Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did answer your question. Quite clearly. The personal issues of an employee who is terminated are NOT the problem of the company and are NOT a factor in deciding who to hire, demote, fire, give pay raises to or wage decreases to.
No, you did not answer my question. Saying that Lisa's child's medical care is not your problem does not answer my question. Do you feel that her child should just have to suffer and die? If so, please type those words here, rather than just copping out and saying that it's "not your problem". In a real-life situation, as far as I'm concerned, you should be forced to tell Lisa, directly to her face, that you feel her child deserves to suffer and die, even though Lisa is a good employee and there is enough work for both her and Eddie, so that some fat cat CEO can make a few more bucks. Would you be able to say that directly to her face?
Or, do you feel the government should pay for Lisa's child's medical care? If so, then that is your problem, because you are paying taxes that will go to support her child, even though Lisa wanted to be a productive member of society, and you did not allow her to be?
Or, do you feel that doctors should just have to provide her child's care for free? If so, the doctors will pass that cost on to you. Again, it is your problem. You are now going to claim that you don't care what the doctor charges since it is being paid for by an insurance company. But remember, the insurance companies will pass that cost onto you. Again, it is your problem.
Or, do you feel that insurance companies should be forced to provide Lisa coverage, even though she can't pay for it. If so, the insurance companies will just pass that cost onto you. Again, it is your problem.
Quote:
In fact, if the company is handling their HR correctly, the work files and personal files, such as medical issues etc, should be separate.
Instead of laying off Lisa, since there is obviously enough work for both her and Eddie, they should maybe discuss whether or not she can work more overtime. That will give Lisa an opportunity to explain that she has a temporary situation, but will be willing to work more overtime once the situation is somehow resolved.
People on this board have a hard time accepting that I want to remain living close to my family, even though that somewhat limits my employment opportunitites. I have said that I consider proximity to family worth any price. People on this board don't understand me. But this situation with Lisa is eaxctly why proximity to family is so important. If Lisa lived near her extended family, then maybe her parents or a sibling or cousin could occasionally take care of her child and/or take him/her to doctor's appointments while Lisa works overtime. That is not an option if she relocated and abandoned her family.
You are still ignoring a major point: the premise of this thread is that the employer wants to reduce redundancy. But redundancy is a good thing. Suppose the employer lays off Lisa, thinking Eddie can do her job. Now, what happens when Eddie accepts a job somewhere else (remember, he's young and ambitious, and not likely to stay in one place for long), and there is a huge deadline, and nobody available to do the work? Or, what if Eddie suddenly passes away tragically in a car accident, and there is nobody available to do the work? Or, what if Eddie has a heart attack and is incapacitated when there is a major deadline, and nobody available to do the work. The boss's callousness will come back to bite him/her, possibly ruining the company. I'm sure the boss would wish that he/she kept Lisa in that case. All of these same scenarios can happen to if Eddie is the one who is laid off. So neither should be laid off in this case!
I also still argue that with Lisa and Eddie, there is really no redundancy. Lisa and Eddie clearly have different strenghts and weaknesses, and should not be working on the same tasks. If the employer thinks Lisa and Eddie are redundant to each other, then the employer is a fool!
Quote:
So, to answer the question in the callous way you are hoping, what happens to Lisa, to her child, or to Eddie is not my concern, my issue, or my problem. Personal life and business life are called different things because they are different. At work, I am dealing with a business decision not a personal one.
As I said above, what happens to Lisa and her child is your concern, whether you like it or not.
I maintain her child care is not my problem. As such, if I were to fire Lisa her personal issues would never be mentioned nor would I engage in a conversation about them. As usual, you want to make me look as bad as possible. Again, to answer your question...I would say NOTHING about her child as her personal life IS NOT A FACTOR IN A BUSINESS DECISION.
And, just as much as the personal lives of my real employees are none of my business and are not factored in to business decisions, neither would Lisa's.
I maintain her child care is not my problem. As such, if I were to fire Lisa her personal issues would never be mentioned nor would I engage in a conversation about them. As usual, you want to make me look as bad as possible. Again, to answer your question...I would say NOTHING about her child as her personal life IS NOT A FACTOR IN A BUSINESS DECISION.
And, just as much as the personal lives of my real employees are none of my business and are not factored in to business decisions, neither would Lisa's.
You still have not answered my question. If Lisa loses her job and is unable to get a new job and loses her insurance, who should be responsible to pay for her child's medical care? Or, should the child just suffer and die? Saying it is "not my problem" does not answer the question. That is just avoiding answering the question.
Lisa has issues, but they are temporary. In the long-term she has proven to be a valuable employee and will likely continue to be.
Eddie has a full subscription, but his issues are personality traits that will only worsen if he is the one who stays. His aggressiveness may have helped to close a deal or two, but when he pi$$es off the wrong people, the repercussions could be bad. Keeping him is also bad for morale, as the others who remain would feel wronged. Besides, who is to say that as a result of his fast and furious lifestyle he won't soon be involved in a motorcycle accident or contract an STD, requiring him to miss work at least as much as Lisa!
You still have not answered my question. If Lisa loses her job and is unable to get a new job and loses her insurance, who should be responsible to pay for her child's medical care? Or, should the child just suffer and die? Saying it is "not my problem" does not answer the question. That is just avoiding answering the question.
Everyone has a personal life and everyone has personal dramas. Work is not personal life, it is business. While in the scenario, I think Eddie is the one who should be let go, it is due to the number of abrasive encounters he has had with other members of the team, as well as those in entirely other departments.
The personal life of neither employee is a factor. Eddie could have a sick mother he hasn't told anyone about. Or Eddie's mother could have gotten sick yesterday and he hasn't told anyone. Business decisions are not personal. It is that simple. If they were, nothing would ever be done.
It's this type of attitude (that employees are just tools to be used and abused and not an actual person with value and inherent worth) that causes employees to be stressed and possibly depressed. When an employer genuinely cares about the well-being of the employee, the employee (at least a good one that is worth keeping) will respond by being more loyal to the company and work harder and be more productive and positive, especially after the temporary personal situation is resolved.
The best employers look at the complete big picture and the long-term ramifications of their decisions.
I will add that is a personal situation is not affecting that productivity of an employee, then it is irrelevant, but if a personal situation, especially one beyond the employee's control is affecting their work, than a good employer should work with the employee by being understanding of the situation and finding ways to keep the employee productive while the situation works itself out. Kicking a person while their down is a horrible thing to do, especially when the employee has already proven capable.
In this particular case, from a business perspective I would keep Lisa. She is a loyal hard-working employee who is very unlikely to jump ship, given everything going on with her situation. She seems like the kind of person who would be very willing to train another employee if business improved and we needed to hire again.
I would not fire Eddie right away. He is young and ambitious and is still valuable for the company. I would check with other managers to find a good developmental opportunity for him and also provide coaching in his shortcomings.
I think for a successful business to be run, managers must look at the overall big picture and both the long and short term to make well thought out decisions. That's my 2 cents.
It's this type of attitude (that employees are just tools to be used and abused and not an actual person with value and inherent worth) that causes employees to be stressed and possibly depressed. When an employer genuinely cares about the well-being of the employee, the employee (at least a good one that is worth keeping) will respond by being more loyal to the company and work harder and be more productive and positive, especially after the temporary personal situation is resolved.
The best employers look at the complete big picture and the long-term ramifications of their decisions.
I will add that is a personal situation is not affecting that productivity of an employee, then it is irrelevant, but if a personal situation, especially one beyond the employee's control is affecting their work, than a good employer should work with the employee by being understanding of the situation and finding ways to keep the employee productive while the situation works itself out. Kicking a person while their down is a horrible thing to do, especially when the employee has already proven capable.
Exactly! This attitude will come back to bite the employers eventually! As I said before, if you lay off either Lisa or Eddie, and the one you keep finds a new job (especially Eddie, since he is young and ambitious, is not likely to stay put for long), or passes away suddenly, or is incapacitated, and there is a major deadline, the employer is in serious trouble.
Nobody has answered my question: if you lay off Lisa, who is supposed to pay for her child's medical care? Again, if you feel that the child should suffer and die so that the fact cat CEO can make a few extra bucks, then please say that, rather than just saying "not my problem". And I hope you will be willing to say that directly to Lisa's face (and I hope she punches you right in the face when you say that to her). Or, if you feel that taxpayers (or any of the other options I previously mentioned) should pay for her child's medical care, then please answer this question: how does anybody at all benefit from forcing Lisa and her child to be a drain on the system, rather than the productive member of society that she wants to be? I have a feeling that the lack of responses means that everyone here realizes I am right, but does not want to admit it. But if I am missing something, I really want do know.
I'd let Eddie go. The bad interpersonal skills are likely offsetting his positive numbers by affecting the productiveness of other employees--and maybe increasing subversiveness, not to mention that it might lead to losing some other employees who are good for the company. It's also worth noting that Lisa's problems are very temporary.
Interpersonal skills are one of the most important factors for teams. One bad apple can lead to the whole team underperforming or even deliberately sabotaging performance in retaliation.
For me, by the way, it's not an ethical issue. It's a issue of weighing practical factors in a more nuanced way than just looking at limited statistics that might not be able to capture some of the most important considerations.
Nobody has answered my question: if you lay off Lisa, who is supposed to pay for her child's medical care? Again, if you feel that the child should suffer and die so that the fact cat CEO can make a few extra bucks, then please say that, rather than just saying "not my problem". And I hope you will be willing to say that directly to Lisa's face (and I hope she punches you right in the face when you say that to her). Or, if you feel that taxpayers (or any of the other options I previously mentioned) should pay for her child's medical care, then please answer this question: how does anybody at all benefit from forcing Lisa and her child to be a drain on the system, rather than the productive member of society that she wants to be? I have a feeling that the lack of responses means that everyone here realizes I am right, but does not want to admit it. But if I am missing something, I really want do know.
I'll try.
This involves balancing compassion with business sense and they don't always mix well. The issue is where do you draw the line?
Some employees personal problems get so complex that they severely interfere with the function of the workplace. Lisa's problems are right now a drain on the employer. You are correct if she is laid off she will be a drain on the "system". Why is it the employer's responsibility to keep her afloat?
If she goes on FMLA and is out of sick time what then? Should she be paid out of compassion? What if she needs more than the 90 days of FMLA? Keep her position open? For how long? Where is the end point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
