There is always a very thin line between getting laid off due to lack of work and getting fired, similar to the thin line between genius and insanity I suppose. I know a ton of people at the moment who are laid off (including myself), but my question is: were they really laid off, or did they get fired?In order to answer this question, we need to put ourselves in the position of the business owner or executive. We must also keep in mind that these folks have one goal: make more money. They're like squirrels who are running around right before winter hits with one thought on their mind, "Gotta get more nuts, gotta get more nuts."
"Gotta make more money, gotta make more money."
So suppose this sharp witted business owner, manager, or executive is faced with a situation where they need to downsize their staff, perhaps it is because of lack of work, or perhaps it's because of lack of budget, or perhaps they just feel like getting rid of somebody. In any case, they are going to target the person or persons who make them the least amount of money. And I'm not talking about long term, sustainable profits, I'm talking about short term, money in front of their face now.So they've got their prey in the cross-hairs like a crocodile would before attacking a zebra as it tries to cross an African river (I actually just saw a Discovery channel bit on this and it was absolutely wild). They circle the soon to be victim for a while and then attack with a call into the office. But in surprising contrast to the manager's typically ruthless personality, instead of saying, "You're fired", he says, "You're laid off due to lack of work." Interesting.
Are they doing this out of the goodness of their heart so you can collect unemployment and not have to tell a future employer that you got fired? Well, perhaps, but they are also doing this so the unemployment check may dissuade you from suing them for wrongful termination. If you get fired or quit, it becomes much more difficult to collect unemployment.
In Delaware, the highest amount you can collect from unemployment is $355 per week which includes a $25 addition from the federal government. So this amounts to $18,460 per year. The income level at the poverty line in the US in 2009 for a family of four is $22,050 per year.
So they tell a lie about why you're getting let go, banking that a poverty level income will keep you from suing them - and it works. However, I honestly don't know why they do this. A company can let go of employees as much as they like for any reason especially if this is written in the offer letter. Plus, how many people without a job can afford a team of lawyers to take down an established company? Not me.
I just really wish people would tell the truth - it's tough to come by nowadays. If I'm getting fired, for God's sake fire me! You can keep your poverty level income; I've got bigger problems.
Posts
Due to the instability in the economy, we have to create multiple revenue streams that we can have control, instead of waiting for the faucet to turn off every time we get employed again. A good option is to go to http://www.greatworkplan.com/clayrosson. Leave your contact information so I can work with you.
ReplyDeleteGood post! There is so much downsizing due to market conditions that 'laying off' employees is a way to immediately cut expenses. BUT, there's no doubt that it's also a way for employers to clean the closet of some dead wood. Good luck in your job search!
ReplyDeleteYeah the right way to articulate.. I face the same situation and now searching for job, :(
ReplyDeleteAs you have stated, it can be a fine line. Sometimes a person can feel this coming just from observing and listening, and still think that it won't happen to them. But when it does, it is still a shock to the system. You aren't really prepared for this situation, no one is anymore, especially if they have been employed in a high stress position, have been doing well (we presume), have done their job and gone the extra 100 miles. Other times it could be anything that triggers the "lay off"- conflicting personalities; being too much the loose cannon when needed, but now not; being paid too much, not local, or just not necessary because of being an outsider to the company. (This can happen when you work as an out-of-state traveling superintendent, from another state) Sometimes it can be due to othe circumstances, such as being owed 'BONUS' money while the bids are not coming in, and a few of us have been down that road, and probably will again in the future.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, no one is immune from the lay off brigade, except the owner(s), and their trusted minions. And there is very little you can do in the long or short run. Working your fingers to the bone only gives you bony fingers, if there is no one to really notice your efforts. Because in times like this, we are all vunerable.
There is truth in this posting, but sometimes the departure is mutual. I had to lay off some employees this summer as we faced the red line (and frankly, if anyone's salary is going to be cut, it won't be mine!) My editor had to go -- I can do the job, just means much harder work for me. Then one of our sales reps with a guaranteed salary slipped below break-even on her numbers. She said: "Please lay me off." She wanted to go on (Canadian) government benefits.
ReplyDeleteI called her a month later to see if she wanted to return. She said "No I wish to stay on benefits, but please call me if you need a little extra work at Christmastime." Needless to say, I won't.
As you are discovering now, starting a business isn't always that easy -- but if you are successful and make it work, then of course you rightfully are in the drivers seat for the decisions regarding job security and hiring/firing and laying off. Layoffs are practical and effective especially in hard times. In Canada, you have to be cautious however, because when a layoff turns to dismissal (which it does if you don't call the employee back within a reasonable period), you are subjet to the "notice' provisions, which in common law, can be quite onerous to the employer. In other words, Canadian employers must give adequate notice of dismissal except for really serious cause, and if they don't, they need to pay the employees in lieu. (The work around is an employment contract which clearly sets out the notice requirements. Alas, for U.S. workers in many states, these provisions don't apply -- when you are out, you are out!)
I think that's a good rule that Canada has in place. Whenever I went skiing in British Columbia I could never understand why I liked the Canadians so much more than Americans - they're just nicer. Anyway, I think we need something that prohibits an employer from laying people off as an ethnic cleanse of people they don't like just because they have no good reason to fire them.
ReplyDeleteYou make some very interesting points, and to be honest, I find the labour laws in the US very slanted towards employers.
ReplyDeleteI have been recruiting in the construction and engineering sector for several years, and last year the agency I worked for, brought in a new President, who had an IT recruitment background. When he advised that the agency was changing to IT recruitment, I had over $560,000 of open orders. When I stated that I did not wish to give up my construction and engineering clients, he laid me off. In fact, he never said I was fired, or laid off. His words were 'we are changing direction and your services are no longer required!'
One of my clients, a GC, suggested that I start my own company, and another client offered to invest money in my company. I did not accept the money, but I did start my own company.
I have been speaking with so many GCs and subcontractors, as well as so many laid off PMs, APMs, and Engineers at all levels. Many GCs and subs are using this time to 'clean out' any who are not performing, but so many GCs are devastated by the amount of good people they are having to lay off, just to keep the company afloat... to be able to meet payroll.
I come from Australia, and have been in the US for almost 5 years. In Australia, there are stringent redundancy laws, to protect employees, to stop indiscriminate layoffs, and to make employers think carefully before laying off staff. When a company I worked for in the early 2000s closed down, staff were given one month's pay for every year of service, capped at 2 years' pay.
While none of us want to see companies forced to fold, if there were redundancy laws in place in the US, perhaps more thought would be given before indiscriminately terminating staff.
From my observations over the last 5 years, the 'work at will' laws in so many US states are designed to protect the employer, and do nothing to foster loyalty or job security for employees.
I am in a unique position, in that I can see both sides of the story, and while I still believe that most employers do not want to have to lay off good people, there are many companies who are using the economic meltdown to their advantage, with no regard for simple humanity and compassion.
I still believe in the premise of 'what goes around, comes around'... karma. Let's hope this nightmare comes to an end soon, and that good people are able to get back into the workforce, contribute, and support their families again.
So, did you get laid off or fired? ;)
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, the million dollar question.
ReplyDeleteI was basically not good enough to keep. So yes, I got fired. I got fired for the very concerns I had about the position when I interviewed. They told me not to worry about it.
They just need a body to fill the position to please their client.
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the United States, funds for unemployment benefits part of a set aside of taxes that businesses pay to the state.
ReplyDeleteThe tax rate for each employer is different, and is based on a number of factors like revenue, profit, number of employees---and the company's history of laying people off.
Some companies are very stable and will go years without laying off or firing anyone. Others will hire a thousand people one day and lay them off the next. Because the latter type of employer is sending more people to the unemployment line for benefits, they are an unequal drain on benefits funds. So the state penalizes them to discourage that kind of behavior, by increasing tax rates for companies that have a history of laying people off.
So it is in the employer's best interest to get rid of people without appearing to be laying them off. If they can come up with any excuse that could be called 'cause', then they don't get penalized.
I was laid off this year. The firm eliminated the entire department. But while I was officially 'laid off' and the company insisted it was purely due to economic reasons and not about performance, every other person in the department was 'let go'. Most of them were told they were 'not a good cultural fit', a few were told that they didn't have 'long term potential'. This included people who had worked for the firm for more than twenty years, most had been at the firm their entire careers. Suddenly they're not a good fit?
And even if they weren't a good fit, why should they have a negative mark on their resume because of it? They are still talented, educated, skilled, knowledgeable, thorough, and conscientious employees. Some countries have employment laws that create a third category for these people--not laid off but not fired either. Unfortunately our system doesn't, and it unfairly lumps the 'not a good fit' people in with all the 'grossly incompetent' people.
And while I think it is true that this economy may unfairly give some 'grossly incompetent' people a clean slate they don't deserve, it also gives some people a clean slate that they definitely deserve.
I also have seen both sides. I have owned a business where there were times when I had to lay people off. Obviously, I laid off the people who were the least valuable to the operation first and in many cases hoped they got another job before I called them back. I also have been an emplyee trying tp prove I was valuable enough to keep. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. There was nepotism, unethical expectations and general unsuitability of me to the job. Now I am an independent manufacturers rep. I sell, they pay and I am very happy.
ReplyDelete