You must fire one of these employees. Which one?

[XT]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

The difference between being laid off and being fired is the difference between being punched very hard in the nose by your assailant’s right fist and being punched very hard in the hose by your assailant’s left fist.

Have you ever fired someone, as opposed to laying them off? Do you understand the difference between the two from the now unemployed person wanting to file for unemployment? And the difference to the company between the two? I’m guessing the answer to all of these is ‘no’. Though I suppose that in this case, you are ‘firing’ one of them for something other than intentional misconduct, so it’s probably moot and any of them would still be able to file. However, it would be worse when they are looking for a new job to be ‘fired’ as opposed to ‘laid off’ as part of a RIF that you are implying.

As for more detail, how the hell long do you want these hypos to be? The OP sais that the company is cuttng costs, that you must reduce a team of 16 to 12, and that you’ve elemited the other 13 possibilities for various reasons.

It’s all so contrived, but ok, based on the info I would stick to my answer.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@MrDibble

I’d rather be punched in the nose than the hose…

Dibble, my vision is pretty bad. I have a hard time proofreading. Hose verus nose s not something that is gonna be caught by spellcheck.

[XT]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, since I’m not a mind reader. I’m perfectly willing to punish her utterances, though.
[/QUOTE]

I hope you have a tape recording of the conversation (in the toilet) or other witnesses in that case, since it would be fairly easy for her to sue you and your company for firing her over hearsay. Unless you can document some sort of history of racism in the workplace, firing someone for something you overheard in the bathroom by someone who was in a bathroom stall is going to be pretty difficult. Of course, you could just fire this lady and not give a reason, in which case you’d be on more solid ground in the contrived OP, since her sales were down as well.

[clairobscur]

I’m in the “no-brainer : Emily is a goner” camp.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@XT

Have you ever fired someone, as opposed to laying them off? .

I ama corporate sales manager; I’d be the boss of the team leader in the hypo. (Assuming I get cleared to go back to work. ) I have fired people for misconduct. I have had to supervise the layoff of an entire call center’s staff as a condition of getting another job with the company. I have been fired myself. I have been laid off myself. Either way the person losing his job is put in dire financial straits. Typically when firing people for misconduct, a polite fiction–“lack of work”-- is given as the reason so the person can apply for unemployment. That would certainly apply if Sasha were fired, as the reason for her discharge is either punshing her for something immaterial to her job performance, or simple cost-cutting.

Whether you call it firing or laying off, you’ve cut off the person’ income, created a hole in their resume, and made their life much harder. Employers like to call it laying off or rightsizing or downsizing because it makes THE EMPLOYER feel better.

[XT]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I ama corporate sales manager; I’d be the boss of the team leader in the hypo. (Assuming I get cleared to go back to work. ) I have fired people for misconduct. I have had to supervise the layoff of an entire call center’s staff as a condition of getting another job with the company. I have been fired myself. I have been laid off myself. Either way the person losing his job is put in dire financial straits. Typically when firing people for misconduct, a polite fiction–“lack of work”-- is given as the reason so the person can apply for unemployment. That would certainly apply if Sasha were fired, as the reason for her discharge is either punshing her for something immaterial to her job performance, or simple cost-cutting.

Whether you call it firing or laying off, you’ve cut off the person’ income, created a hole in their resume, and made their life much harder. Employers like to call it laying off or rightsizing or downsizing because it makes THE EMPLOYER feel better.

And I’m a technical manager, and have fired people for cause AND had to lay off people because of RIFs, especially after the dot com disaster. I can tell you that people, at least in my field, find it easier to be RIFed and laid off than to be fired for cause, since the later could mean they NEVER find another comparable job (black listed or reputation for unreliability in the IT field can be the kiss of death). YMMV, of course, and no one LIKES to get fired or laid off, obviously…but one is worse than the other in terms of getting a new job down the road.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@XT

And I’m a technical manager, and have fired people for cause AND had to lay off people because of RIFs, especially after the dot com disaster. I can tell you that people, at least in my field, find it easier to be RIFed and laid off than to be fired for cause, since the later could mean they NEVER find another comparable job (black listed or reputation for unreliability in the IT field can be the kiss of death). YMMV, of course, and no one LIKES to get fired or laid off, obviously…but one is worse than the other in terms of getting a new job down the road.

If I fire somebody for anything short of criminal lmisconduct, I’m not giving the reason to people outside my company. The serial sexual harasser, the guy watching (non-kiddy) porn at work, the perpetual slacker and so forth get listed as not eligible for rehire. We don’t give them a good reference, but since we don’t give references in the first place that doesn’t matter. The only reference letter I’ve signed for a former employee looking for a job outside the company was one for a guy who worked for me at Sears looking for a job at First Tennessee Bank. I had worked at the bank but when I was asked to write the letter was employed at an insurance company, so there was no conflict.

[MrDibble]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Dibble, my vision is pretty bad. I have a hard time proofreading. Hose verus nose s not something that is gonna be caught by spellcheck.

I guessed it was a typo, it just amused me

[Corry_El]

First there’s a key distinction you didn’t state. If I own the company I can decide who to hire and fire, within the law, on whatever criteria I choose. If I work for owners of a company I’m obligated to act in what I believe is their best long term financial interest unless they instruct me otherwise, though either way within the law. In the latter case it’s unethical for me to to act according to my own interests and opinions. And I’ll assume that case.

I’ve noticed in now two of your recent ethics scenario’s an African American was murdered by the police for no reason. Perhaps you feel this is a fairly routine type of tragedy but in fact it’s very rare statistically speaking and draws huge attention nowadays. This affects the scenario. If it was really as routine as you seem to perceive it, employers would have less implicit obligation to bear with its victims (loved ones). In reality in any kind of public company the relatives of a victim of such a rare tragedy would be off limits for firing for longer than 6 months, if they were making some kind of effort to cope.

In a company I worked for, a guy’s wife and kids were wiped out as pedestrians in a traffic accident. He became a complete zero after that, and nobody can cast blame per se who hasn’t had it happen to them. But they eventually had to get rid of him, with generous severance, which is another variable in such cases. Sooner or later you may have no choice, but if it was a national news type event it’s longer.

The other two cases are more real world common, employees with odious political/social opinions they (largely) don’t bring to work, or employees with ‘respectable’ political opinions, in their proper place, but which they bring to work and let interfere with their work. However the latter category is narrowing as society polarizes. Some people here would probably consider EMILY working on Republican causes at work to be the same as Sasha but just more open about it; others, not so much at this forum, consider BLM a racist movement. When it comes to a workplace it’s relative, and the manager has to identify the long term financial interests of the owners relative to the rest of the workforce and the customers, not based on his or her own political and social opinions.

But the difference between EMILY and Sasha is that EMILY has what might be a very fixable problem, if simply warned to shape up and leave politics at home. Sasha has more toxic opinions (relative to most workplaces and customers) she is being less public about, though obviously not entirely keeping them to herself or else I wouldn’t know.

I’d be looking to upgrade the workforce from people like either Sasha or EMILY, but again subject to EMILY being confronted about her problem and given a chance to correct it.

[XT]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

If I fire somebody for anything short of criminal lmisconduct, I’m not giving the reason to people outside my company. The serial sexual harasser, the guy watching (non-kiddy) porn at work, the perpetual slacker and so forth get listed as not eligible for rehire. We don’t give them a good reference, but since we don’t give references in the first place that doesn’t matter. The only reference letter I’ve signed for a former employee looking for a job outside the company was one for a guy who worked for me at Sears looking for a job at First Tennessee Bank. I had worked at the bank but when I was asked to write the letter was employed at an insurance company, so there was no conflict.

YMMV, as I said. References in my field are pretty key to getting your next job…and a bad reference or a black mark for being fired can haunt you for a long time.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Corry El]
I’d be looking to upgrade the workforce from people like either Sasha or EMILY, but again subject to EMILY being confronted about her problem and given a chance to correct it.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of what you wrote, but the OP says that EMILY has previously been warned about this ‘but she doesn’t appear to be listening’, which is pretty much making her the most plausible for her go. She is also an under-achiever, while the other two at least have past performance to show for and at least the possibility of future performance, though in the case of COTÉ losing her partner that might or might not be the case. Still, as you note, you would want to give her the benefit of the doubt and keep her on in the hopes she can work through her personal tragedy and be able to still have a job and means of support if she comes through.

[Corry_El]

@XT

I agree with most of what you wrote, but the OP says that EMILY has previously been warned about this ‘but she doesn’t appear to be listening’, which is pretty much making her the most plausible for her go. She is also an under-achiever, while the other two at least have past performance to show for and at least the possibility of future performance, though in the case of COTÉ losing her partner that might or might not be the case. Still, as you note, you would want to give her the benefit of the doubt and keep her on in the hopes she can work through her personal tragedy and be able to still have a job and means of support if she comes through.

I agree, assuming EMILY ‘won’t listen’ after it’s been put professionally but unmistakably clearly ‘leave politics at home and meet performance goals, or else’, then she would probably be the one to fire first.

Again, the ethical obligation is to act legally, and according to the company owners’ long term financial interest unless told otherwise, or unless I’m the owner and decide otherwise. So the caveat would be that if the company’s business (workforce, customers) is such that Sasha letting her opinions slip again could cause a big financial loss (LA Clippers situation as an extreme), then she’d be the priority to get rid of. In most everyday cases, she’s likely less of a financial drag or risk than somebody who won’t/can’t get their job done day to day after being bluntly given an ultimatum to shape up.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@XT

I can tell you that people, at least in my field, find it easier to be RIFed and laid off than to be fired for cause, since the later could mean they NEVER find another comparable job (black listed or reputation for unreliability in the IT field can be the kiss of death).

That really seems foreign to me. I work in IT. In my experience, most shops verify only dates of employment and job title. They ask for personal references, but half the time the deadline for furnishing them is after the interview and offer (and sometimes after hiring). My personal references have been contacted exactly never. And these aren’t half-assed startups, they are multi-mega-national companies whose names you’d recognize. Often I have a contact on the inside, which I’m sure helps, but often I don’t (that I know of).

/hijack.

[Velocity]

@clairobscur

I’m in the **“no-brainer : Emily is a goner” **camp.

@Trinopus

Fire the racist.

Say, kid, next time ask something difficult!

What is “obvious” is all over the spectrum.

[Reluctant_A]

I require information outside of the stated hypothetical. Specifically, I need to know how bad your three “locks” have shit the bed, that I’m seriously considering a scenario where I have to keep two out of these three women, when I’d probably prefer not to keep any of them.

[slash2k]

Since this is all a hypothetical, what is going to happen to your team, your results, and your job if Sasha has another little lapse and the next time, it is Coté, or Emily, or a black customer in the next stall? What happens if a Youtube video of Sasha spouting off while on company premises or wearing a company logo gets a million hits in 48 hours? How much are her previous earnings going to matter if she has an ill-timed brain fart and the regional VP gets an earful?

She is a problem waiting to happen, and you as manager better figure out how you’re going to deal with it before the problem turns into YOUR problem.

Also, how do you know that she’s not letting racism affect her work? She services black-owned businesses as “responsibly” as she does others, but does she make the same effort to sell to them, or is she just being “nice” to accounts she inherited?

[even_sven]

If Sasha’s comment was off the clock in a situation unrelated to work (i.e. not at a company happy hour or other place you can reasonably expect to see coworkers), that is a critical piece of information and has an impact on how I answer. If it was entirely private, I’d let Emily go and watch Sahsa like a hawk.

If she was in a work-related situation, I would look to the corporate policy on hostile comments. I’m not at all convinced the comments would stay private forever. If it came out, the ensuing drama would hurt productivity across the board, and if it became public, in this age of social media and insta-scandals, the damage could be even worse. This IS a business decision. Having extreme racists with poor judgement as employees is bad for business.

In this scenario, if HR moves too slow, Emily will have to go as well. She would be the one affected if Sasha hadn’t shot herself in the foot.

[BrotherCadfael]

@ddsun

Fire Emily. provide EAP to Cote, and have a chat with Sascha about her personal views. They may not be affecting her work life, but she expressed them on the premises. There should never be a repeat of this. She also needs to know that if her views ever do have any impact on her work, she is out. Zero tolerance.

This seems reasonable.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@slash2k

Since this is all a hypothetical, what is going to happen to your team, your results, and your job if Sasha has another little lapse and the next time, it is Coté, or Emily, or a black customer in the next stall? What happens if a Youtube video of Sasha spouting off while on company premises or wearing a company logo gets a million hits in 48 hours? How much are her previous earnings going to matter if she has an ill-timed brain fart and the regional VP gets an earful?

She is a problem waiting to happen, and you as manager better figure out how you’re going to deal with it before the problem turns into YOUR problem.

Also, how do you know that she’s not letting racism affect her work? She services black-owned businesses as “responsibly” as she does others, but does she make the same effort to sell to them, or is she just being “nice” to accounts she inherited?

Youknow that she’s not letting racism affect her ssales because you investigated. Dealig with black-owned usinesses responsibly, for a csalesperson, means that she’s showing up to appointments, handling problems, negotiating deals in a non-discrimnatory fashion, and closing new business. The hypeothetical you was obviously looking for dirt when you did hte intitial investigtion and found none.

Which is not unusual for a salesperson. Salespersons’ compensation is based on how much business they bring in. Sasha would only be hurting herself by refusing to prospect black clients, or servicing them badly once a deal has been struck. Since her sales are up once you correct for ABC’s switch to the competition, which she could not affect, she clearly is doing her job.

Also, we don’t know what sort of racist she is. Just because she doesn’t want to attend a interraical wedding of a relative doesn’t mean she favors segregation or white nationaism or wants to reinstate slavery or favors genocide. And as offensive as hte raped-by-a-gorilla remark is to me personally, it supports the possibility that she mainly opposes sex between the races. I know people who feel that way. I have couisins who declined to attend my wedding to an apparently-whte woman (and another cousin’s to an indisputably white one) on those grounds.

Not all racists are the same. Archie Bunker didn’t want to live next door to George Jeffferson, but he wouldn’t try to kll him. George called what’s his name, Tom Willis, a honky all the time, bvut he also administered life-saving CPR to a klansman rather than watch him die.

[slash2k]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Youknow that she’s not letting racism affect her ssales because you investigated. Dealig with black-owned usinesses responsibly, for a csalesperson, means that she’s showing up to appointments, handling problems, negotiating deals in a non-discrimnatory fashion, and closing new business. The hypeothetical you was obviously looking for dirt when you did hte intitial investigtion and found none.

Is she actively seeking new business in the black community, or merely dealing with what shows up? If she’s actively out pounding the pavements trying to turn up new business, but she’s devoting most of her time and energies to white businesses, she can still be making good money while doing you no favors long term.

For example, if Company A has a black CEO married to a white spouse, will Sasha be proactive in attempting to earn their business, or just respond “responsibly” if the purchasing dept contacts her? What exactly are the expectations of a salesperson at your company (are they supposed to be out pounding the pavement, or are 99% of their leads generated by headquarters, etc.)?

Refusing to prospect black clients while working really really diligently to win white clients can be a very viable strategy, at least for awhile, and no, it’s not at all obvious that she’d only be hurting herself if she didn’t prospect all races equally. For example, while Memphis is a majority-black city, whites are still more likely to be homeowners, to be business-owners, to be college-educated, etc., and the Memphis metro area remains one of the most segregated large metros (both by race and by income, which do substantially overlap). Depending on exactly what you’re selling, it is quite possible your company, or your reps in certain geographic areas, are marketing primarily to whites anyway.

And even if she’s “only” opposed to interracial sex (which doesn’t exactly fit well with her “Bad enough I have to be nice to niggers at work” shtick, but whatever), that still leave YOU and your company badly exposed if she gets videorecorded on a rant that’s “only” about miscegenation. How well do you think it will go over when you have to explain to the regional VP that those million Youtube views are of a woman representing your company calling people crude racial epithets because she “only” opposes their choice of spouse?