Difficult decision to make 3

[MedicineEng]

Dear All:
I might be confronted to a quite difficult situation somewhere in the future and I would like to ear your views about this.
My company is reducing staff and my department is not excluded from that reduction. I have been reducing staff by firing incompetent/non-adapted staff or by not replacing the ones that leave. Since the ones that I fired the decision was done based on performance and eventualy they would be fired anyway, I didn't have any problem with my sleep. But now we are looking to positions that are eventually not needed and/or do not justify a full time position and/or can be outsourced.
I have 2 persons in that situation and eventually I have to release one (my boss mentioned both of them, but I am struggling to keep one), but this is has been quite fight inside my brain.
Some background on these 2 persons:
One is a man and other is a woman;
Both are low specialized workers easily replaced, and clearly excedent for the ammount of work needed for that section;
Both are with us for many years (over 10);
Both are already well over 40;
The woman has 3 kids and she is the only one that takes money home;
The man has 4 or 5 kids (eventualy some already working)but at least 1 is still a child. He is immigrant and recently finally he got authorization to bring his wife and the youngest daughter to the country;
Now, who should I release?
If I look to the company's interests, and since the man sometimes helps in other works not directly connected to his functions, I should release the woman;
If I look for the social environment, the woman is the only income for his family and I know that for the man is easier to find a job even in the civil construction, that has been booming around here.
But then, will I keep the least "skilled" staff and release the "better" one? The commas are just because this is non-skilled labour so their job quality in the position is basically the same.
The things have been more calm now, but I know that sooner or later my boss will come back to this issue.
What would you do?

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

I've never been in your situation nor am I ever likely to be, but I think I would talk to both of them & let them know that one of them has to go. If you are really lucky, one of them might volunteer. Yeah OK so I'm an optimist ... sue me! They might even agree to a cut in pay so that both can stay.

Could you offer both of them part time (work sharing) as an alternative? Half pay is better than none.

I don't envy you but, when it comes right down to it, the situation is not your fault. You have a job to do & if you don't do it your boss probably will & could well include you along with them. Which I'm sure you are aware of as a possibility once you've done all the dirty work anyway.

Good luck.

​

Helpful SW websites faq559-520​

How to find answers ... faq559-1091​

 

[Ashereng]

If you have been letting people go based on merit (or lack thereof), why change now?

If you are axing based on merit, then merit it is.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[HVACctrl]

This may sound kid of weak, but I would be looking for a new job if I were you. Yeah, you may be able to stick around, but do you have any say in that? Are you in a position to be able to save what looks like a sinking ship?

If I couldn't answer yest to at least one of those questions, I would be gone.

I worked at a place that constantly told the employees that they didn't mkae enough money to give more than 1-1/2% to 2-1/2% yearly raises. People who made over $50K per year were often given nothing. They weren't laying people off, but just their cheapness and lack of dedication to their people was ebough to send the real talent packing.

This is just my take. You may want to tough it out.

Onto the firing: if there is no clearcut choice who would help your company or even be more capable or more willing to assist down the road, which seems a little unlikely, I would then lean to keeping the one who needs it the most. The first priority is with the company, unless its a dead heat in which case I would want to go with my heart.

Ed

http://www.engineerboards.com

 

[MedicineEng]

Thanks for your replies.

The problem here is that it is not a question of "merit" anymore, it's a question of numbers and ratios.
If I look to their performance they are Ok for the function, so I cannot fire them based on merit or lack of it. The thing is that this function doesn't justify 2 persons full time (eventually doesn't even justify one) and can be easily outsourced. This I also have to agree with my boss, but it is the social problem that I am creating by releasing this person that is letting me worried.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

An executive was in quandary. He had to get rid of one of his staff. He had narrowed it down to one of two people, Debra or Jack. It would be a hard decision to make, as they were both equally qualified and both did excellent work.

He finally decided that in the morning whichever one used the water cooler first would have to go. Debra came in the next morning, hugely hung over after partying all night. She went to the cooler to get some water to take an aspirin so the executive approached her and said:
"Debra, I've never done this before, but I have to lay you or Jack off." Debra sighed then replied: "Could you jack off, I have a terrible headache."

​

Helpful SW websites faq559-520​

How to find answers ... faq559-1091​

 

[MedicineEng]

HVACcrtl:
I don't think that the company is sinking. What has changed was the philosofy that ruled until some years ago.
Until like 3 or 4 years ago, the company had a philosofy of having very little outsourcing. All functions were company's employees, from cleaning ladies to canteen staff, to security guards. Around 3 years ago, it changed his philosofy (that frankly speaking was a little bit outdated) and started outsourcing (and releasing the affected persons) . Now we have outsourced security services, cleaning services, and in my deparment, much more subcontractors working for us. For your reference we managed to reduce the our headcount in our department by over 25% by using the method that I described in my initial thread. Of course we had to change some working methods and outsource much more but the fact is that the operations and were not affected and the product keeps on coming out of production lines.

 

[Ashereng]

What I meant was, keep the person who is better at their job, and has the better capabilities, future development, etc. Keep the better worker.


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[MikeHalloran]

I'm having a hard time with this outsourcing stuff.

When you outsource a job, you still have to pay to get the job done, but now you also have to pay someone else's profit. That can net you a short term savings, provided that the local job market is saturated with the skill you have outsourced.

The other problem is, when business picks up, you may find it difficult to hire or rent people who are even as good as the ones you laid off already. The outsourced suppliers are in the same labor market, and will have just as much difficulty.

Instead of finding ways to mitigate the impact of a sizable wage or staff reduction, your company should be finding ways to increase sales. If they're not doing that, they're doomed, and so is your job.








Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[quark]

I would prefer keeping the lady, may be.

 

[JTMcC]

MikeHalloran,

There are many, many situations where outsourcing is the smart choice.
Yes you are (hopefully) paying someone else's profit to perform the function, but there are lot of times where it would cost you that amount of profit plus a lot more to perform that same function in house. Scale is one of the greatest influencing factors and he listed one great example, security. Who is going to attract the most qualified security personell in my area, a large contractor who's sole business is security, who intimatly knows and understands the legal, insurance and training required to operate.... or the engineering firm.
Your blanket statement taken to the extreem means you must form an oil exploration division, drill, transport and refine fuel for your company vehicles. Or, you can run down to the local gas station and outsource.
A couple of billion other factors come into play, but the bottom line is that a business can't be everything, or do everything, competently, efficiently or profitably.

JTMcC.

http://www.firstratefabricators.com

 

[Zapster]

If I look to the company's interests, and since the man sometimes helps in other works not directly connected to his functions, I should release the woman

This is a no brainier, do what is best for the long term interest of your company.

 

[monkeydog]

I would have to agree with Zapster.
Let's say you pick one of them.
Let's say the other one see's the "writing on the wall" and find another job. Your now out an employee. What good did playing "guardian" do?
Pick which one is most likely to be able to transition into other tasks. That one is most likely to try cross-training elsewhere in the company. Good for the employee, good for the company.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

"Hard cases make bad law."

Why don't you can them both? Are you running a charity or a profit making venture? why don't you outsource everything but those positions that bring in money, i.e., the "business developers"?

If it's so important to you that the company save money, why don't you quit and do the company a favor, I'm sure you'll be appriciated.

In all seriousness,ask yourself these questions over and over again. Who the heck wants to work where the thought of being laid off at any second looms high - so high that you can't concentrate on getting the job done - as if that matters?

"Our workers are our most valuable asset! Gentlemen, I say that we sell them!"

 

[JTMcC]

DaveVikingPE you appear to be assuming that all companies are operating with the optimal level of manpower. I've seen many outfits with too many employees for a variety of reasons from bad management, to an evolution in services provided to you name it. In those cases the right thing to do IS to lay off hands.
As for the often quoted "our employees are our greatest asset", what a joke.
Our GOOD employees are our greatest asset (and hardest to replace) but the poor employees are a drag on the whole shebang and should be eliminated at the first available opportunity.

JTMcC.

http://www.firstratefabricators.com

 

[Beggar]

To do anything besides make the best decision for your company is not only unethical, it puts your own position in jeopardy.

If you recognize that "B" is the logical choice, don't you think that others do, too?

Pick whichever provides the least value to your company and do what you must.

I hope your company is decent about such things and will provide a good severance package.

--------------------
How much do YOU owe?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

--------------------

 

[kontiki99]

Absent performance based criteria, go by seniority.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tricky position, sure it is. How come bad employees are hired in the first place? Since everyone is "disposable" - it just depends on the business climate - why even treat anyone as "good" or "bad"?

My point is that MedicineEng's position has now been overtaken by emotions. If that's the case, then MedicineEng is useless as someone who's job it is to fire people.

And it sounds like that company needs to outsource everything - meaning: the company is ceasing to be an engineering company (I've assumed that's what it is) but some sort of middleman that, if it's not super careful, will cease to be necessary. Surely a boon for the stockholders...

MedicineEng should fire both employees as that's the only "fair" way to deal with the issue. MedicineEng stated:
"One is a man and other is a woman;" sorry, but in the USA fo 2006, that's not even part of the equation, unless you want a discrimination lawsuit.
"Both are low specialized workers easily replaced, and clearly excedent for the ammount of work needed for that section;" FIRE THEM BOTH AND HIRE A "KID."
"Both are with us for many years (over 10);" So what? It sounds like they haven't advanced beyond "low specialization" in ten years, so they're slackers.
"Both are already well over 40;" Age discrimination anyone?
"The woman has 3 kids and she is the only one that takes money home;" Oh, so you're a charity?
"The man has 4 or 5 kids (eventualy some already working) but at least 1 is still a child." Oh, so you're a charity?
" He is immigrant and recently finally he got authorization to bring his wife and the youngest daughter to the country;" If he's an immigrant and he's been in the country for ten years (I assume that he has) working for your company, how often do you let him go back to see his wife? Sounds like your company has a liberal policy on vacation time - and that costs money! That, or this guy and his wife have an odd relationship.

Why does MedicineEng feel guilty (if that's the right word - don't know, but it's good for now) about any of this? Is it MedicineEng's fault that these two employees are in the postions they're in? What are the consequences for MedicineEng if one of the employees isn't fired? Losing one's own job? Is MedicineEng's job even necessary itself?

And... if this is the biggest part of MedicineEng's job (sounds like it's pretty important), once the firing is done, what else is left for MedicineEng to do? Look out!

 

[EddyC]

MedicineEng,

Perhaps you could refer this particular problem to your superior? After all, you say its a dead heat. Perhaps your boss could offer some clarification?

 

[MedicineEng]

Thank you all for your comments.
Just some clarifications/answers:
-My company is not an engineering company, it's a manufacturing company outside US;
-My job is not to fire people, my job is to run a department, in which part of my responsibilities is to manage the human resources of this department;
-The fact that these 2 employees are in the company for so long comes in the sense that I already explained before that previously the company had a philosofy of no/almost none outsourcing;
-The fact that I mentioned the gender and the age of the persons doesn't imply any type of discrimination. Is just to let you understand some of the constraints that I have. And discrimination aside, it is (at least for me) easier to release a young man that I know that has more probabilities to get a job than a older woman that is the only income of his family;
-The policy of vacation time is the same for all employees, no matter immigrant or not. Before he was going home once a year (and making a child/year).
-Regarding the severance package it will be according with the law (eventually a bit more). In their case, it will be something around 1 year salary

And yes, I am not insensible to the constraints of this case. If I was, this thread wouldn't even exist: I would fire both and that's it.