having been a bridge burner i can say that most employers are not competent enough to discover that you burned a bridge if they care... and if you volunteer the information its a great way to filter bad employers too.
Not ordinarily, no. But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. There is nothing but downside in doing that.
Just as most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to search out your dirty laundry, most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to sort it. If they see it, they'll just acknowledge its existence, and probably think twice about you because of it. They won't dig deeper, or spend any effort sussing out who was right and who was wrong. They'll just note it as a red flag.
This is why people advise against "bridge burning," even when you have no reason to believe you'll ever cross that bridge again. It's all about perceptions. "Optics," as they say in corporate parlance. Being seen as a malcontent is never good for your employment prospects, even when you're completely justified.
But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer.
I think the circumstance is like @jheriko said, as a filter. If an employer sees treating employees bad as dirty laundry, well maybe it isn't the place you want to work, and you're better off not getting an offer.
I understand that objective in theory, but it seems impractical in the wild. Most employers won't look beyond the surface level of "This person had issues with a previous employer and feels the need to discuss them here." They won't bother to ferret out who was right, who was wrong, and whether your grievances are legitimate -- even if they are. So you're basically raising a flag, and a lot of interviers or hiring managers will treat it as such.
Think about it from their perspective. They don't know you too well. All they know, at a quick glance, is that you have had problems with a previous employer. They get your side of the story, perhaps, but how are they to know if you're telling the full story, or if you're just the kind of person who complains about things and causes morale issues? They don't have the time or the process to sort that out, so they'll default to the conservative position of assuming you are more trouble than you're worth.
I've seen this torpedo people in job interviews. I've seen it sink the candidacies of people who were otherwise in very strong contention. Is that fair? Of course not. But it's something to keep in mind.
In a perfect world, sure, this would serve as a nice filter to determine if employers are worth working for. In the world we actually live in, this filter will, more often than not, filter you out of a lot of job opportunities. Meanwhile, there are more effective and less risky filters you can apply when vetting an employer.
I agree that it may not work very well as a filter and that you have to be extremely cautious with any 'negative' statements when interviewing for a job.
the way to flag this to an employer is simply. not to air the grievance but to inform them of it if it is public knowledge... e.g you left as a result, it was your former employer who will be contacted for a reference, or there was some public exposure etc.
they might already know and its in your best interest to be honest. getting found out after the fact is bad, regardless as to your employer's intentions.
its really quite different from airing the concerns that led to the situation.
in this specific case the problem is that he worked for a short period and was let go very rapidly. having a 2 week blip as your last role on a CV is worth explaining - but not complaining about.
