He’s going to get fired. It has been four months and he hasn’t learned half the job it takes people one week to learn. We knew he had some sort of metal disability, but we thought he should get a chance.
It was clear he had been mistreated at the job he was trying to quit when he asked to work with us. If he gets fired from here, chances are he’ll likely get mistreated at his new place.
As long as he works with us, everyone will have to do more work because he can’t handle his. I don’t mind, but everyone else does and it’s not really my place to force anyone to take up more work then they are paid for. After four months of repeating the same concepts over and over it has become clear he is never going to pick them up. On some things he is in the same place as he was when he first started the job.
What’s fair here? Should my boss keep paying the guy for slowing down the store indefinitely, or should the guy get fired and go some place where his life is going to suck?
It’s not fair to the rest of the crew that this guy pulls less than his share while still presumably making the same wage as those who are forced to do more work because of him. It’s unfortunate that he’s been treated shabbily because he’s not as sharp as the average bear, but this isn’t Cub Scouts or Little League, it’s bidniz.
I’d say he needs to find a job where his skills are up to the required tasks, and then perhaps he won’t be treated rudely for doing sub-par work. What makes you sure that he won’t be treated well at whatever job he finds after this one?
Perhaps there is a different position in the store that he could assume that would be a better “fit”? Not everyone is capable of performing every task, but everyone is capable of something.
Don’t forget that he may be feeling the same way; he may be stressed because he can’t do the duties that are required of him. So keeping him in his current position may be hard for him, too. It’s probably best that the boss sit down with him and see what he thinks, too.
If there isn’t something else he would be better suited for within the company I have to say let him go. He probably isn’t any happier trying his hardest and failing every day than his coworkers are for having to pick up his slack. Has he been properly trained? Has anyone spoken to him about this and tried to help him get up to par? If not, that needs to be the first step. If they have addressed it and it isn’t getting any better then it is time to let him go.
If he’s that poorly skilled, why not do him a favor and see if your state offers any sort of vocational training/placement? NY state has VESID http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/
which helps train and place workers with physical or learning disabilities. Perhaps your state offers something similar.
Typically, for-profit organizations such as retail stores don’t include in their charter providing safe opportunities in which to park people whose subnormal skills keep them from being useful. It’s not fair that this fellow hasn’t the skill to do a normal job, but the unfairness happened long ago.
Unless the store is some kind of charity for employing the unemployable, it is fair to fire him, and would be unfair to expect others to carry his load indefinitely.
It’s kind of the store to help him find a better suited opening, if the store staff feels willing to do this, but it’s not incumbent upon them. In my opinion.
It is possible that the store is getting a tax break (or even outright subsidies) for having him employed. That may be enough for the store management to feel that they are getting value out of him - even if the rest of you need to pick up the slack. That is a “valid business choice” and is “fair” for both your disabled coworker and the business - somewhat less fair for you but its possible that the business wouldn’t have the headcount if not for the tax break.
This does happen sometimes. I’m not sure what it’s called though in order to look it up to see how it works. IIRC there was some scandal a year or so back in El Paso where some company was getting no-bid contracts due to it supposedly employing disabled people when it wasn’t.
The autistic main character of Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon is employed by a company that receives a tax break for employing a bunch of other autistic people.
To answer the OP, yes, I believe that his employment should be terminated. There isn’t really any way to do it kindly, but he’s making extra work for others and costing the company money without providing much benefit.
Unfortunately, whether or not his life is going to suck cannot be your concern.
Your boss is trying to run a business. This guy is a liability and having a negative impact on the business. Now, I’m not saying keeping this guy around is going to kill the business, but he is going to affect employee morale and possibly customer service.
At the most, your boss can sit him down, explain to him why he’s being let go, and see if he can give him some numbers to call to get some training. But beyond that, your boss has a responsibility to his other employees to keep the business going and growing. It’s not his job to save every sad sack that comes around, not at his place of work.
If it’s a private company, I think the boss is allowed to save a sad sack if he wants to, but he’s under no moral obligation to want to. And keeping one incompetent person on the payroll is not the same as trying to save the world. Keeping him may not be a good business decision, but it’s not morally wrong, nor does he have a responsibility to his employees.
Now, if it’s a corporation, the boss is an employee and has a responsibility to the shareholders. But that’s different.
He gets paid cash, we all do. I don’t think the government even knows about him.
He’s resistant to seeking out organizational help. He thinks it is too difficult figure out.
He’s supposed to stock up the shelves and he can’t.
He’s also resistant to the idea that he might get fired because he can’t learn the work. He thinks the fact that he is a slow learner (he might have a severe memory problem as well) is a legitimate excuse. I think he has been trained to think he can’t learn anything and now doesn’t even try hard enough to see what he can actually learn.
It should be and it is. As long as I can have some significant impact over his life that he has no control over, I should take that responsibility seriously. If I was the only other employee in the store I would just pick up the slack and tell my boss that everything was ok. It would be slightly more work, but I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
Unfortunately, other employees don’t like the extra work. They complained and now the guy has to go. I could defend the guy, but that wouldn’t be fair to the other workers.
It’s not his job to save every sad sack, but it’s pretty nice that he tried for so long. I know he lost a lot of money. Ultimately you’re right, and I know the guy can’t work with us much longer.
He said we were the nicest people he has ever worked for and he cried on his first day after everyone treated him so well.
Has anyone told him, “Hey, if you can’t learn to stock the shelves you can’t work here anymore”? If he knew it was something he had to learn to prevent being unemployed he might put more effort into learning it. He might also have time to try and find a new job knowing that the firing is coming if he feels he simply can’t learn the tasks required of him.