Survey: Is firing people a bad thing?

[Guinastasia]

@DrDeth

Situation one is where we need better laws, and better business ethics.

As to “Joan”- what exactly was the “cause” for which she was fired? Being “really, really annoying?” Being a big mouth bitch? Neither is "cause’ in this state. (IANAL, YMMV). Insubordination is, but that really is disobeying a direct order (on something releating to job duties). Now, I have said that Maureen was right to get rid of Joan as Joan was apparently causing Maureen work and stress beyond Joan’s contribution to the company. But fired “for cause”? I didn’t see it.

In Joan’s case, it was a lot of little things that added up, not one big blow up.

-stealing someone else’s raffle prize and offering to trade with that person something of lesser value
-spreading rumors about non-existant affairs
-telling everyone that Maureen was blowing the boss
-claiming she was a nurse when she wasn’t
-lying to clients
-costing the company money

Among other things. Sometimes, there isn’t one single reason-perhaps only one of those things would not have gotten her fired. But all of them combined, yes.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Evil Captor

I am interested to know if Dopers generally think firing is a bad thing or not, and why? Answers could be couched in terms of morality (frex, firing hurts people’s feelings, therefore it’s bad), social utility (firing allows buisinesses to operate more efficiently, so while bad for the firee, good for the bulk of employees and customers), political ideology, whatever leads you to your opinion.

Secondly, if you think firing is a bad thing for whatever reason, do you think it’s worthwhile to lessen the negative effects on unemployment? (Frex, libertarians age generally not disposed to use government powers unless absolutely necessary)

To lead off, I think firing is a bad thing. I understand that sometimes a business encounters employees who either can’t or won’t do their jobs, or who are so disruptive to other people that have to be fired. But it’s still a bad thing socially, with lots of potential for hurt feelings and guilt all round, and in a society with a safety net as skimpy as ours is, the resulting unemployment can be personally devastating.

I understand that sometimes the fired person brings it upon him or herself – and that sometimes, it is absolutely not the fired person’s fault. But in either event, the potential for personal and social harm is there (we’ve all heard about the fired employee who returns to the workplace and “goes postal”). And fired people don’t just vanish into the aether when they’re fired, they find other jobs and maybe create problems there, or they don’t find work which creates a whole new set of problems. They may no longer be a problem for the particular firm they were fired from, but they are still a part of society, and it would be to everyone’s benefit, ultimately, if fired people had some kind of support that lets them get a new job, and maybe get help if they have some kind of ongoing problem that makes it difficult for them to Play Well With Others.

Now, what say YOU?
.

I’ve had to fire people and it’s definitely a bad thing. Still necessary in general to the proper functioning of a business, though. Even when the employee in question is a total disaster and even a prick as a human being I still don’t take any great degree of pleasure out of the firing. It’s just a failed business relationship, and part of that failure is on the employer for hiring an employee that requires firing.

As for the safety net. . . unemployment and severance pay are sufficient right now in my opinion.

[furt]

@furt

EC – a thought experiment for you.

I am the owner of a business. It is brought to my attention that the manager, whom I employ, has been firing good employees willy-nilly, for no discernable reasons. When I ask him about his personnel decisions, his justifications are weak (though certainly not illegal, this being an at-will state). He also tells me the great glee he took in rendering people destitute. He is, in other words, the precise evil monster that you assume most members of management are.
Question: Should I fire him?

…

[Evil_Captor]

@Curious Joe

Anyone here for the European Model?

They have National Health System (try to buy health insurance in the US when fired or laid-off), they get 5 weeks vacation per year, some work 35 hours per week, 6 months post-childbirth off with full pay, and when it comes to termination (getting fired for no justifiable cause or for downsizing) the severance pay is at full salary for 2 years.

I keep on hearing that “them socialist European countries are going to go bust and broke any day now”. But, in spite of their higher unemployment rate than the US, life seems to go on nicely. Altogether, they have a better quality of life than the US workers. They shiver when they hear the demise of the US workers, being fired or laid-off with 2 weeks notice, out in the street with no health insurance, no pension plan except a miserly social security, and a miserly low unemployment benefits for 6 months that hardly pays for rent or mortgage.

They generally think that US is a nice place to visit, but none of them have any desire to be employed under this cruel and almost criminal travesty. They find the “European Life” is much more pleasant and humane than the “American Dream”.

Exactly. There’s better ways to do things. Europe at least seems to realize that people still need food, clothing and shelter once they’re fired/laid off. Weirdly, as this thread seems to indicate, Americans don’t seem to be interesting in providing these things for themselves. What this indicates about the intelligence of American workers I leave as exercise for the interested lurker.

[Evil_Captor]

@John Mace

It’s pretty simple to decide if the ability to fire is bad or not. Imagine the situation if you could not fire anyone. Would you start if a company under those circumstances?

The idea that a company “dump[s] the social and human costs of this on society” when that person is fired makes the false assumption that once a company hires someone, that company must be responsible for that person from then on. No, if a person is unemployable, that person dumps the cost of supporting himself on society. No one owes anyone else a job. And just because you created some jobs doesn’t mean you are bound by some societal contract to maintain those jobs. That would be absurd.

Geez, John, all that straw you guys keep stuffing into my arguments is getting scratchy. Please show me where I said firing should be outlawed. (For the record, I think firings should be like abortions: safe and rare…

Secondly, when a person is rendered unemployed there IS a social and human cost. Are you saying that there is no social and human cost to firing, simply because when a person is hired, there’s a social and human benefit? Please explain.

[Evil_Captor]

@SaintCad

Why do people think they’re entitled to a job?

Who said any such thing? Would you be so good as to point out any such statement.

A private corporation is not in business to provide social welfare. They hire people to do certain duties and the company recompenses them accordingly. In a society where basic fucking competence is a rare find, a boss should take everyone who is not doing their job and stick their foot so far up their ass they have brush their teeth with shoepolish - then if they don’t start working, fire them.

Where do you get your ideas about corporate life? Video games?

Anyone who think that a company owes a salary to someone who doesn’t do their job, do this: hire someone off the street to clean your house, pay them $50/day to do it. See how long you keep paying them when your house is still filthy every day when you get home.

When anyone who makes such a claim shows up in this thread, you can tell them this. I’m sure they will be impressed.

[Evil_Captor]

@Voyager

I spoke to some people from Switzerland at a class once. Their model was that they were on contracts for a certain number of years, and were pretty much unfireable during that time. At the end of the contract, however, they could be let go for any or no reason.

What do people think about this model?

While the unfirability element of the contract creates a certain comfort zone for workers, that business of being let go at the end of hte contract for any reason or no reason creates the same potential problem that firing does … while not letting businesses have the flex to adjust their employee load in time spans of less than years. Doesn’t sound particularly efficient, and the fired employees are just as fired as they are in America, from what you say (I don’t know what kind of social safety nets they have in Switzerland, though I strongly suspect they’re better than America’s which are rapidly sinking to Third World standards).

[Evil_Captor]

@Voyager

EC, some questions for you.

In the places I’ve worked, execs are a lot more at risk than workers. Do you think firing a VP who has not met her goals for two years is okay? She has probably made a good salary.

I think if you can fire low level employees, you should be able to fire execs, too. Generally, though, execs have very nice compensation packages compared to lower level employees. I would like there to be a basic social safety net for execs as well as regular employees.

I assume that you’re okay with the reasons for immediate termination that many companies have, such as drugs and violence. Do you think someone who hit a co-worker deserves a second chance? How about someone selling drugs on company time?

I would hope that all workplace incidents of violence would be thoroughly investigated and barring strong mitigating circumstances, the person who is fired should be let go. Same with drug sales. I’m against unthinking, robotic management in general. I would like for there to be a strong safety net for volent people and drug salesmen, otherwise they’ll just be carrying their problems over to their next employer, or wind up in jail, if they can’t sort things out themselves. Surely you don’t hate businesses so much that you’d wish THAT kind of employee on them.

The places I’ve worked have had very clear performance improvement plans, where someone at risk is given a very clear set of objectives. This is not a coverup for firing - I know for a fact that the plan where I work now is targeted towards keeping, not firing, people. How do you feel about firing someone who fails the plan, or who doesn’t even try? How about failing more than once? Remember that Maureen said Joan was on a few of these.

Given that I said specifically that I thought Maureen was justified in firing Joan, what do you think my response would be. BTW, such plans can be, and sometimes are used as coverups to fire someone, or more likely, push them out the door, as Maureen hoped would happen to Joan. I do not accept your contention that they are invariably aimed at worker retention – though I understand that some companies do use them for that purpose.

Now a comment. Layoffs are bad, but necessary. If a company hired too many people, some have to go. Many are for divisions, and in Silicon Valley being laid off is no longer considered a stigma. Layoffs may also be a sign of a company going under, and getting out early might be a good thing, especially when there is money. I’ve never been fired or laid off, but I did take a package, which was one of the smartest things I ever did. I got a job quickly, got a good bit of money, and my old center went downhill fast. A few people were prevented from taking it, because they were considered valuable, but both left within six months.

You got a nice compensation package. You got lucky. Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone if there had been, I dunno, a strong social safety net in place?

[Crotalus]

@Evil Captor

Secondly, when a person is rendered unemployed there IS a social and human cost. Are you saying that there is no social and human cost to firing, simply because when a person is hired, there’s a social and human benefit? Please explain.

Are you referring to the post by Interrobang!? here? If so, I think the point was that the costs and benefits balance each other, that the event is neutral WRT overall societal well-being. I would go further and assert that the overall effect is a net plus for society, because there is a reasonable probability that the new hire is a better-suited and more productive, happy employee, which benefits co-workers, the company and society.

[Crotalus]

@Evil Captor

You got a nice compensation package. You got lucky. Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone if there had been, I dunno, a strong social safety net in place?

Is the debate now over whether the US should have a better safety net for people who lose their jobs? As opposed to whether firing is a bad thing?

[Evil_Captor]

@Interrobang!?

Why doesn’t the employer get any credit for having kept that person from being a social problem for as long as they have? It seems like you’re positing a situation where the default is that everyone’s employed, and when they’re not employed that’s a disruption to the norm. Whereas the actual norm, from what I can tell, is that there’s always a subset of the population that’s unemployed, for whatever reason.

Yes, classic capitalism always assumes a nominal unemployment rate of 4 percent or so, not only because some employees will be poor performers for whatever reason, but also because businesses will need a pool of potential new hires as well. I don’t blame employers for this situation – it’s a direct byproduct of captialism. I just think a strong social safety net minimizes the damage that this necessary adjunct to capitalism does to people’s lives, and I wonder at those who oppose it.

I also would note that, if someone is fired because of performance issues, the company will be taking someone out of the pool of the unemployed and putting them back to work. Why is it that you focus exclusively on the firing, and not on the subsequent hiring? It seems to me, from a societal perspective, the company comes out karmically balanced.

What problem needs to be addressed re: hiring people? Why shouldn’t we focus on the problematical end of a process, rather than those which are naturally prone to go rather well for all concerned?

I am not arguing that people should be cast aside when fired, whatever the reason. I am arguing that it’s not an employer’s responsibility to be someone’s safety net. Work should be a mutually beneficial relationship. Obviously, that’s not always the case, but it’s the ideal.

Just because you are in business, it does not mean you have a license to treat people like crap.

[Evil_Captor]

@John Mace

I don’t think this point can be emphasized strongly enough. If society as a whole wants to provide a safety net for people without work, that’s fine. Society, as whole, should go ahead and provide that net. That means all of us, not just “employers”. If I can’t fire someone, I’m going to be extremely heistant to hire anyone in the first place. That latter situation is much more detrimental to scoiety than firing someone.

Yes, don’t hire people. Your business will surely prosper under such a plan! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Seriously, I haven’t given any attention to funding such a net, and I’m generally in agreement that it would be quite the burden for businesses. I think we oughtta take businesses out of the health care provider business too.

[Evil_Captor]

@furt

EC – a thought experiment for you.

I am the owner of a business. It is brought to my attention that the manager, whom I employ, has been firing good employees willy-nilly, for no discernable reasons. When I ask him about his personnel decisions, his justifications are weak (though certainly not illegal, this being an at-will state). He also tells me the great glee he took in rendering people destitute. He is, in other words, the precise evil monster that you assume most members of management are.
Question: Should I fire him?

Sure, but I suppose yuou will have had some conferences with said manager and let him know he has to change before you fire him, right? And you’d investigate things to make sure they are as represented to you, right? You wouldn’t fire him in the same way he fires others, right?

[Evil_Captor]

@D_Odds

If you fire employees without a paper trail, or for reasons other than just cause, you are making bad business decisions. Recruiting and training are far more expensive than attempts at correction.
This isn’t a debate. This is a dozen or so people trying to help you with your ‘pie-in-the-sky’ view. I’ve yet to see anyone taking your side; that ‘European Method’ stuff was the closest.

What’s ‘pie-in-the-sky’ about acknowleding that firing stinks and looking for ways to make it less smelly? What I’ve seen is a bunch hidebound types stubbornly defending the indefensible. Our mileage clearly varies.

Let’s review. We’ve discussed several types of involuntary job separation. The one most people would object to would be fired/released for no cause other than one is a Patriots fan. Bad business by the employer, bad situation for the (former) employee. Even worse if the bad employer fudges records to withhold insurance.
[/quote]

Yes, it would be good if we could get some protection for workers against this kind of behavior. For example, there now exists organizations that dispute unemployment claims for employers, perhaps we should have organizations that weigh in on the side of workers as well. Clearly, there’s more economic incentive to weigh in on the side of employers, but maybe there’s a way to create some kind of counterbalance on behalf of employees.

Second, we have fired/released for cause; the ‘Joan’ scenario. This great travesty to soceity doesn’t occur; the job is not lost. Someone else gets the job, at cost to the employer.

What, the fired employee doesn’t find other employment? With the same shitty work habits/attitudes/whatever? They don’t become a burden on society if they can’t find work? What kind of pie-in-the-sky stuff is this?

Third would be layoffs / RIFs. Neither employer, employee, or soceity ‘wins’ in these cases.

Agreed, though the employer/shareholders might win in some cases.

Now, if you wish to argue that our social safety net for people in categories one and three is insufficient, that is totally separate from the topic of firings. There we might find some common ground; I believe there is room for improvement, although I doubt I’d believe we should do as much as you would propose.

I would argue that it’s not a totally different topic, that it’s strongly related to firing. I think a lot of employers (those with a social conscience) would find firing people considerably less stressful if they knew there was an adequate safety net out there for employees – something like the “European model” proposed by Curious Joe, perhaps. I think the human and social cost of firing would go way down under those circumstances (this would apply for layoffs and RIFs as well).

[Evil_Captor]

@Martin Hyde

I’ve had to fire people and it’s definitely a bad thing. Still necessary in general to the proper functioning of a business, though. Even when the employee in question is a total disaster and even a prick as a human being I still don’t take any great degree of pleasure out of the firing. It’s just a failed business relationship, and part of that failure is on the employer for hiring an employee that requires firing.

Seems reasonable enough.

As for the safety net. . . unemployment and severance pay are sufficient right now in my opinion.

Where I live, the top rate for unemployment insurance is $275 a week. That would maybe cover the mortgage payment on a home. Forget about food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc. And I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but were you aware of this:

At the same time, public programs of social insurance have come under increasing strain. Most notably, unemployment insurance has contracted in reach and generosity during a period when job insecurity has risen. Between 1947 and 1995, the share of workers in covered employment who actually received benefits fell from 80 percent to less than 40 percent. The GAO recently reported, in a brief entitled “Unemployment Insurance: Role as a Safety Net for Low-Wage Workers is Limited,” that low-wage workers are particularly unlikely to receive unemployment benefits. In 1995, only about 18 percent of unemployed low-wage workers were collecting benefits.

Source

I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong on this point.

[D_Odds]

@Evil Captor

What, the fired employee doesn’t find other employment? With the same shitty work habits/attitudes/whatever? They don’t become a burden on society if they can’t find work? What kind of pie-in-the-sky stuff is this?

The ‘Joans’ of the world are going to be a burden, no matter what. I feel that society should not enable the ‘Joans’. People who make continual or egregiously bad choices need to fix themselves, not have someone else pay for their mistakes. Anyone old enough to enter the workforce should know, “Don’t steal. It’s bad.” If they steal, that’s an egregiously bad choice, and they haven’t kept their part of the societal contract. If a ‘Joan’ refuses to learn over her long career, despite having been counseled, then that’s a continual bad choice, and ‘Joan’ has not kept her part of the societal contract. It works two ways, not one.

[Skywatcher]

@Evil Captor

But you’ve got no problem with the stress your father underwent so the compnay could make more money … right?

Not exactly. If it were up to me, the idiots who had him transferred would have been fired instead.

[Skywatcher]

@hannable1975

What amazes me is when you know someone, as I did, who will go OVER 18 MONTHS with no job, because ‘the jobs I find don’t pay enough’. Tough shit! I learened from a bag of m&ms at about age 5 somethings more than nothing any day of the week.

I have a neighbor like that. When she does find a job, she’ll work for a few months, drink herself into a stupor, then find a reason to quit. She sponges off her roommate the rest of the time.

[John_Mace]

Evil Captor: I don’t see the point of debating whether or not firing is “bad”. Unless you have a specific proposal to make with regards to firing (eg, legislation geared toward regulating it), we’re just going to run around in circles in this thread.

[Voyager]

@Evil Captor

I would like for there to be a strong safety net for volent people and drug salesmen, otherwise they’ll just be carrying their problems over to their next employer, or wind up in jail, if they can’t sort things out themselves. Surely you don’t hate businesses so much that you’d wish THAT kind of employee on them.

Well, if the police got called, there would be a record. Companies that don’t do background checks deserve what they get. While we can discuss what should be done for someone addicted, someone selling hard drugs maybe belongs in jail.

Given that I said specifically that I thought Maureen was justified in firing Joan, what do you think my response would be. BTW, such plans can be, and sometimes are used as coverups to fire someone, or more likely, push them out the door, as Maureen hoped would happen to Joan. I do not accept your contention that they are invariably aimed at worker retention – though I understand that some companies do use them for that purpose.

I take it you’ve never shepherded someone through such a plan. I doubt anyone uses it as a cover for firing, (and least not as HR policy) because they require tons of meetings and paperwork. People do improve and remain after the plan, and I never got any negative feedback because of this. I can’t speak for Maureen, but I’d suspect she’d have been thrilled if Joan had seen the error of her ways. Sometimes the result of the plan is to convince the employee that there is not a good match, which makes life better all around, especially since there is lots of time to look for a new job.

You got a nice compensation package. You got lucky. Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone if there had been, I dunno, a strong social safety net in place?

My company put one in place. So strong, in fact, that the department I left laid off no one, and was in fact trying to grab people from other departments.

The problem with such a good package is that the good people (patting myself on the back!) tend to leave while the lower ranked people, who fear getting another job, stay. A layoff where people with skills no longer needed go is better for a company. An exec at the company I went to chortled about what a stupid policy giving good packages were, and how they got lots of great people from other companies that did it. They did the same thing about five years later, after I left.

So, things aren’t so simple. And no safety net is going to be the same as a good job.