lo normal es que el despido sea disciplinario y sin indemnización”
. By the time the third sanction arrives, the company has effectively built a wall around the legality of the termination, often stripping the employee of their right to severance pay.
Summary of Warning Signs
| Signal | Apparent Reason | Hidden Strategic Goal |
|---|---|---|
| Relocation | Organizational need | Justify objective dismissal via low productivity |
| Hyper-supervision | Quality control | Document errors for disciplinary firing |
| Written Sanctions | Behavioral correction | Establish a pattern of failure to avoid severance |
How to respond to labor uncertainty
The common thread in all three scenarios is the element of surprise. Companies rely on the employee’s hope that these changes are temporary or benign. However, the transition from a “warning” to a “termination” can happen rapidly once the legal groundwork is laid.
The primary defense is anticipation. Seeking professional advice at the first sign of a suspicious relocation or an unexplained increase in supervision can change the outcome of a case. A labor lawyer can help a worker determine if the company’s actions constitute “mobbing” or harassment, which could potentially turn the tables during a legal dispute.
Una mujer en medio de un despido con una caja de cartón sale del lugar de trabajo desde la oficina de la empresa.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal expertise and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Labor laws vary significantly by region and specific contract terms.
As global markets shift toward more flexible and often precarious employment models, the tension between corporate efficiency and worker protection continues to evolve. The next critical checkpoint for many employees will be the annual performance review or the quarterly restructuring announcement, where these subtle patterns often culminate in formal action.
Have you experienced any of these shifts in your workplace? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
