Reply
Mon 23 Mar, 2009 05:44 pm
Job layoffs.
It's hard for anyone to be unemployed. There should be a way for everyone to make a living.
However, I think we should be thanking our lucky stars some of these people are no longer employed.
In some cases, I think it's a good thing that the bar is getting set higher. We all complain sometimes about the lack of customer service, shoddy workmanship, lack of quality care, etc.
If there's an excess supply of people seeking one particular job, in more cases, the most qualified person will be hired, rather than the employer just accepting whatever he can get.
I was reading a Sunday paper, and there was a section where 4 or 5 people who lost had their jobs were telling their stories. I was reading one of the more uplifting tales, about someone who "looks at the glass as half-full", was using this time to reset his priorities, simplified his life (as in living in his vehicle), and all these other "gee whiz, he's got a great attitude" things.
I kept thinking "I know this guy. I know this name"
I was talking to someone at one of the hospitals today, and it seemed in my mind there was a link. I said "hey, do you remember so-and-so" The response was immediate...."Holy ****!", and for some reason, that was enough to bring it all back.
Let me just say it is a very good thing this person no longer has a job in his current profession, and I mean on a life and death level.
I screen applicants almost every day. I hear answers to questions that literally make me hold the phone away from my ear, staring at the mouth piece to make sure the stupidity (yes and I mean stupidity) doesn't seep through into my brain.
It's all well and good to say these people should be able to find a job, but, are you willing to lower your standards to accept less than the best, when the great people are looking for work also?
Equal opportunity? Sure. If you're talking about people with relatively equal skills.
All the rude sales clerks, pushy salesmen, health care workers who aren't as professional/caring/knowledgeable as they should be, bad waiters, lunatic managers, those who sponge off other peoples hard work...it would be nice to think they could be a wake up call for them.
If we don't like them and they are incapable of change, should we put them on welfare or let them beg in the street, since they can't have jobs?
@edgarblythe,
If they are incapable of change, they need to get jobs they are capable at.
Doesn't have anything to do with liking someone or not.
Why should someone who performs well at a given skill, be penalized by getting paid the same amount of money, be given the same amount of responsibilty, as someone who performs poorly at the same job, and causes more work, and can endanger others?
If they are incapable of change, of learning, and there is absolutely nothing they can do, then yes, they need welfare.
I imagine though people who until now performed poorly would suddenly become capable of change, if they knew there job really was at stake.
It would be like a damn miracle how quickly they would learn to keep up and work properly, fixing their own mistakes as they go along.
It is well known that economic systems are inefficient with full employment.
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
If they are incapable of change, they need to get jobs they are capable at.
Doesn't have anything to do with liking someone or not.
Why should someone who performs well at a given skill, be penalized by getting paid the same amount of money, be given the same amount of responsibilty, as someone who performs poorly at the same job, and causes more work, and can endanger others?
If they are incapable of change, of learning, and there is absolutely nothing they can do, then yes, they need welfare.
I imagine though people who until now performed poorly would suddenly become capable of change, if they knew there job really was at stake.
It would be like a damn miracle how quickly they would learn to keep up and work properly, fixing their own mistakes as they go along.
I agree. I work with a woman and a man who are lazy, slovenly, and take twice the length of breaks allowed and that are taken by the rest of us. I have taken to noting down their departure and arrival time and telling them I'm documenting them. It's amazing how they never do that anymore when I'm on shift with them. What makes them think they are entitled to more than everyone else? In this case, it's classic union mentality. One of them is a shop steward and when I told her she was breaching the union contract, she said, "other people do it", and I said, "Not here, they don't." What a stupid answer.
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:Separating the wheat from the chaff
This isn't another one of those quinoa trick questions, is it? You know, stuff you can't find?
@Reyn,
the russians who immigated to Kansas brought wheat seeds contaiminated with russian thistle, commonly known in the west as tumbleweed.
@chai2,
I agree with you - in most situations. Most of the people I did see get laid off from where I work where the least productive (it honestly makes sense - you need to keep those that bust their butts in times like these). There were some although that were let go that were good workers. This factored into more of the situation - we need to keep those jobs that essential to keep things going. Many of these were administrative types. Their work was just handed to us - in other words, we now need to set up our own meetings/travel/ordering supplies and other stuff they helped us with.
We kept one that now covers about 4 different groups so we can't heap all this stuff on one person.
And speaking of unions - unions do not layoff in order of most efficient. You could be the worst laziest worker and because you have senority over the hardest worker, you keep your job while this other guy that does ten times your workload gets laid off.
@Linkat,
Linkat, your comment about unions is somewhat misguided. In the first place, unions don't do the hiring, training, supervising or disciplining of employees. The purpose of unions is to protect their members against unfair practices and treatment and to bargain on their behalf as a collective.
Any union member who is laid off from his or her job due to technological change or some other valid reason is entitled, in most union contracts, to bump less senior members. This is completely different from getting rid of crap employees.
Any union member can be disciplined and fired if procedures and protocols are followed (documentations, meeting with stewards, warnings, etc). It is not impossible to accomplish but I have found most managers are afraid or too lazy to do this and prefer to transfer problem employees.
If managers find a senior member to be shite, they should and could do something about it. That they do not is no reflection on the union.
And I am not pro-union.
@chai2,
I don't know, chai. You must be right about your own experience. But my own company just went through a second round of layoffs and I can tell you that they let some very important people go. By important, I mean people who were good at their job, had a lot of responsibility, and most importantly a lot of important business knowledge. What they did was let those people go and have someone who hadn't been there as long (and who makes about half as much) take their place. Needless to say, this will cost them in the long run.
Maybe some employers are taking this opportunity to get rid of dead weight, and good for them, but some are just digging themselves deeper by looking at nothing but the numbers.
@Mame,
Recently, in one of the towns - the firemen and other town employees had a layoff - they were all unionized and all were laid off according to seniority. My dad was also in the Post Office and all their layoffs were also according to seniority. I believe in many union contracts it is written this way - that layoffs are according to seniority.
You are correct this has nothing to do with hiring/disclipining etc. But typically when you are laid off it isn't because you are a bad worker - it is because a company/organization has to downsize for varies reasons. Although a non-union organization can layoff anyway they decide (other than discrimination reasons). The unions I am familiar with have laidoff according to seniority. So a stronger worker could get laid off before lazy one.
@Mame,
I remember one recently because the fireman was laid off while he was fighting in Iraq. They tried to keep him, but the union stated they couldn't have any favors that layoffs had to be made in order of seniority.
@Mame,
Here is union leader in regard to Harley Davidson layoffs..."Tom Boger, business representative with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 175, said Monday the union's role as layoffs go forward is to make sure they happen according to seniority.
The union's contract with Harley says layoffs have to happen by seniority, Boger said. He said the union would compile a list of those who get laid off and compare it to seniority records."
And here is one regarding teachers union..."Too bad, say the teachers' unions. The contract demands that the city's corps of new and in many cases better qualified teachers must go first." Great article by the way that states why we shouldn't layoff according to seniority.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/02/04/2009-02-04_mass_teacher_layoffs__seniority_rules__b.htm
@Linkat,
Well, the union I was president of had 1500 members and a variety of job descriptions. Most departments/divisions had only a few members in each, so if a person was laid off, it was due to the nature of the work or changes to it (tech change). Seniority would be a factor only if the department had more than one employee at that particular level.
I haven't worked in industries where there are multitudes of people in the same job.
I stand corrected
@Mame,
And I'm unfamilar with those that those that aren't like post office/fire department, etc. - both from family/friends and my studies in economics.
Why should a worker be given special privilege based on the length of employment? Exempting the merit argument, surely need is more important than the length of time a worker holds an employment position!
I see no definitive underlying cause and effect between employment duration and merit however I see a clear correlation between need and job security.
@Chumly,
Two reasons I immediately think of for seniority being an issue:
1. Prevent age discrimination.
2. Objective measure to prevent favoritism.
It may not be the best objective measure, but I suggest you have a replacement before you eliminate the seniority clause.
@Chumly,
I agree - a company should not be forced to layoff according to seniority. So if you have some one fat and lazy that has been with the company for 20 years and some one hungry that works his tail off - because he was only there for 2 years vs 20; the harder worker gets laid off.
It would be in a company's best interest to keep the strongest and hardest working performers as that will earn them more no matter the length of service.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace