Ethical Considerations # 1 (employed, average, interviews, middle class)

[inged]

I would let Lisa go.

Lisa doesn't have anything special about her. If the business exapnds down the road, half the applicant pool will be full of Lisa clones that they can hire if they miss her personality.

Eddie is a special talent who is making a difference at his business. The co-workers are just likely jealous that Eddie is performing well and they're not.

Also, Lisa always leaves right on the dot and never chips in an extra minute of work, no matter what. That doesn't sound like someone I'd want to give a break to. If we transferred Lisa's personal problems to Eddie, I would be more apt to give him a break because he stays late so often. Lisa sounds like a kid who shows up to the games and then wants a participation trophy.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But my point is that if there is enough work for Lisa to work full time and Eddie to work more than full time, there is obviously enough work for both of them, so neither should be laid off. ?

Sigh. In this scenario, we were given to options. (By the way, you DO realize this isn't real, right..) The option was lay off one of the two and give your reasons for each answer. I'm trying to look at this from both sides, but not villify the company which many of you like to do.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

So then you are ok with the government paying for Lisa's child's medical care? And the government gets that money by taxing hard working people like you and Eddie. And you are ok with that? Why should Lisa be forced to become a drain on society when she is willing and able to be a productive member of society? You seem to think that you are a strict capitalist, but in reality, you are more of a socialist than I am.

In this instance, yes. That is what Medicaid was put in place for. Not for freeloaders, but for people who really fall on hard times. I'm ok with that. You're trying to veer too far off course here. Companies don't pay analysts to sit around and analyze their employees personal lives to determine who is the best fit. Management cannot do that either. Again, to reiterate my earlier point, if you plan to keep people based solely on their problems you will never keep the people who have the solutions (like it or not, in this case I believe it's Eddie).

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Almost nobody at all can afford medical treatments for a serious problem at market rate. Nobody can prepare for that. Even if you want to make the argument that it's Lisa's fault (and it's not), how is it the child's fault? The child had no say in it.

I didn't say it was all Lisa's fault anywhere in this discussion. But yes, if she had nothing put away for a rainy day to at least mitigate some of these expenses, she shares in the blame. I gave you my situation with my son and how we got out of it. Furthermore, you are again speculating that the child is going to die to pull at people's heart strings. When you make decisions based purely off emotion, you make bad decisions.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

That makes me wonder whether or not employers and employees ever do offer deals like that. For example, I wonder if my employer would be willing to grant me immunity from layoffs if I was willing to accept a salary freeze?

It's a possibility. I have taken a salary freeze to make sure my employees could get their raises before. My previous company also gave everyone loans (at zero interest) to cover the two weeks we were out of work from the April 2011 tornadoes as well. They took $30 per paycheck out of each check until each employee who took a loan paid it back. In return they signed a contract guaranteeing they would remain until it was paid back. (See not every company is as bad as you want to make them out to be.)

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Then if such an employee exists, then maybe you need to hire that employee. I hope that you realize that in order to attract and keep such an employee, you will have to pay them more money, and treat them better than you are treating Lisa and Eddie. Too bad employers don't seem to understand that half of the bargain.

I have, and I'd do it again. It's difficult to change an attitude I admit. But it's a lot more difficult to change a work ethic.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

No, there is a 3rd choice: keep both Lisa and Eddie! Again, there obviously is enough work for both of them, and their strengths and weaknesses are so different that they should be groomed for different roles.

And again that was not one of the options for this scenario.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But the manager should be willing to buy a smaller yacht in exchange for keeping valuable employees, especially one with a son who would otherwise suffer and die. How can you say that buying a bigger yacht is more important than a young child's life?

This is where your POV is flawed. You DO understand that not all CEOs or business owners do this, right? You can't stereotype all business owners into the money hungry monsters because you saw this on TV. My previous company's owners were multi millionaires. Yet, we were all invited to their homes multiple times per year (at their expense) to have cookouts. Neither own a yacht, nor drive fancy vehicles (one drives a 2010 GMC Sierra with over 100k miles on it), neither wear fancy clothes, and neither live in giant homes. They re-invest the money into the company to grow it. This is the reality. We're not talking about bankers, people on Wall Street, or politicians. We're talking about normal companies.

[mitsguy2001]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not surprised, given that this forum is full of corporate shills with zero empathy for anyone, who doesn't realize that a single accident or illness can change their lives, and will start crying that nobody is there to help them, when they made a career out of screwing others.

[Nlambert]

I'm not a corporate shill. I think I've explained this already. I'm a realist. I know what happens on both sides of the coin because I have been on both sides. Once you have been, you begin to understand why some things happen the way they do and you also begin to understand that just like every other human this is just a job. You can choose to do the job that you're paid to do or go somewhere else. I'm back on the side of the coin as an employee now (by choice) with a different company and I'm well aware that management may make decisions I don't agree with but I also understand there is a reason behind it, whether I choose to understand it or not.

I was watching The Profit last night and he re-iterated EXACTLY what I've said here to a lady whose salon was failing. She kept thinking of herself the victim because her ex-business partner stiffed her and left her hanging out to dry. Marcus (the investor) wanted to expand her line of hair care products and wanted to talk to her old partner who had 22 successful salons about carrying the products. The old partner was willing to discuss it with no animosity and said he wouldn't mind carrying her products if she can get past the past. She wasn't. He told her then, "When you start trying to make business decisions based on emotion, you make bad decisions." She went into the meeting, began to berate and scream at the guy and he walked out. She lost the opportunity to sell her products in 22 stores because she let her emotions get in the way.

It's not a lack of empathy, it's a lack of pity. I don't want anyone to pity me nor do I pity anyone else. We all have choices to make and periods in our lives where it gets tough. During those times, is when true character shows. Some can buckle down and push through it while others will become the victim. The decision as to which side you want to be on is yours, no one else's. Those who play the victim cannot see the way out because they have already determined there is no hope. The rest of us know it's there somewhere and we will find it wherever we have to because failure is not an option.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

I'm not a corporate shill. I think I've explained this already. I'm a realist. I know what happens on both sides of the coin because I have been on both sides. Once you have been, you begin to understand why some things happen the way they do and you also begin to understand that just like every other human this is just a job. You can choose to do the job that you're paid to do or go somewhere else. I'm back on the side of the coin as an employee now (by choice) with a different company and I'm well aware that management may make decisions I don't agree with but I also understand there is a reason behind it, whether I choose to understand it or not.

Again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I was watching The Profit last night and he re-iterated EXACTLY what I've said here to a lady whose salon was failing. She kept thinking of herself the victim because her ex-business partner stiffed her and left her hanging out to dry. Marcus (the investor) wanted to expand her line of hair care products and wanted to talk to her old partner who had 22 successful salons about carrying the products. The old partner was willing to discuss it with no animosity and said he wouldn't mind carrying her products if she can get past the past. She wasn't. He told her then, "When you start trying to make business decisions based on emotion, you make bad decisions." She went into the meeting, began to berate and scream at the guy and he walked out. She lost the opportunity to sell her products in 22 stores because she let her emotions get in the way.

And that has nothing to do with this scenario.

It's not a lack of empathy, it's a lack of pity. I don't want anyone to pity me nor do I pity anyone else. We all have choices to make and periods in our lives where it gets tough. During those times, is when true character shows. Some can buckle down and push through it while others will become the victim. The decision as to which side you want to be on is yours, no one else's. Those who play the victim cannot see the way out because they have already determined there is no hope. The rest of us know it's there somewhere and we will find it wherever we have to because failure is not an option.

Let me ask you this question: it seems that you willingly spent all of your 401K money to pay for your child's medical care when you were laid off, and you seem to feel that was right and just (because you seem to think that your ex-boss buying a bigger yacht is more important than your child's health and your financial well-being). Basically, you sacrificed the ability to ever retire, and plan to work until dead. But, even if you are willing to work until dead, how are you going to support yourself when you are too old to work, when you develop an illness or injury (which you certainly will when you get old enough), of if nobody wants to hire you because they think you are too old? You'll probably be living on the streets. But you'll feel good knowing that your ex-boss who laid you off when your child was sick was able to buy a bigger yacht?

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

And that has nothing to do with this scenario.

Which is exactly what I expected you to say, except that it does. I said this exact same thing yesterday. You cannot make business decisions based on emotion. It does nothing but create problems. You can google this if you want and get other successful business owner/operator's commentaries if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Let me ask you this question: it seems that you willingly spent all of your 401K money to pay for your child's medical care when you were laid off, and you seem to feel that was right and just (because you seem to think that your ex-boss buying a bigger yacht is more important than your child's health and your financial well-being). Basically, you sacrificed the ability to ever retire, and plan to work until dead. But, even if you are willing to work until dead, how are you going to support yourself when you are too old to work, when you develop an illness or injury (which you certainly will when you get old enough), of if nobody wants to hire you because they think you are too old? You'll probably be living on the streets. But you'll feel good knowing that your ex-boss who laid you off when your child was sick was able to buy a bigger yacht?

My ex-boss didn't own a yacht, or have a country club membership, or belong to any kind of secret society for the rich. He didn't make a whole lot more than I did. While I disagree with his choice to lay me off, it was either him or me and he had a family to support as well. I harbor no ill feelings about that decision. Sure I was upset at the time and it got tough for a while, but I would have done the same if push came to shove and I were in his shoes.

I willingly spent my 401k at the time to take care of my son because it is MY responsibility and NOT the responsibility of my employer. I don't plan on working until I'm dead. It took some time, but my 401k and my savings are back on track. Sure, I lost about $10k at the time, but my son is healthy again and I'm young enough to build it all back up.

My ex-boss or even my current boss didn't ask me to have kids. My wife and I chose to do that fully aware that they are expensive and things could happen that we didn't plan for. My children shouldn't create a financial responsibility for anyone other than myself and my wife.

Let me ask you this...... If you had 20 employees in your company and this week one came in and told you their kids were sick, while you had a kid at home sick, would you be willing to sacrifice your company to take care of someone else's responsibility?

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

Which is exactly what I expected you to say, except that it does. I said this exact same thing yesterday. You cannot make business decisions based on emotion. It does nothing but create problems. You can google this if you want and get other successful business owner/operator's commentaries if you don't believe me.

But the scenario are not the same thing. In the scenario in this thread, a young child's life is at stake, even though there is enough work for both Lisa and Eddie. In the TV show, it sounds like the woman just acted vindictive. Not the same at all.

My ex-boss didn't own a yacht, or have a country club membership, or belong to any kind of secret society for the rich. He didn't make a whole lot more than I did. While I disagree with his choice to lay me off, it was either him or me and he had a family to support as well. I harbor no ill feelings about that decision. Sure I was upset at the time and it got tough for a while, but I would have done the same if push came to shove and I were in his shoes.

You sound like a doormat.

I willingly spent my 401k at the time to take care of my son because it is MY responsibility and NOT the responsibility of my employer.

Yet you think it's the responsibility of the government to take care of Lisa's kid. You are a communist who belongs in Cuba, while you are tying to masquerade as a heartless capitalist. You are the worst of both worlds.

I don't plan on working until I'm dead. It took some time, but my 401k and my savings are back on track. Sure, I lost about $10k at the time, but my son is healthy again and I'm young enough to build it all back up.

Sounds like you are in a high paying field. Not everyone is.

My ex-boss or even my current boss didn't ask me to have kids. My wife and I chose to do that fully aware that they are expensive and things could happen that we didn't plan for. My children shouldn't create a financial responsibility for anyone other than myself and my wife.

But you are ok with Lisa's kid being the government (i.e. taxpayers) responsibility.

Let me ask you this...... If you had 20 employees in your company and this week one came in and told you their kids were sick, while you had a kid at home sick, would you be willing to sacrifice your company to take care of someone else's responsibility?

I don't see how I would be sacrificing the company to take care of somebody else's responsibility. If I were a responsible business owner, I'd have enough employees so that the business can function properly even if an employee is home with a sick kid.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But the scenario are not the same thing. In the scenario in this thread, a young child's life is at stake, even though there is enough work for both Lisa and Eddie. In the TV show, it sounds like the woman just acted vindictive. Not the same at all.

No the woman almost lost everything she had. The guy took a ton of money out of the company when he left. Watch the episode on CNBC.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

You sound like a doormat.

Being a realist and a doormat are two very different things. I happen to have reasoning and critical thinking skills and rarely act on emotion before I have the opportunity to analyze the situation.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Yet you think it's the responsibility of the government to take care of Lisa's kid. You are a communist who belongs in Cuba, while you are tying to masquerade as a heartless capitalist. You are the worst of both worlds.

Before you start name calling, step back and read what I originally said. If Lisa didn't plan her finances properly, it is partially her fault if she loses her job and cannot afford the medical bills. I simply proved that your logic is flawed because Medicaid will take care of the child until Lisa gains new employment and re-enrolls in an insurance plan. I have no issue with helping someone in hard times when they are making valid effort to pick themselves back up. I do not promote or condone the use of these services for lazy people who want to sit around and have 5 kids with no job. There is a HUGE difference. But call me what you may. Again, I'm THINKING. Try it.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Sounds like you are in a high paying field. Not everyone is.

I'm in a decent paying field now, yes. But I wasn't always. We went through some really rough times in earlier years, which is where we learned how to dig ourselves out of holes. We then used that past experience to learn what not to repeat in the future and we began to plan accordingly.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I don't see how I would be sacrificing the company to take care of somebody else's responsibility. If I were a responsible business owner, I'd have enough employees so that the business can function properly even if an employee is home with a sick kid.

This proves you've never been in a managerial or business owner capacity. You're looking in the wrong places. A responsible business owner looks at cause and effect. You're not doing that.

If Lisa is out, what does that do to the workload? How long can co-workers continue to support her position?

Will co-workers have to increase their burden, therefore reducing their productivity?

Is this going to eventually cause lower morale with the co-workers because she is out all the time, something they cannot do? (Think about if multiple co-workers are out and a select few have to cover even more work) Ripple effect.

Will I lose more employees in the long run by keeping Lisa than I would if I choose Eddie?

What happens when Lisa exhausts her PTO? Who is going to pay her bills? Is she going to ask the company for a loan? Are we going to modify company policy to allow Lisa to stay at home with no time off, allow her to go negative into PTO and risk losing money if she quits before she pays it back?

Who foots the bill when she exhausts S-T-D or L-T-D?

What if something does happen to her child, and she quits? Then I've lost Eddie AND Lisa and have to start over with more expense to train another person and a longer period of time with co-workers shouldering the workload.


I'm not asking you to do a lot here. Just THINK rationally.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

This proves you've never been in a managerial or business owner capacity. You're looking in the wrong places. A responsible business owner looks at cause and effect. You're not doing that.

If Lisa is out, what does that do to the workload? How long can co-workers continue to support her position?

First of all, Lisa was coming in over the weekend to make up her lost time. So she was keeping up with her workload. Secondly, if you lay Lisa off, you will get no work out of her at all. So if there is obviously work for her, why lay anybody off?

Will co-workers have to increase their burden, therefore reducing their productivity?

If you lay Lisa off, co-workers will have to increase their burden, reducing their productivity.

Is this going to eventually cause lower morale with the co-workers because she is out all the time, something they cannot do? (Think about if multiple co-workers are out and a select few have to cover even more work) Ripple effect.

But she is making up the time over the weekends, which presumably other employees are also able to do.

Will I lose more employees in the long run by keeping Lisa than I would if I choose Eddie?

No, since everybody likes Lisa but dislike Eddie.

What happens when Lisa exhausts her PTO?

If she is making up the time on the weekends, she is not using any PTO. If she does exhaust her PTO (unlikely given the current scenario), then it should be treated the same way it is for any other employees.

Who is going to pay her bills?

Who is going to pay her bills if she is laid off?

Is she going to ask the company for a loan?

Is she going to ask the company for a loan if she is laid off?

Are we going to modify company policy to allow Lisa to stay at home with no time off, allow her to go negative into PTO and risk losing money if she quits before she pays it back?

Depends on the company policy. Again, it is likely moot, since she is making up her lost time and not using PTO.

Who foots the bill when she exhausts S-T-D or L-T-D?

Why would she be on STD or LTD? She is not disabled?

What if something does happen to her child, and she quits? Then I've lost Eddie AND Lisa and have to start over with more expense to train another person and a longer period of time with co-workers shouldering the workload.

Which is why neither Lisa or Eddie should be laid off. They both are needed.

I'm not asking you to do a lot here. Just THINK rationally.

Which is what I am doing.

[Nlambert]

Ok, this is my last round with you on this. It is obvious that you are not willing to be rational and cannot seem to make decisions (even hypothetical ones) without emotion.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

First of all, Lisa was coming in over the weekend to make up her lost time. So she was keeping up with her workload. Secondly, if you lay Lisa off, you will get no work out of her at all. So if there is obviously work for her, why lay anybody off?

Sometimes deadlines cannot wait until the weekend. The company could be having to readjust their deadlines to work with Lisa's schedule. We don't know that there is enough work to sustain them both over the long term. If the company needs to scale back expenses (which is what it sounds like) someone has to go. This was never an option given by the OP.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

No, since everybody likes Lisa but dislike Eddie.

They like her for now. But if she has to be out for an extended period, or a deadline cannot wait until the weekend and the workloads get shifted onto other co-workers, I guarantee you that eventually you will see pushback. Or good employees deciding to quit. Which exponentially makes the already tough situation even worse.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

If she is making up the time on the weekends, she is not using any PTO. If she does exhaust her PTO (unlikely given the current scenario), then it should be treated the same way it is for any other employees.

(BTW... you're only using the scenario when it suits you. Keeping both employees was not in the scenario yet you don't see this.)

Let's say her child gets sick and she cannot work the weekends. NOW, she is burning PTO at an alarming rate. When she runs out and moves on to unpaid time off, who pays her bills then? It sounds like she may not have any finances to fall back on. What happens then?

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Who is going to pay her bills if she is laid off?

Not my circus, not my monkey unfortunately. This is NOT the responsibility of the employer. She needs to fall back on whatever savings she has while she draws unemployment and looks for new work.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Is she going to ask the company for a loan if she is laid off?

No, but she will draw unemployment. Again, not the company's responsibility nor should it be their concern.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Depends on the company policy. Again, it is likely moot, since she is making up her lost time and not using PTO.

You're guessing. In this fictitious company, we have no idea what company policy states. It could state that she must use unpaid time off in which she is again in a pickle since she may not be able to afford it.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Why would she be on STD or LTD? She is not disabled?

You DO know what STD and LTD is, don't you? She may be able to use STD while caring for her daughter. If not, FMLA which covers the same in many companies. Either way, it only covers a portion of her paycheck for a certain period of time.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Which is why neither Lisa or Eddie should be laid off. They both are needed.

You assume.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Which is what I am doing.

Far from it. You are using pure emotion. Not rationale. You're so hung up on Lisa's situation that you have forgotten about the company, the co-workers, Eddie, and everyone else that this could affect. You have to look at the bigger picture. Not just a piece of it.

Frankly I don't think you're going to get it, so I'll leave you to it at this point. My thinking skills are kicking in and telling me that this is a waste of time.