Corporate America

[redsquirrel]

So, I recently got another promotion to Operations Manager here at work...Well, I just had to do the LEAST managerial thing...I had to lay someone off. It was a company wide thing.

True, the guy didn't have the best attitude, and could have performed much better...But I was still shaking through the whole thing, and the only thing worse than losing your job is death, IMHO. I did make eye contact...

Now, after talking to some of my staff, they said they pretty much saw it coming. Just because they have realized their volume & activity has seriously decreased. However, what pisses me off, is that the company wouldn't allow upper management to give these employees any advance notice. They received a severance package, so that's decent...But I just think it's totally unfair to

I mean it's no wonder people go and shoot up gas stations for cash, or go in to work places and start opening fire. Why can't they treat them with more dignity, or at least give them more notice so they can TRY and find another job?

[Shibby]

Originally Posted by redsquirrel

Why can't they treat them with more dignity, or at least give them more notice so they can TRY and find another job?

I agree with the dignity part, but the reason they give severance and no notice of lay off is to accommodate the employee while finding a new job without sacrificing the work that needs to be done with in the company.

[NewbieChris]

A severance package is designed to keep you afloat while you look for a new job. Unemployment is also designed to do the same thing. I don't understand how firing someone is the least managerial thing you can think of. Considering the goals of a manager firing someone is a necessity. If you are a poor worker, you cannot stay employed. That is capitalism.

My question to you is, how much prior notice would you like to give them? In other words...How long, after the company has realized they are capturing a loss with that worker, do you want them to still employ that extra unit of labor?

[gymratin]

losing your job doesnt justify shooting up your workplace or robbing a conv store. severance pkg or unemployment benefits 'nuff said

[redsquirrel]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

A severance package is designed to keep you afloat while you look for a new job. Unemployment is also designed to do the same thing. I don't understand how firing someone is the least managerial thing you can think of. Considering the goals of a manager firing someone is a necessity. If you are a poor worker, you cannot stay employed. That is capitalism.

My question to you is, how much prior notice would you like to give them? In other words...How long, after the company has realized they are capturing a loss with that worker, do you want them to still employ that extra unit of labor?

Listen, I understand the purpose of severance and unemployment. That's not my issue. And, I don't need you to tell me what my managerial goals are. my managerial goals are all about increasing production, and this was a LAY OFF- not a firing.

The main point of my thread is to basically vent about how horrible it is to HAVE TO DO IT TO SOMEONE. I understand that it was a business decision, and that it had to be done, and it was probably the best choice for the company. But that doesn't mean I have to like doing it just because I'm a manager. Sorry, but I know what it's like to be laid off. Maybe it's never happened to you, but when it happens to you, you'll see what I'm talking about. It feels like you are falling througha bottomless pit and your whole world is ending.

In reference to your question- I think maybe 1-2 weeks would be fair. Make it a condition that if they want to receive their severance, that they continue to work at a good pace for the remaining time they are there. I never said we were capturing a loss with this worker. I just said it may have been the best choice since I didn't feel he was working to full capacity.

[redsquirrel]

Originally Posted by gymratin

losing your job doesnt justify shooting up your workplace or robbing a conv store. severance pkg or unemployment benefits 'nuff said

I didn't say that it justified it. I just said I'm not surprised WHY people do it. There was a perfect example of it last night on ER...A guy and his girlfriend robbed a jewelry store to not have their house foreclosed upon. When people lose their jobs- regardless of severance or unemployment- it makes people do crazy things. Trust me- my husband's unemployment pays our boat payment, HALF of our mortgage payment...

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by redsquirrel

And, I don't need you to tell me what my managerial goals are.

you mean you don't need the all knowing chubby boy for advice?

[redsquirrel]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

you mean you don't need the all knowing chubby boy for advice?

EXACTLY.

[Timber]

I have had to let go several people over the years & some are easier than others depending on the person & the circumstances. Always remember your not firing people, People fire themselves. If a person does not hold up there end of the job description or for what ever reason creates circumstances that force your hand it is on them not you.

The difficult terminations are the ones that are from corporate cutbacks. When you have to let go a good employee for nothing they did wrong. I do feel your pain in these decisions & this is the job description for upper management. The only advice I can give you is do not let them start with how it devastates their life because it will break your heart right there. Do it quickly and be a machine, If you let the crying and story of how they will lose everything begin you will hate yourself when it is over

I have my own secretary in my sights now & I should have let her go moths ago. I love her to death personally but she is incompetent for the most part. I have built a support system around her to deal with her weakness but it is really the wrong thing to do. I suspect someday I will just have to let her go and Knowing this does not sit well with me at all

Welcome to the top of the corporate ladder

[SonofBone]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

A severance package is designed to keep you afloat while you look for a new job. Unemployment is also designed to do the same thing. I don't understand how firing someone is the least managerial thing you can think of. Considering the goals of a manager firing someone is a necessity. If you are a poor worker, you cannot stay employed. That is capitalism.

My question to you is, how much prior notice would you like to give them? In other words...How long, after the company has realized they are capturing a loss with that worker, do you want them to still employ that extra unit of labor?

A lot of companies severance packages are based on their length of employment. I've known some people to get 2 weeks for each year worked, so for a lot of people, their severance could be up in less than a month.

Also, while drawing unemployment, an individual is not going to draw the same money that they were making. A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck and not being means not being able to provide for their families and pay their bills.

Another thing...a lot of times companies are profitable and even continuing to grow. The layoffs are put in place to cut expenses by sending jobs to another country or something to that effect. Executive managers bonuses can be based on hitting a number, and they're looking at short term wealth and not the long term health of their company. When you see the ever increasing discrepancy between the middle class and the rich or lower level workers and executive management, then you can see what I'm saying.

In cases where a company's viability is not being threatened, the company, IMHO, should give the employees a 2 month notice that they're being laid off. This will give the employee time to look for something else before their severance becomes active.

It seems to me like you're looking at this a little too black and white like the company and its officers are always correct and if they say a lay off is needed, then that is the only way.

[NYCmitch25]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

A severance package is designed to keep you afloat while you look for a new job. Unemployment is also designed to do the same thing. I don't understand how firing someone is the least managerial thing you can think of. Considering the goals of a manager firing someone is a necessity. If you are a poor worker, you cannot stay employed. That is capitalism.

My question to you is, how much prior notice would you like to give them? In other words...How long, after the company has realized they are capturing a loss with that worker, do you want them to still employ that extra unit of labor?

Your an ass you obviously have NO real life experience fuckhead

[NewbieChris]

A loss is exactly that. If a company can decrease costs by shipping a job somewhere else, why shouldn't they?

Layoffs generally occur in large groups. One person was the entire department?

I just think its pointless for you to feel bad about it.

[NewbieChris]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

you mean you don't need the all knowing chubby boy for advice?

Okay big guy.

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

Okay big guy.

i guess i have to remind you again, i am only teasing. you are sensitive little bitch aren't you.

[NewbieChris]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

i guess i have to remind you again, i am only teasing. you are sensitive little bitch aren't you.

About being called fat...yes.

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

About being called fat...yes.

sorry fatty.

[Timma]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

A loss is exactly that. If a company can decrease costs by shipping a job somewhere else, why shouldn't they?

Your type of thinking is what's wrong with America today. Sending everything elsewhere cause it's cheaper.

Now I understand that if people are to lazy to do their job then find the work elsewhere, but to ship it where it's cheaper is not the answer. There re so many people out there that do an amazing job but can't find work because they cost too much to employ.

I think we need to take the money away from the damn oil companies and spread it to the other businesses so they can employ good workers.

[redsquirrel]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

A loss is exactly that. If a company can decrease costs by shipping a job somewhere else, why shouldn't they?

Layoffs generally occur in large groups. One person was the entire department?

I just think its pointless for you to feel bad about it.

It was a layoff because it was company wide. However, it only affected one member of my staff.

Pointless, eh? Maybe....But it was really great when I found out his wife was just laid off yesterday w/ one of our affiliate companies. They have 3 kids to feed at home- THAT'S WHY I FEEL BAD ABOUT IT.

[NYCmitch25]

Originally Posted by NewbieChris

A loss is exactly that. If a company can decrease costs by shipping a job somewhere else, why shouldn't they?

Layoffs generally occur in large groups. One person was the entire department?

I just think its pointless for you to feel bad about it.

somebody needs to go down to the place where you work and slap the cocks out of your mouth

[Mr incredible]

thats tough RS but tougher for the guy, much tougher and yeah, people should be given warning time. All these loan companies should fricken lend and that would stimulate the market again. Its their silly crazy loan criterie that caused an over boom in the first place.

All markets are depressed and companies are kicking staff, I don't see it getting better till late 2009 so you may have a few more awkward meetings.

[dna9488]

Originally Posted by redsquirrel

But it was really great when I found out his wife was just laid off yesterday w/ one of our affiliate companies. They have 3 kids to feed at home- THAT'S WHY I FEEL BAD ABOUT IT.

thats really sad