zlacker

>>moored+(OP)
I'm sure the OP means well, but I think this approach is misguided. It comes across as self-centered rather than supportive. You might get a polite "thanks" in response, but I doubt it will be genuinely appreciated.

If you care about the person and want to talk with them, reach out and be genuine. If not, don't bother them with LLM corporate-speak masquerading as support. Let's be honest: they didn't "part ways" with the company--they were fired.

Right now, they're worried about paying their bills, not about making their former coworkers feel better.

If you really want to help, reach out to your network and see if anyone is hiring. I've successfully connected many laid-off former coworkers with new opportunities. I've even approached recruiters that I ignored saying, "I'm not available, but this person is looking, and they're excellent."

>>jampa+WYa
OP's blog post also rang false to me. It feels like it was written by someone who works in HR trying to promote a culture that inhibits real interactions, under the guise of being "a good human being."

Being a good human involves honesty and naming things that are extremely difficult to name when you're both employed at the same place. I've had so many honest and illuminating conversations with coworkers after one or both of us left a company or organization, conversations that deepened into real friendships instead of just being colleagues.

>>sadcod+t2b
It's kinda hard to write an example or template for a communication pattern that seems really personal and genuine. OP is describing a pattern and is explicit that it's both a) a good thing to do on an emotional and ethical level and b) that the industry is small and it's good to not burn bridges.

I think it's clear from context that you can make the actual message a lot more personal based on your relationship with that person, but it seems harsh to say 'this looks like an HR template' when the post is kinda explicitly trying to make a general point.