Ethical Considerations # 1 (401k, career, salary, income)

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by RMD3819

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?

I'm not even talking so much about compassion, but more about efficiency. It is more efficient for Lisa to be a productive member of society, than it is for her to be a drain on the system. I don't understand why it is that nobody seems able to see that. Also, the point that nobody seems to understand is that there seems to be enough work for both Lisa and Eddie, and they seem to have different skills, so I don't understand why everyone feels that one of them should be laid off. And I am still adamant about another point: if you keep only one of them, and that employee gets a job elsewhere, dies suddenly, or is incapacitated, then the employer is screwed, and deservedly so.

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?

There was nothing in the original post suggesting that Lisa had any intentions of going on FMLA or maxing out her sick time, so that is not in any way relevant. And, even if she was, I still argue that it's more efficient for the fat cat CEO to sacrifice a few bucks in order to allow Lisa to be a productive member of society rather than a drain on the system. It's too bad that nobody else here seems to see it that way, and especially too bad that the fat cat CEOs don't see it that way.

[thebunny]

There was also nothing in the original post about their being enough work for both of them, rather it asked who should be fired. Yet you come back to that in pretty much every post...so, why is it not relevant that the poster mentions FMLA and sick time?

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by thebunny

There was also nothing in the original post about their being enough work for both of them, rather it asked who should be fired. Yet you come back to that in pretty much every post...so, why is it not relevant that the poster mentions FMLA and sick time?

If Eddie is working a lot of overtime, and Lisa is coming in on weekends to make up her lost time, then there obviously is more than enough work for both of them. If anything, they should hire another employee, not lay someone off.

[thebunny]

Thanks for clearing that up. We are all to only address those things that are in the original question. You however can address anything you want, whether or not in the original question and we are all supposed to address those as well. Figured that was the case.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by thebunny

Thanks for clearing that up. We are all to only address those things that are in the original question. You however can address anything you want, whether or not in the original question and we are all supposed to address those as well. Figured that was the case.

No, I am just stating what should be obvious from the original post, which people like you just don't understand.

[ackmondual]

Yeah... attitudes, being liked, and working well with others also goes a long way. I've seen firsthand people leave a position, and refuse to come back to one unless one person would be off the team. And since he won't say it to management for fear of being negative or "badmouthing", they'll never know, as he'll only confide in select few fellow employees.

OTOH, one really liked manager getting laid off was the final straw, and caused a couple of employees to leave and may as well now shoot for better pay and other benefits too.

I initially picked Lisa, but hearing the arguments about laying off Eddie, I'd have to go with Eddie. I do hate how you leave folks in a bad situation without a job, but unfortunately, it comes with the territory.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight

The first of these two employees is Lisa, who has been in the office for eight and a half years, and has proven herself as a loyal employee who gets along with almost everyone and highly regarded as an excellent person to work within the 15-member department. Unfortunately, she is currently undergoing personal problems which has impacted her attendance in the office. She has proven her willingness to make up missed days by coming in on Saturdays, and she makes a real effort to keep up with her clients by using her downtime in the waiting room to keep in touch with them via her company-provided Blackberry.

The other employee under consideration is a young gentleman in his mid-twenties, having been hired straight out of biz school two years previously. His name is Eddie, and he's proven himself to be an aggressive go-getter in the office, doing "whatever it takes" to get the job done, and then some. His sights are set high and he has no qualms about achieving his goals. He has been written up about a year previously for verbally abusing an individual in the neighboring department. Despite Eddie's shortcomings, he has caught the attention of upper management due to his ability to deliver on some big numbers for the department. And his attendance record is impeccable - he has yet to take a sick day in his two years he has worked there. He's more than willing to work long hours as well, unlike Lisa, who leaves at 4:30 on the dot daily, to be with her children for the evening.



Bill has a week to decide before delivering the bad news to either Lisa or Eddie. Who should he let go? Lisa or Eddie? And why?

I took out all the unnecessary filler and broke it down to brass tacks, much like upper management would do. When you take the emotion out of it and compare performance (which is what management has to do as difficult as it is since you form relationships with your employees), the numbers sway in Eddie's favor.

The manager needs to make his decision based off of the following:

1) Lisa works extremely well with others. How confident is he that Lisa's attendance will improve? Is her performance on par with Eddie or sorely lacking? Can a plan be developed to push her to the next performance level? If the answer is yes, then choose Lisa and take the chance on lower numbers, but better morale when she is able to come to work.

2) Eddie is abrasive, but goes above and beyond for the company. He's also dependable. How confident is the manager that Eddie could change his behavior? Could a performance plan be put into place to help change his attitude to his co-workers? If the answer is yes, keep Eddie and take a chance on failing to change a poor attitude.


I don't think there is enough information to really make a decision. We need to be able to compare both employee's performance and overall track record. Again, some decisions can be made with a bit of emotion. But being a manager, you almost have to take personal feelings out of the equation and analyze both parties before making the decision.

[mitsguy2001]

Now that the thread had been revived, somebody please answer these questions:

1. There is obviously more than enough work for both Lisa and Eddie. Why should one of them be laid off?

2. Obviously Lisa and Eddie have different strengths and weaknesses. So why is there "duplicity" (to use the OP's term)? Seems to me that a competent manager (is that an oxymoron?) would realize they were different, and be grooming them for different roles.

3. Even if you still want to lay off one employee and reduce "duplicity", what would you do when the remaining employee (either Lisa or Eddie) finds a better job, dies, or is incapacitated when you have a major deadline, and no time to hire a new employee? Keep in mind that Eddie would be the employee more likely to jump ship.

4. If you lay off Lisa, do you feel that her ill son should just be forced to suffer and die? If so, then would you say that directly to Lisa's face? Or, do you want the government to take care of Lisa's son? If the latter, how does that benefit anybody? Isn't everybody better off having Lisa as the productive member of society that she wants to be, rather than as a drain on society?

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Now that the thread had been revived, somebody please answer these questions:

1. There is obviously more than enough work for both Lisa and Eddie. Why should one of them be laid off?

2. Obviously Lisa and Eddie have different strengths and weaknesses. So why is there "duplicity" (to use the OP's term)? Seems to me that a competent manager (is that an oxymoron?) would realize they were different, and be grooming them for different roles.

3. Even if you still want to lay off one employee and reduce "duplicity", what would you do when the remaining employee (either Lisa or Eddie) finds a better job, dies, or is incapacitated when you have a major deadline, and no time to hire a new employee? Keep in mind that Eddie would be the employee more likely to jump ship.

4. If you lay off Lisa, do you feel that her ill son should just be forced to suffer and die? If so, then would you say that directly to Lisa's face? Or, do you want the government to take care of Lisa's son? If the latter, how does that benefit anybody? Isn't everybody better off having Lisa as the productive member of society that she wants to be, rather than as a drain on society?

You're using too much emotion to make the decision here....

Yes they may have different strengths and weaknesses, but if there is only one position, it doesn't matter. You look for strengths that will best benefit the company. Your 3rd point is completely irrelevant as this is anticipated in every company and ALWAYS a possibility. Your 4th point is just pure emotion. Why is it the company's responsibility to support Lisa because she is down on her luck? It's pretty unfair to say her son would suffer and die. No one wants to see that. It's also a terrible way to sway emotion (which is what you are trying to do by indicating such) and shouldn't be factored in.

At the end of the day if companies made every decision based strictly on emotion and no other metric, they would fail.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

You're using too much emotion to make the decision here....

You need to realize that businesses employ people, not machines. So of course emotion needs to be taken into account.

Yes they may have different strengths and weaknesses, but if there is only one position, it doesn't matter.

But why should there be only one position when there is clearly more than enough work for 2 of them. Remember, Eddie is voluntarily working overtime, and Lisa is coming in on the weekends to make up her lost time. If anything, there is enough work for 3 employees, not 1.

I know that you are probably thinking that Eddie is willing to work as many hours as needed, so you can lay off Lisa. What if due to changes in his life or even just a change of heart, Eddie decides that he is unable or unwilling to work any more than 40 hours per week. You then are going to wish that you kept both Lisa and Eddie, or even hired a 3rd employee. If in order to get work done, you are dependent on an employee voluntarily working significant overtime as a lifestyle, you already have an unsustainable business model that is doomed to failure.

And besides, as I said before, a competent manager would not have Lisa and Eddie in the same position, since their strengths and weaknesses are so different from each other.

You look for strengths that will best benefit the company.

And both Lisa and Eddie have different strengths that benefit the company, and both are needed. There clearly is enough work for both of them.

Your 3rd point is completely irrelevant as this is anticipated in every company and ALWAYS a possibility.

No, it is not irrelevant. Obviously this company is not anticipating that scenario if they are considering laying off either Lisa or Eddie.

Your 4th point is just pure emotion. Why is it the company's responsibility to support Lisa because she is down on her luck?

Then are you saying it is the government's responsibility to support Lisa and her ill son? So you enjoy having more taxes taken out of your paycheck to support people who want to be productive members of society but are denied the opportunity? Or, are you going with the social Darwinist view of survival of the fittest, and just believe that Lisa's son isn't among the fittest, and just deserves to die?

It's pretty unfair to say her son would suffer and die. No one wants to see that.

But if Lisa has no health insurance, and her son can't get the treatment and medication that he needs, he very well may suffer and die. Again, you should be forced to say, directly to Lisa's face, that you want her son to suffer and die so that a fat cat CEO can buy a bigger yacht.

It's also a terrible way to sway emotion (which is what you are trying to do by indicating such) and shouldn't be factored in.

At the end of the day if companies made every decision based strictly on emotion and no other metric, they would fail.

Unfortunately, because ethical business owners have a hard time competing with businesses that put their own profit above absolutely everything. Unfortunately, we are headed for a societal meltdown where (if you believe the government should take care of those who don't fit your standards) the government is taking care of nearly everyone, or (if you believe in social Darwinism) everyone will be homeless and selling drugs and committing crimes. We can't let our society go in that direction, but that is where we are headed when people like you are running businesses.