4 ms·

Company's don't get to decide. It is written in law. Check the WARN act, but the key threshold seems to be 500 workers at a single facility. As an employer, ge

by jws 9y ago

Company's don't get to decide. It is written in law. Check the WARN act, but the key threshold seems to be 500 workers at a single facility. As an employer, getting rid of your worst 1% of workers once a year is just housekeeping.

Molkar 9y ago
"Housekeeping" is a funny euphemism for sending hundreds of people into unemployment.
- loeg 9y ago
  Like it or not, US companies don't have any obligation to be a social safety net for their worst performing employees.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- danjayh 9y ago
  If I line up a random group of 100 people at the average company, I can almost guarantee you that there is at least one who isn't doing his part. As someone who has worked with some of these people (and seen them laid off in rounds of performance-based cuts), I can tell you that some people deserve to be sent to unemployment. Yep, some good people will get hit too, but from my experience a good middle management layer can identify the low performers with a great deal of accuracy.
  - trhway 9y ago
    >a good middle management layer Fairy dust is more real than that.
  - jws 9y ago
    In my industry, and having to make the decisions to fire people, our worst 1% not only didn’t pull their own weight, they were a negative contribution. Getting rid of them and not replacing them actually put us ahead. In most cases the employee wasn’t a bad person, they just weren’t able to satisfactorily do their job and weren’t willing to accept reassignment to a job we felt they could do.
- lovich 9y ago
  I don't know why you have been downvoted. You can completely agree that there is a subset of employees that need to be removed as they provide no value or even negative value. However, using the same term as sweeping up dust or throwing out garbage for putting people on the dole unexpectedly is definitely a funny euphemism
awad 9y ago
While it is common amongst companies to remove some % of lower performing individuals, or housekeeping as you have phrased, it is important to note that there is a distinction between being fired due to performance and being laid off. The former is your fault as the employee, the latter is due to larger business conditions and generally recognized as no immediate fault of your own. In real world terms, you can be personally fired for not doing your job and can be laid off because the company can't afford to keep your plant/office/division running due to outside conditions.

by jws 9y ago

Molkar 9y ago

"Housekeeping" is a funny euphemism for sending hundreds of people into unemployment.

loeg 9y ago
Like it or not, US companies don't have any obligation to be a social safety net for their worst performing employees.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danjayh 9y ago
If I line up a random group of 100 people at the average company, I can almost guarantee you that there is at least one who isn't doing his part. As someone who has worked with some of these people (and seen them laid off in rounds of performance-based cuts), I can tell you that some people deserve to be sent to unemployment. Yep, some good people will get hit too, but from my experience a good middle management layer can identify the low performers with a great deal of accuracy.
- trhway 9y ago
  >a good middle management layer Fairy dust is more real than that.
- jws 9y ago
  In my industry, and having to make the decisions to fire people, our worst 1% not only didn’t pull their own weight, they were a negative contribution. Getting rid of them and not replacing them actually put us ahead. In most cases the employee wasn’t a bad person, they just weren’t able to satisfactorily do their job and weren’t willing to accept reassignment to a job we felt they could do.
lovich 9y ago
I don't know why you have been downvoted. You can completely agree that there is a subset of employees that need to be removed as they provide no value or even negative value. However, using the same term as sweeping up dust or throwing out garbage for putting people on the dole unexpectedly is definitely a funny euphemism

awad 9y ago

While it is common amongst companies to remove some % of lower performing individuals, or housekeeping as you have phrased, it is important to note that there is a distinction between being fired due to performance and being laid off. The former is your fault as the employee, the latter is due to larger business conditions and generally recognized as no immediate fault of your own. In real world terms, you can be personally fired for not doing your job and can be laid off because the company can't afford to keep your plant/office/division running due to outside conditions.