In the case of lay offs or “downsizing” one, as a manager, does not want to get into a performance discussion because it ususally leads to argument and bogging down in minutia. It’s not going to change the outcome, so don’t go there.
If it is truly a performance issue then you, their direct supervisor or both handled the situation poorly. There should have been a paper trail of performance discussions, not so much to counter unemployment claims as to help the person know where they stand and hopefully improve. Once it gets to the point of firing, no one should be surprised.
Hold on a minute, in the OP you said that these people were “long time employees”, but you didn’t know the specifics about what this woman did every day? That explains part of the problem. A manager should know what their direct reports are doing day-to-day, what skill sets are involved and what would be required to replace them if they leave. I’m not talking about micromanagement, but succession planning. If this woman had quit with little or no notice (the reverse of what you’re doing to her, BTW), you would have potentially been up the creek without a paddle.
I’m not trying to make you feel worse, I know firing/laying off people is a sucky part of the job. I’m just pointing out that there are expectations on BOTH sides.
You are right that I should have known the resentment was worse than I thought over the fact that she had less to do than the others and was unwilling to pitch in despite her being extremely overqualified. Her direct supervisor did have a counseling session with her as I mentioned above to contribute more towards clinic and triage and I was unaware until recently that she did not follow through nor did her supervisor.
If you drink, when you get home, pour yourself a glass of wine, watch a movie, and give yourself some decompression time. Or go hang with friends - do whatever gives YOU some positive energy and de-stresses you. You’ve had a hard day. Yes, perhaps the people you let go had harder days, and if they post here, I’ll give them some sympathy too, but they don’t.
And remember, you did this for the health of your company as a whole - you can’t employ anyone without being a profitable company for very long.
So because the company is going through a slow time you have to cut some employees and you opt to turf long-term employees on the grounds that you can’t afford them, they didn’t learn the new software and their duties can be picked up by others. So much for the intrinsic value of loyalty.
If you have instructed their supervisions to ensure they learn this and they haven’t then that is on the supervisors who failed in their assigned duties.
If it is because their duties can be “picked up” by others then it is on you and/or the supervisors for not expanding their duties in order to justify their pay - as you are about to do to the other people who will pick up the slack.
If, as I suspect, it is because they are long-term “older” employees with the accrued benefits etc. that implies and you are turfing them before they can retire and reap the full rewards of their service to you then cry me a conscienceless river. You are canning them for no reason other than coupon-clipping.
No matter how you gussy it up you are, most likely, sending these people into permanent unemployment based on mismanagement and newer employees being cheaper and more willing to have extra duties foisted upon them.
That being said, I disagree with the poster(s) who have said to avoid the term lay-off as it implies a temporary situation - it doesn’t necessarily. I’ve known a number of people (myself included) who have been permanently laid-off. Do them a favour and put it down as a lay-off so they can at least get unemployment.
I would also suggest that you stay far away from mentioning their age. It could, at least in Canada, open you up to a human rights complaint.
Lastly, if your problem is with their performance/unwillingness to learn then at least give them the courtesy of being honest with them and not hiding behind the “it’s not personal it’s a business decision” bullshit.
I fully expect to get slammed for having said this and I accept that.
So you asked her do perform duties for which she was not qualified and had potential health implications for your patients and she refused after giving it a go. Yup, that sounds like an unreasonable employee.
Nice, implicitly admit that you are doing this for no good reason and then hold her over the barrel.
Surely if she was such a shitty employee there would be mention in her file, reprimands etc. Or was management just to lazy to bother with quality control on employees - until money came into it.
I sure hope that at least one of your victims knows you’re on the 'Dope and your handle. It will make life so much easier for them.
It’s fairly amusing to watch you go from post to post, trying to gin up as much froth as you can with each one. I imagine you’ll read this after you’ve replied, and replied, and replied, and…
No froth. And you’re right, I didn’t read the full thread before my first response. I’m not the first and certainly won’t be the last - mea culpa.
It just sounds to me like afterthought justifications for turfing previously acceptable employees based on nothing more than them being more expensive - both now and in the future - than newer more exploitable employees.
I can tell you exactly what she was asked to do. She is a MRI tech. When she wasn’t doing MRIs she was asked to assist taking histories and entering them in the computer which she refused to learn. (the computer not taking histories) It is essentially copying from a piece of paper that requires no medical training whatsoever. She was also asked to prepare people for their tests by directing them to a changing room and giving them the garments. After a radiologist reads the test and generates a report, she was asked to scan the report into the new medical records system. No health risks to my patients at all. Just an employee who had too much time on her hands and refused to assist others who were swamped. But again, this is NOT why she was let go. If we were as profitable as we’ve been in the past, we would have continued her employment.
We really are like a family here which is why is was so tough. Ultimately, we had to weigh whether we could continue having someone who is a luxury. As Zeke said, he hopes she finds this thread. I would have no problem with it because although I think she sensed we are torn up over it, she would know for sure that I asked virtual strangers how to make the process less painful and received some excellent advice.
Honestly, I thank so many of you because I indeed pulled from this thread during the conversation.
Okay, with further details supplied I can see the reason. Again though it seems more like a problem with management not correcting behaviour or firing based on it.
I accept that sometimes the workforce needs to be pared down certainly. But I believe it should be closer to “last hired first fired” vs “we don’t want to be on the hook for pensions etc.”
The fact that at least one of these people was such a, purportedly, terrible employee - who was never disciplined or complained about - needs to be canned now tells me that this is about severing non-management heads to cut costs as opposed to an actual attempt to increase productivity and efficiency.
As I said, it sounds to me like afterthought justifications.
If management was so lax as to allow this to carry on with their knowledge then mayhaps it is management (be it frontline or higher) who are not earning their pay and should be considered for the block.
As a direct answer to your direct question, no this is not defense for the sake of defense. I understand that cuts must sometimes be made. This one just seems to me to be unfair, unreasonable and born of managerial self-interest.
As I’ve said, I’ve been laid off a number of times (both permanent and temporary) and harboured no animosity towards the company. I spent eight years as an officer of my local union and saw many lay-offs and terminations. Those that were justified and fair I never contested. Those that were based on pretext I did. This strikes me as the latter.
How many places even offer pensions? Why are you assuming it costs the company more to keep these people on as opposed to other employees? Is it in the thread? (It may be. I can’t claim to have read every post diligently.)
To me, axing the newer employees when earlier employees do a worse job is foolish. If everyone is equal, maybe you go for the more recent hire, but if things are not equal, you don’t.
First of all, you are the only one who mentioned anything about pensions. Foxy40 spoke about eliminating employees who would not learn new skills. They happened to be long term employees who she knew well. From what I read of the thread, if these folks were younger, less tenured employees they still would have gotten the axe.
Secondly, “FIFO” is no way to run an efficient organization. An efficient company will (and should) keep the people that give it the highest ROI, regardless of tenure. The reality is that there is no “intrinsic value of loyalty”. Showing up and doing a marginal job for years does not make you more valuable to the company. Indeed, I would argue the reverse.
Look, I took Foxy40 to task for some of the same things you did based on information she gave, but you went way overboard in assuming “facts” never brought into evidence. Don’t assign motives where they don’t exist.